Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

    Just an excellent read. A numbers guy writing a great piece on the psychology of it all, whoda thunk it. Well done, Count!

    -------

    by Tim Donahue on September 15, 2011 at 8:30 am


    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...r/tim-donahue/

    From a purely physical standpoint, there’s almost no difference between the two pieces of paper above. They’re the same size, same weight, and are made from largely the same material and ink. Yet one is worth five times the other.

    Why?

    Because we believe it to be true. Collectively, we, the citizens of the United States and most of the world, have agreed that these pieces of paper have value. We agree that the markings on them will tell us how much value they have. By shared consent, we have imbued these specifically decorated clippings with power. “Cold, hard cash” is neither cold nor hard, yet thinking makes it so.
    We don’t need heroic events or valiant victories against daunting odds to see the power of a shared belief. We need only to walk into our local pub, slap down a green piece of paper similar to those pictured, and get back a nice frosty pint.

    And that’s why the money is easy. Everybody comes from pretty much the same place. It’s just math. More is better. Less is worse. It’s why David Stern said, “…we know how to negotiate over dollars when the time comes.”

    The system is an entirely different beast. The system — and what it means — is an article of faith. While people will do all sorts of depraved things for money, it’s nothing compared to what they’ll do for what they fervently believe in.

    Which is why the following comment from Ken Berger is off base.
    But with agreement on the dollars within reach, it seems incomprehensible that the season or a big chunk of it could be lost over how those dollars are distributed.
    What Berger misses completely here is that there was never any chance whatsoever of games being canceled over a difference in BRI split. None. The structure remains in place for a settlement in the next few weeks along the lines of what I wrote about on Tuesday. If the owners just want the money, then they’ll play out the charade for a while, then make the money grab. Meanwhile, there was never any chance at playing games until the two sides agreed (or one side acquiesced) on the subject of the system: the cap.

    How those dollars are distributed isn’t a minor point.

    It is, perhaps, everything.

    Or … at least everything to the people who will cast the up or down votes on each side. Each will view the agreement in terms of how it affects them, first and foremost. As we all would, regardless of how twisted that may or may not be.

    Tom Ziller of SB Nation recently shared his thoughts on the matter.
    That’s why this hard cap is a “blood issue.” Not because it has a lobster’s chance in Maine of creating competitive balance, not because it will hurt all players’ ability to earn. It’s a “blood issue” because owners want to pay less money to supplemental players and because supplemental players want to keep making money. It has nothing to do with the health of the game. It has nothing to do with fans. It has nothing to do with fairness. It’s just stupid.
    That’s all well and good. But here’s the problem: both sides believe they are “the game.”

    The players believe they are the product, and thus, “the game.” And the owners believe that they are the stewards of the teams, which they view as the product, and thus, “the game.” Each assumes what is in their best interest is in the game’s best interest. So the only way either can “hurt the game” is to give in to the other side, which — in their view — is a stubborn impediment to the future health of the game.

    Does it matter whether or not a hard cap will actually create competitive balance? No, it only matters that an owner believes it will help him. In fact, an owner doesn’t even have to believe that. He only has to believe that the current system hurts him.

    Does it matter whether or not the fears the players have about a hard cap (best outlined by Zach Lowe’s outstanding piece) are true? No, it only matters that they believe them.

    The agents have been portrayed in some corners as a potential bad actor in these talks, and certainly, they are looking out for their interests. However, if they believe that negotiation can only lead to lost paychecks, lost BRI split and the players eventually having to swallow a hard cap, then isn’t their responsibility to advocate a different course of action?

    Does it matter that we think that any or all of the beliefs held by members of the two sides are wrong, even silly? No, because they will act on those beliefs just the same.

    Supposedly, the actor Willem Dafoe was once asked about taking roles as villains and his response was, “Good guy. Bad guy. Don’t make no difference. Everybody thinks they’re righteous.”

    And that’s why this lockout is on the verge of lasting a very long time. No matter how hard we work at creating a narrative around the lockout that features heroes and villains and secrets and lies and intrigue and greed and missed opportunity, it will always be ********. We are too trapped in what we believe — in what we want — to give fair reading to what the parties believe. We’re righteous, so how can those who oppose us possibly be?
    The owners want to control their business, and the players want to keep what they think they’ve earned. Each will do what they can to get what they want — nay, what they feel they deserve. The owners have locked the players out. Whether or not they will cancel games or even a season to achieve their goal depends on how many of them are “devout in their faith” in the need for a hard cap. The players will resist, go overseas and possibly seek legal intervention in one form or another (probably decertification and anti-trust litigation) to achieve their goal.

