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

Lockout News and Discussions thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    filing anti trust disclaimer of interest is gonna get them killed in court. It is official they aren't bargaining in good faith and it court this will come out.

    This is a sad day for the NBA.
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 11-14-2011, 03:51 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      the nba should send out letters to all the NBA players that whoever wants to play, come on in we'll pay you your salary for this year, maybe play shirts and skins - who knows. I mean if Steve Blake ever wanted to be an NBA superstar now is his chance
      Yeah......

      Thats one way to lose more fans I guess.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...-leaders-speak

        No byline

        Players' new legal leaders speak


        In announcing the legal strategy of disclaiming the union, Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher are effectively handing the process of getting NBA players back to work to their outside attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and the newly appointed David Boies.

        Boies has been involved in a litany of high-profile cases, most notably representing Al Gore in the historic Gore vs. Bush case that decided the presidency. Kessler is the preeminent name in sports labor law.

        Hunter says the players have "a stellar team" and Fisher says "we'll let our legal team really lead the charge."

        The pair spoke to a small group of reporters just after Hunter and Fisher's press conference.

        Several weeks ago, as reporters were camped out on the sidewalk outside collective bargaining talks, you happened by on your way to dinner. Did you have any idea, then, that you might be involved?

        Boies: I went to dinner! I was not talking to them at all at that point. In fact, I didn't even know they were there.

        To the extent you've been involved in sports in the past, it has been on the league side, correct?

        Boies: Well, for example, we represented the Yankees against Major League Baseball. So we have represented individual players against the league and leagues against players.

        You represented the NFL, correct?

        Boies: We represented the NFL against the players.

        Can you talk about how different this situation is?

        Boies: I don't want to get into a lot of detail, but it's obviously a very different situation. It's a situation in which the collective bargaining process has essentially broken down. For their own purposes, the NBA has chosen to issue an ultimatum. It's our way or no way.

        I think that the players tried very hard to bargain collectively, and this is a situation in which the Players Association has never disclaimed or decertified in its history. Some of you are old enough to remember prior CBA negotiations where a lot of players wanted them to, and they always refused to do that, because they have always believed in the collective bargaining process. Even after the lockout, they continued to collectively bargain.

        It was only when they concluded that the collective bargaining process was over with, and that there wasn't any purpose in continuing, that they took this action.

        What are the consequences of that? That's something we're going to go assess. As you can see, I have not been involved in this long enough to have formed a view of what, if anything, is appropriate to do from a legal standpoint. But I do know that, just from a practical standpoint, the players tried very hard to make the collective bargaining system work, and they took this step only after it was absolutely clear that collective bargaining had broken down, not as a result of any action they took.

        From a timing standpoint, how long can this take?

        Boies: The owners could decide to open their doors, and hire players, today. They don't need a union for that. They could go off and hire people the way most businesses hire people. They could identify a person, they negotiate a salary, and there's absolutely no reason that couldn't happen right now.

        This action precludes collective bargaining, but it does not stop negotiating, correct?

        Boies: You wouldn't have collective negotiations. Now, I think, the individual teams would have to negotiate with individual players. It's back to the free market.

        This trade association and its lawyers could still meet with the NBA and throw out proposals?

        Kessler: The class action settlement discussion, just like took place in the NFL, [would happen] without any association's direct involvement. It's the class that would be making any settlement if there was one.

        Talks could continue in some form.

        Boies: I don't think talks would continue.

        If, and I say if -- because first of all, we haven't filed a lawsuit -- a lawsuit were filed, but if a lawsuit were filed, and if there was an interest in settling that lawsuit, then as Jeffrey says, what would happen is the lawyers for the players would meet the lawyers for the owners and we would try to come up with some kind of settlement.

        That settlement would be something that would open up the league to play. But you would not have a collective bargaining solution.

        Your first "if" supposes a lawsuit might not be filed?

        Boies: I'm just saying, we're going to go back, we're going to assess this. Jeffrey probably has got decades more experience in this than I have. And we're going to go back and we're going to talk about what the right approach is. Maybe it's filing a lawsuit. Maybe it's not filing a lawsuit. We've got to figure out what the lawsuit would say if there is going to be a lawsuit. There's a lot that has to be worked out.

        Since the decertification didn't work for the NFL, how much better is this disclaimer?

        Boies: Well, remember, in the NFL case, the disclaimer .... although it was ruled valid by the district court, was never really decided by the court of appeals. The point, too, in the NFL case, was whether or not there could be an injunction. As you heard in there, we are not going to seek an injunction. While we're going to go back, and we're going to look at legal options, you heard Billy say that one of the things the players are not going to do is go seek an injunction here.

