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

    JT, this might be the article you are looking for. also click on the link to hear what Reggie and Barkely said on NBATV Tuesday nigh5t

    http://www.nba.com/2011/news/feature...day/index.html

    Steve Aschburner



    System issues, not money split, now defining labor strife


    Posted Oct 13 2011 7:57AM

    NEW YORK -- The so-called "system changes" that NBA owners have called for during the league's lingering labor dispute now appear to have leapfrogged the split of revenues as the No. 1 issue of the NBA lockout. Finding common ground on that sometimes-complicated set of proposed changes to the old collective bargainaing agreement is now the greatest challenge in hammering out a new deal between owners and players and salvaging as much of the 2011-12 season as possible.

    The league's labor dispute, in other words, suddenly is less about answering the "how much?" question and more about filling in blanks on the who, when, where and how of divvying a pot of $4 billion among 29 owners (the league currently owns the Hornets) and 400 NBA players
    Oh, and now more than ever: how soon

    With the NBA's move to cancel the first two weeks of the regular season, after seven more fruitless hours of negotiations between the owners and the players Monday night, a new reality emerged: What had seemed to be the primary source of disagreement in recent weeks -- the split of basketball-related income (BRI) that dictates the dollars taken away by each side -- got pushed to the side by issues such as the luxury tax on exorbitant payrolls, the length of contracts, the size of raises and the number and details of salary-cap exceptions.
    What was expected to be the heavy lifting of a new CBA -- the revenue split -- now seemed easier, even from the union's demand for 53 percent and the owners' renewed commitment to 47 percent (down from a 50-50 deal floated by NBA commissioner David Stern a week earlier). Both Stern and union president Derek Fisher, on the sidewalk outside a Manhattan hotel Monday, made the math of finding middle ground over what amounts to a $240 million difference in Year 1 sound simple enough, even from their dug-in positions.

    What seemed harder, all of a sudden, was finding compromise on and nailing down a variety of system provisions that -- from the owners' perspective -- dictate the competitive balance of the league, giving hope to more fans in more cities. From the players' side, those structural issues affect job security and mobility, and thus the kinds of careers they carve out in their relatively brief NBA stays.

    In a way, it was almost refreshing that the fight had moved off money to something more fundamental. Coverage of the previous few weeks had suggested that, if the owners got a split of BRI they could be happy with, their high-minded talk about protecting the league's have-not markets would get swept away.

    But here were the owners -- with New York's James Dolan, representing one of the NBA's financial whales, in the room -- standing strong for the alleged common good.
    Meanwhile, the players' willingness to miss games -- and paychecks -- seemed anchored in principle, even when the numbers made it clear that a lesser deal over a full season would get them more cash than a better deal with a shortened (or entirely lost) season.
    Not anchored in pragmatism, certainly, but in principle.

    So where are they now? Not meeting, for one thing. No talks were held Tuesday, none had been scheduled for Wednesday or Thursday and on Friday, union executive director Billy Hunter was going to attend a regional players' meeting in Los Angeles. Within the next 10 days or so, barring a meeting, a breakthrough and a handshake deal, another two weeks of the NBA season will fall. Taking with it another payday for the players and, in losing November entirely, about $800 million from the initial $4 billion pool

    Are the system issues really worth that damage, financial and otherwise? Apparently. After Monday's meeting, union attorney Jeffrey Kessler said: "The BRI isn't going to doom the season. The hard cap will doom the season."

    A hard salary cap remains a "blood issue" to the union, something Fisher and Hunter have said the players never will accept. A system bolstered by increasingly severe luxury-tax levies, they contend, will approximate a hard cap enough that it inflicts the same sort of pain.
    But what, really, would it do to the manner in which the players' share of BRI gets distributed? If the amount of dollars that go to player compensation stays the same under any system, why does it matter if the league gets there by keeping the 30 team payrolls more tightly grouped?