    I don’t know what the outcome will be. I know what I want, and what I don’t want, but those are ultimately of no importance. This confrontation has been brewing since before the last lockout, and it has to play all the way out sometime.

    For those hoping for a full season, hope that this really does become just about money.

    People will kill for money, but they’re rarely willingly die for it. If it remains focused on the hard cap and the system, then it’s far more likely to become a crucible. If that crucible lasts a season — or results in decertification — then no one has any idea how the NBA will come out the other side. But that is of small concern to those emboldened by the courage of their convictions.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

    Nice article, well thought out
    Sittin on top of the world!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

      Fine piece of writing indeed. A refreshingly new, disturbing take on the ordeal for me though.
      Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

      Passion. Pride. Pacers.

      It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
      #31 & Only

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

        There are no grey areas, are there?

        Well, maybe one or two. The majority of the players probably want to get things resolved due to two factors: the passage of time and how it impacts the length of time they are able to play the game at the NBA level, thereby recognizing that the amount of money they might cost themselves by their union holding out might end up larger than what they save themselves by coming to a quick resolution, and depending on how long it goes on, the greater the financial hardship for themselves, their families, and their friends, as well as any employees they have who depend on the players for their livelihoods which puts tremendous and ever increasing pressure on the players to reach any deal they can.

        If both sides believe they are "the game", one side is definitely more wrong than most believe, and that would be the players. Why? Simply put, the players don't have deep enough pockets up front to create their own league, and investors would be loathe to attempt to assist them in today's economic environment due to the cost of infrastructure required to put a product in front of the fans that would resemble what the NBA provides being astronomical, and then the initial losses for such a league prior to it becoming established would be much larger than even the NBA has suffered.

        Without the current set of players, yes, the league would suffer for a few years until the talent level picks back up, but it eventually would, as long as the owners are willing to wait. If the losses were reduced enough, many owners would be more than happy to put replacements on the court just to let the consuming public know that they still want basketball to be played and that eventually the level of play would resume at its previously high level.

        Ultimately, the game of basketball is "the game". It is simply a matter of who pays who to play it, who makes or loses how much money from it, and when the games resume being played.

        The agents and the players have just about no leverage in this situation, and they have to know that. I believe it is only a matter of time before the agents and power brokers gather the players and lay it all out for them in terms they can understand and the players attempt to make significant concessions prior to the involvement of any arbitration that might end up happening, particularly if the government threatens to get involved as it has in other labor disputes in other professional sports.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

          Revenue sharing and a hard cap tied to the BRI.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            The owners want to control their business
            This.

            Sure, money is always a factor, but the owners want to be the big shots...not just investors. There isn't much more to this lockout.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

              "What Berger misses completely here is that there was never any chance whatsoever of games being canceled over a difference in BRI split."

              I believe the above to be a totally true statement. The players have already conceded enough to bring their share of BRI down to 50%, so one might assume they may even be willing to drop another 1-2% when all is finalized.

              The problem with revenues is not really how much the owners get versus how much the players get, it is totally about how is shared among the owners in the portion they eventually get. And, it is about further inclusions in the agreement that would enable the small market teams to receive some form of additional kickbacks from the moneymakers.

              I think virtually everyone understands this.

              What I don't necessarily agree with that Count states is within the following statement.

              That’s why this hard cap is a “blood issue.” Not because it has a lobster’s chance in Maine of creating competitive balance, not because it will hurt all players’ ability to earn. It’s a “blood issue” because owners want to pay less money to supplemental players and because supplemental players want to keep making money. It has nothing to do with the health of the game. It has nothing to do with fans. It has nothing to do with fairness. It’s just stupid.

              If the tweets from a few days ago are accurate, the owners care very much about competitive balance. Statements by several players also indicate that they would like also to see teams more balanced within the league.

              I don't believe the hard cap is intended to keep owners from overpaying supplemental players. I don't believe that at all. What I do believe is that the cap is intended to force owners to make hard decisions about how to control and fit various salaries within a capped salary structure.

