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

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Can Whitlock get through one article without bringing up race?
    He can avoid race as easily as he can avoid overdone analogies of The Wire.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout news

      It also costs a HELL of a lot more to run a team now. The private jets, the $300/night hotel room for each player and staff member, the utility costs for having 1,000 times the number of lights and banners, the advertising expenses, the property taxes, the salaries of all employees, the consideration of what is an acceptable arena forcing new arenas to be built probably before they need to be, the safety standards and security... I mean holy ****, there is way more to running a franchise than there was in 1970. Do you think the costs of those arenas compares in the slightest to what we have now, just to compete in the entertainment industry? They pass a lot of the costs on to us, but those costs don't remain a constant 17% for owners, like players salaries are being set as. That makes a huge difference if half of your business is set up in terms of a percentage of revenue and the other half are fixed costs that you have to overcome.

      This is why I am so hellbent on the local TV revenues being shared between owners. You give each team 40% of their local TV deals, so the Lakers, Knicks, and Celtics get more to pay their more expensive overheads. Then the other 60% is split equally, so in essence most teams will still end up getting a large portion of their TV deals, but it doesn't bankrupt smaller market teams to build arenas and pay their overhead when competitive balance leans in favor of the larger markets. The ability of small market teams to overcome a bad stretch is much more difficult than it is for large market teams, but more importantly, it allows the large market teams the ability to maintain a higher payroll still and temper the players abhoration of a harsher luxury tax. Oh, and it solves the whole luxury tax issue with revenue sharing. You maintain the current luxury tax, so that there is a penalty for competing with more money still.
      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout news

        I guess inflation is no longer a thing we consider either


        Comment


        • Re: Lockout news

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          I guess inflation is no longer a thing we consider either
          Inflation is not something you consider when you pay a flat percentage of revenue. That is a bad business decision in the first place. What happens when the inflation affects 50% of your business but you are hamstrung with no ability to reduce costs in other 50%, like most businesses do. Why are teachers taking paycuts and paying more for insurance coverage they have gotten free (or close to it) for years? There are shortfalls in their budgets due to increased costs across the entire business model, and there needs to be a safety net in the largest cost areas of doing business... in salaries and benefits.

          As an example of cuts outside of salary, if I am an owner, I put my players in coach seating on flights. If they don't like it, they can pay their own way if they don't want to make concessions. Just like every other business in the modern world. There needs to be a restructuring of the cost system with the way the league runs. If you disagree, then why the HELL are localities forking over millions of DEBT-RIDDEN dollars to these franchises if the teams can run on their own? It shouldn't happen. It does, because of leverage, but it shouldn't have to. There is enough money to make it all work.
          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout news

            as far as BRI goes: there is something as an escrow build in which can bring down salary cost considerably already (% of players salary is held in escrow and will only be paid(or in part) if total player salary does not exceed 57% of BRI)
            2011 was the 1st time in many years all of the escrow money was paid out, and still some left for the owners.

            Pacergod, dreamworld, "The Boston Celtics and Comcast SportsNet New England extended their TV rights deal for the next 20 years. The new agreement gives the Celtics an equity stake in the network up to 20% and a significant increase in rights fees. The Celtics currently receive $15-20 million annually for its TV rights."

            That 20% stakes replaces what they would have been paid in hard cash, which you want to split.
            And it brings down the turnover so losses are more likely.
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout news

              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
              Inflation is not something you consider when you pay a flat percentage of revenue. That is a bad business decision in the first place. What happens when the inflation affects 50% of your business but you are hamstrung with no ability to reduce costs in other 50%, like most businesses do. Why are teachers taking paycuts and paying more for insurance coverage they have gotten free (or close to it) for years? There are shortfalls in their budgets due to increased costs across the entire business model, and there needs to be a safety net in the largest cost areas of doing business... in salaries and benefits.

              As an example of cuts outside of salary, if I am an owner, I put my players in coach seating on flights. If they don't like it, they can pay their own way if they don't want to make concessions. Just like every other business in the modern world. There needs to be a restructuring of the cost system with the way the league runs. If you disagree, then why the HELL are localities forking over millions of DEBT-RIDDEN dollars to these franchises if the teams can run on their own? It shouldn't happen. It does, because of leverage, but it shouldn't have to. There is enough money to make it all work.
              I was just making the point that due to inflation the raw costs to run an NBA franchise, buying food, drink, etc., employing vendors has gone up a decent chunk since 1998. At the same time those costs have been rising, it appears, at least the way the owners portray it, that profits have only been maintaining or maybe even decreasing.