    Last season, under the old CBA, payrolls ranged from the L.A. Lakers up top (about $90 million, excluding the luxury tax) to Sacramento at the bottom (about $45 million). A near-hard cap would, in theory, push them much closer (a perfect hard cap would have distributed the players' $2.17 billion share in 2010-11 as 30 teams each paying about $70 million).
    A series of changes, theoretically, would occur:

    • At some point, the Lakers would stop spending and players who would have wound up in L.A. would have to seek employment elsewhere. That, in theory, would be good for the league's lesser lights, and not just because the Lakers would be less formidable. Talent might end up in markets that couldn't otherwise attract it just because that's where the available money would be.

    • The number of guaranteed contracts likely would drop, almost exclusively within the league's middle-class of role players. Stars would be fine -- in fact, stars would be more likely to stay put, satisfying the owners who were upset with Miami's free-agent haul of both LeBron James and Chris Bosh last summer to join Dwyane Wade. Young players still working for rookie-scale deals would be covered too, thanks to their affordable salaries, and so would minimum-contract guys.

    But as one Eastern Conference general manager said, those in between -- the league's middle class -- would get clobbered.

    • Teams that aren't stocked with talent, but faced with spending up to a higher "floor," would have to sign newcomers who might or might not be worth it, or give more money to players on their current roster. A player whose proper value is $2 million might become a "$3 million player" overnight.

    It's an unanswered question as to how that franchise would suddenly be considered more competitive.

    Many of the workings of a system preferred by the owners would hinge on other moving pieces, too. For example, many payroll exceptions will there be, and of what value?
    And, of course, there's the matter of the sudden implementation of the new deal. If the split was 50-50 in 2010-11, the players' share would have been $1.9 billion -- $270 million less than it actually was. So that extra $20 million that the Lakers or the Mavericks spent on players wouldn't get paid out by other teams, it would vanish completely, crushing role players.

    As one of the league's most influential agents said Tuesday, "The system is tied into the numbers. The players can't agree to go this far back in BRI and then have a system that becomes that much more restrictive also. If the BRI stayed at 57 percent, I think there'd be room to talk about some of these system issues, no question."

    The thing is, the BRI isn't staying at 57 percent. Which means there will be even more talking -- and maybe only talking, rather than resolving -- about the system issues to come.
    Steve Aschburner has written about the NBA for 25 years. You can e-mail him here and follow him on twitter.

    The views on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBA, its clubs or Turner Broadcasting.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-13-2011, 01:46 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout news

      The bottonline is the BRI and the system are tied together. The players would be more willing to accept a hard cap if the BRI number is much higher for them. The owners would be much more willing to agree not to insist on a hard cap or a stricter luxury tax if they received a greater % of the BRI.

      That is why I asked the two questions a few weeks back, what we need to know is what BRI % will the players need in order to accept a hard cap. What % of the BRI would the owners need in order to drop their insistance on the hard cap. Maybe the mediator will find out those two numbers and negotiate from there
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-13-2011, 02:36 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout news

        [QUOTE=Unclebuck;1286380]

        JT, this might be the article you are looking for. also click on the link to hear what Reggie and Barkely said on NBATV Tuesday nigh5t





        Thanks, your effort is greatly appreciated, but neither seems to be the article I read this morning.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout news

          Charles and Reggie understand the situation very clearly. Either the players give in or there will be no season this year and who knows when or if the NBA will exist. As far at the stars being there early in the negotiations that really has nothing to do with the current state of the NBA.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout news

            KauffmanSports Steve Kauffman
            by HowardBeckNYT
            Sorry for any added pressure, George,David,Billy,Derek..but this guy is the best and too many little people are suffering.
            1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

            Steve Kauffman
            KauffmanSports Steve Kauffman
            by HowardBeckNYT
            Have never seen a mediator in the class of Cohen. Been in front of him,won and lost. Smart and fair as they come. 82 games still possible.
            1 hour ago
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout news

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              The bottonline is the BRI and the system are tied together. The players would be more more willing to accept a hard cap if the BRI number is much higher for them. The owners would be much more willing to agree not to insist on a hard cap or a stricter luxury tax if they received a greater % of the BRI.
              The BRI will first be tied to profitability. Then how hard the cap will be can be determined.
              Competitive balance won't mean much if all teams are equally losing money. I suspect most teams can be profitable with the BRI between 47 and 53%. That is why the BRI is on the
              back burner.
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout news

                With the mediator now and one at the very highest level like Cohen, I wonder how Stern will react to not being the smartest, most clever guy in the room. I hope his ego doesn't get in the way here.