              The real purpose of a hard cap is to discourage teams from going out and acquiring 2-3 huge salaries like Miami has done. Removing the MLE would prevent a team near the cap from adding mid-level talent to their rosters to round out their talent to go along with the salaries of their superstars.

              If anything, a hard cap would eventually lead to multiple superstars on a single team accepting lesser salary so that the team would be able to sign the best of the available lesser talented players to round out their rosters.

              So, I believe that some of the higher payed players would eventually accept lower salaries so that their teams could acquire the better players among the lesser talented players by being able to offer them more money.

              The hole in the hard cap is that it cannot stop collusion among talented players. And, the sad reality is that nothing really can. Players can always accept lower salaries to be able to play together no matter how low the hard cap might be. The hard cap relies on a certain level of personal greed in the players to be successful in its attempt to balance the competition. As long as they want to make as much as they can, a lower hard cap decreases the probability that 3 or more stars can go to a single team.
              Last edited by beast23; 09-15-2011, 11:56 PM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

                Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                "What Berger misses completely here is that there was never any chance whatsoever of games being canceled over a difference in BRI split."

                I believe the above to be a totally true statement. The players have already conceded enough to bring their share of BRI down to 50%, so one might assume they may even be willing to drop another 1-2% when all is finalized.

                The problem with revenues is not really how much the owners get versus how much the players get, it is totally about how is shared among the owners in the portion they eventually get. And, it is about further inclusions in the agreement that would enable the small market teams to receive some form of additional kickbacks from the moneymakers.

                I think virtually everyone understands this.

                What I don't necessarily agree with that Count states is within the following statement.

                That’s why this hard cap is a “blood issue.” Not because it has a lobster’s chance in Maine of creating competitive balance, not because it will hurt all players’ ability to earn. It’s a “blood issue” because owners want to pay less money to supplemental players and because supplemental players want to keep making money. It has nothing to do with the health of the game. It has nothing to do with fans. It has nothing to do with fairness. It’s just stupid.

                If the tweets from a few days ago are accurate, the owners care very much about competitive balance. Statements by several players also indicate that they would like also to see teams more balanced within the league.

                I don't believe the hard cap is intended to keep owners from overpaying supplemental players. I don't believe that at all. What I do believe is that the cap is intended to force owners to make hard decisions about how to control and fit various salaries within a capped salary structure.

                The real purpose of a hard cap is to discourage teams from going out and acquiring 2-3 huge salaries like Miami has done. Removing the MLE would prevent a team near the cap from adding mid-level talent to their rosters to round out their talent to go along with the salaries of their superstars.

                If anything, a hard cap would eventually lead to multiple superstars on a single team accepting lesser salary so that the team would be able to sign the best of the available lesser talented players to round out their rosters.

                So, I believe that some of the higher payed players would eventually accept lower salaries so that their teams could acquire the better players among the lesser talented players by being able to offer them more money.

                The hole in the hard cap is that it cannot stop collusion among talented players. And, the sad reality is that nothing really can. Players can always accept lower salaries to be able to play together no matter how low the hard cap might be. The hard cap relies on a certain level of personal greed in the players to be successful in its attempt to balance the competition. As long as they want to make as much as they can, a lower hard cap decreases the probability that 3 or more stars can go to a single team.
                To clarify, the words in red above belong to Tom Ziller of SB Nation, not me. Their inclusion was to segue me to point out that neither side, and no member on either side, feels that they are doing wrong or being greedy. They feel "righteous."

                I actually support a hard cap (though I think the "flex" cap implementation is making more sense to me these days), but that piece wasn't about debating the relative merits of the system. It was only to point out that while people know how many dollars a point of BRI split means, they can't be sure of what changes in the system will mean.

                They only have what they think will happen. Perversely, people will act much more strongly on what they believe than what they know. Particularly, if it's a fear.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: CBA Talk: Kill for Money, Die for Faith

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post
                  Perversely, people will act much more strongly on what they believe than what they know. Particularly, if it's a fear.
                  Truer words were never spoken. Kind of reminds me of a speech Michael Douglas gave near the end of "The American President".

                  Comment

                  Previous template Next
                  Working...
                  X