              Comment


              • Re: Lockout news

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                Salaries have been 57% for the past decade. They're not out of control, they're exactly where owners knew they'd be 10 years ago, at 57%. It doesn't matter if the worst player in the world makes $20 million a year, they'd still be at 57%.
                What happens when the cost of buisness rises faster than the revenue being brought in?
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout news

                  Originally posted by able View Post
                  as far as BRI goes: there is something as an escrow build in which can bring down salary cost considerably already (% of players salary is held in escrow and will only be paid(or in part) if total player salary does not exceed 57% of BRI)
                  2011 was the 1st time in many years all of the escrow money was paid out, and still some left for the owners.

                  Pacergod, dreamworld, "The Boston Celtics and Comcast SportsNet New England extended their TV rights deal for the next 20 years. The new agreement gives the Celtics an equity stake in the network up to 20% and a significant increase in rights fees. The Celtics currently receive $15-20 million annually for its TV rights."

                  That 20% stakes replaces what they would have been paid in hard cash, which you want to split.
                  And it brings down the turnover so losses are more likely.
                  Good for Boston.

                  Boston is one of the 8 exceptions to the rule. The league cannot operate on a system that's just okay for Boston, and 7 other teams, when that system is broken for the other 22.

                  Boston's problems aren't the problems the other 75% of the NBA have.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout news

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    Professional athletes put in years of amateur service before they get paid. The only difference is that it's harder to become a professional athlete than just about any other job where you make millions of dollars.
                    By this flawed logic, Eddy Curry is a self made millionaire then too. And he apparently worked harder than just about anyone else to make his money as well. Please man, basketball is a lot easier than the daily grind.

                    Amare and Curry were paid millions because of their size and athletic ability more than anything, and there potential. One succeeded, and the other didn't. They are not paid on their accomplishments. If he was 5'2", no matter how hard he worked or how skilled, he likely would of never made a penny playing basketball. It has very little to do with how hard they have worked. And anyone who has been around pro athletes, knows that there isn't much on earth that is lazier than an NBA big man. Shaq is a perfect example of hard work not being necessary to succeed in the NBA and make mega bucks.

                    It is an insult to any real self made millionaire to lump professional athletes into that same category.

                    Good businessmen go to grade school and work hard to get good grades. Then they sometimes have to pay to go to college while holding down a job simultaneously and find a way to pay their other bills. Then they go out into the business world and start at the bottom and start working their way up. It takes sacrifice, patience, and determination.

                    Amare was handed a fully guaranteed multi million dollar contract right out of high school. And it was all based off of potential and physical attributes, not accomplishment. Big difference.
                    Last edited by Taterhead; 10-13-2011, 12:11 PM.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout news

                      I'm not very computer literate. To be quite honestly blun,t I'm extremely computer impared. On my, I hope this is correct, search & info web page (I use core comm) there is always 5 breaking news stories. They change thruout the day. This morning there was a story about the mediator coming in to mediate the discussions. The interesting part to me of this article was that the split in the money wasn't the issue, but things like hard cap, Bird's rights, etc were the issues holding up getting a new CBA contract.

                      The reason I bring this up is that so much of this thread is and has discussed the BRI as the major stumbling block where this article said it wasn't. I have no idea who wrote this article nor how to find it since the article has rotated off. The way I read it is that owners aren't going to budge off a hard cap. They feel a hard cap is necessary to even the playing field for all the teams.

                      I thought it was an interesting article when I read it. When I opened this thread this morning, I expected to see the article, but it wasn't in the thread. If anyone can find it and post it, I feel it's a worthy article to read.
                      Justin

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout news

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        What happens when the cost of buisness rises faster than the revenue being brought in?
                        Sell it to someone who thinks they can turn it into profit.

                        Or fold.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout news

                          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                          Sell it to someone who thinks they can turn it into profit.

                          Or fold.
                          There's another option on the table. Fix the business model.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout news

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            There's another option on the table. Fix the business model.
                            Depending on how many cuts have been made (if any) you may not have the option to fix the unfixable. Luckily in this situation it can be fixed. However, one or both sides do not care.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout news

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              The reason I bring this up is that so much of this thread is and has discussed the BRI as the major stumbling block where this article said it wasn't.
                              Stern has stated the same thing.

                              There is one thing that I believe has been lost in this thread over the last 100 or so posts.

                              F O C U S

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout news

                                http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...for-both-sides


                                Mediation is a good start, but how about a clue for both sides?

                                http://sports.cbsimg.net/images/cbss...0x60/11790.jpg) white no-repeat left top; HEIGHT: 60px" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%">

                                By Ken Berger
                                CBSSports.com NBA Insider

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X