        Why not?

        Boies: Well, my view, and this is one that Jeffrey and I may have a different view on, is that under the Norris-Laguardia Act it's very difficult to get an injunction. That doesn't mean you can't have damages. And in fact, the whole point of the Norris-Laguardia Act was to stop injunctions and force the these kinds of disputes into the damage arena.

        Even if you could get an injunction -- let's say Jeffrey's wrong and I'm right on this -- it would be, obviously, a drawn-out process. And I think what the players are focusing on right now is what is the fastest way to get this resolved.

        Kessler: If you look at it from a player's standpoint, collective bargaining has totally failed. So rather than exercise their labor law rights to futility, they've decided to free up all players to exert their antitrust rights to triple damages. And we think -- not we, the players -- think that is the best protection for NBA players going forward.

        How do you go about deciding who the plaintiffs will be?

        Kessler: We're not going to talk about any legal strategies or tactics.

        Is there any indication, knowing how the NBA has been bargaining, that this will bring them back [to a more reasonable bargaining position]?

        Boies: I have no expectation about that one way or another. I'm involved in this a few hours, OK?

        I would hope that, in the face of a disclaiming union, where there's no hope of collective bargaining, that the owners would reconsider whether, under these circumstances, it makes sense to continue to boycott. But I have no idea what their strategy is.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          Yeah......

          Thats one way to lose more fans I guess.
          The league/players have no fans now. No one's buying tickets or jerseys or watching them on TV.

          So I guess it'd be a net gain.
          "man, PG has been really good."

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
            filing anti trust disclaimer of interest is gonna get them killed in court. It is official they aren't bargaining in good faith and it court this will come out.

            This is a sad day for the NBA.
            You never know how the politics of the court affects the outcome.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              The fact that they're primarily interested in the legal course that will resolve this as quickly as possibly makes me suspect that it lessens their chances of a victory. If they were going to do this, not only should they have started in July, but they should have chosen the toughest grind with the highest probability of a win.

              Obviously we're all going to get more education on this in the coming days and weeks, but what I had read before today and what I've read today tells me that while technically everything is uncertain, it seems probable IMO that this will work out better for the owners than the players.

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                The union chose to file a disclaimer of interest (it was hand-delivered to the league office) rather than a petition for decertification because it will speed up the process and extend the window of time for which the NBA owners could possibly be liable for triple damages. If the entire NBA season was to be lost and the players won in court, the $2 billion they were due to make in salaries would become $6 billion.

                If somehow they get 6 billion you can kiss the Pacers and many other teams goodbye.
                Maybe the NBA should desolve. Can't sue a non entity. I always wondered if a new basketball league could come out of this. Maybe the Pacers can get out from under the
                old ABA purchase agreement.
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  I can see why Boies was hired, guy is impressive, even in a short interview.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    At least I know why all the players were smiling. They think they are getting a year's worth of paid vacation, possibly with a bonus.

                    "So I can sit on my *** all year, let you do all the work, get paid anyway, AND get better working conditions next season? Sign me up for that!"
                    Using common sense, I don't see how you can win triple your normal wages under ANY circumstances besides missing 3 years of work.....


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      How can the NBA negotiate with the players now, the union is no longer. so the whole negotiating process is over.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        I can see why Boies was hired, guy is impressive, even in a short interview.


                        he is good. If could convince me the sky is green - he is really that good

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          Using common sense, I don't see how you can win triple your normal wages under ANY circumstances besides missing 3 years of work.....
                          Because we live in America, where you can pay your average player 5mil per season and still be viewed as a slave owner.

                          Common sense went out the window months ago.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            You know, I keep hearing them say, "If the owners decide to get back to negotiating before the players file!"

                            But....the players would still have little leverage, and even more of an illusion that they have it
                            "man, PG has been really good."

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              How can the NBA negotiate with the players now, the union is no longer. so the whole negotiating process is over.
                              The "lawyers" can still come to an agreement, from what Boies said. It wouldn't be a Collective Bargaining agreement, but an agreement to reopen the doors.

                              Otherwise, Stern seems to be scrambling and trying to act like he's not scrambling. Nice to see him squirm, if thats the case.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                he is good. If could convince me the sky is green - he is really that good
                                He's gotta be good. I don't know how someone can convince a court that they're right when they dissolve a union for legal purposes with the full intent of reforming their union as soon as an agreement is made.

                                They're trying to play by two different set of rules, and it's not going to work.

                                I would wonder if they do "win" if they would be allowed to unionize again. I don't see why they would be able too.

                                They're either a union or they aren't.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X