                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.
                  What? Can you name one job/career that is easier to get into that pays you millions of dollars? Seriously. I would like to know what it is so I can change careers.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout news

                    I have to say, I'm fairly optimistic with the mediator being involved, they are really close on all of the main issues. It would take a relatively small amount of give and take to get it done. The owners would basically have to be completely unwilling to budge for this not to work with an outside person involved.

                    BRI 50-52 with that range

                    Guaranteed contracts - players get 4 and 5 which is still less than 5 and 6.

                    Luxury tax - meet exactly in the middle of what both side proposed.

                    Bird rights - owners get the ability to not be held hostage in a sign and trade, players still get the home team being able to sign for bigger money.

                    I really think its almost that simple, the middle is pretty defined from I've read.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout news

                      Stern is on NYC WFAN right now.

                      http://newyork.cbslocal.com/station/wfan/

                      Great interview - someone has to put the podcast up as this is almost over. Stern thinks Tuesday with the arbitrator is a huge day. Could cancel more games by Wed. next week.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout news

                        Stern keeps saying Tuesday is the day to make a deal. If we don't make it Tuesday his gut says no basketball prior to xmas.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout news

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          BRI 50-52 with that range

                          Guaranteed contracts - players get 4 and 5 which is still less than 5 and 6.

                          Luxury tax - meet exactly in the middle of what both side proposed.

                          Bird rights - owners get the ability to not be held hostage in a sign and trade, players still get the home team being able to sign for bigger money.

                          I really think its almost that simple, the middle is pretty defined from I've read.
                          I think that is on the right track, but the players will still object to the fine tuning that the owners attempt to include for the sake of competitive balance.

                          A major stumbling block for the players in consideration of competitive balance seems to be that they believe the proposals made thus far limit their mobility between teams. Unfortunately, protection of small market teams ability to keep good players probably necessitates decreased mobility to some extent. And, alterations to the present salary exceptions would improve the likelihood that small market teams could sign some of the better free agents.

                          With or without a mediator, I believe there is a long way to go. Either the owners have to be willing to give up a greater BRI than what is currently mentioned or they will have to sacrifice some of the changes they want for competitive balance. If the players don't play along with either end of that, then they are just being butts.

                          Another consideration for inclusion is revenue sharing rules of gate receipts and local TV contracts.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout news

                            Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
                            Stern keeps saying Tuesday is the day to make a deal. If we don't make it Tuesday his gut says no basketball prior to xmas.
                            Well, maybe this mediator is magical in his abilities, but if that's true then I say no basketball prior to xmas.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout news

                              Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
                              Stern is on NYC WFAN right now.

                              http://newyork.cbslocal.com/station/wfan/

                              Great interview - someone has to put the podcast up as this is almost over. Stern thinks Tuesday with the arbitrator is a huge day. Could cancel more games by Wed. next week.
                              I'll go on a limb and say a deal is made next week. From the interview, it's obvious Stern wants a deal and they are close. In addition, Hunter is likely going to take some heat from the players in LA tomorrow. Many of the guys out there are mid/lower tier guys who are likely ok with 51/49 and cannot afford to a miss a season. Finally, the arbitrator allows each side to save face. While the arbitrator cannot force a decision, each side can always go back to their parties and say the arbitrator pushed them in that direction.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout news

                                KBergCBS Ken Berger
                                Stern: "It's time to make a deal. If we don't make it Tuesday , my gut ... is that we won't be playing on Christmas Day."
                                21 minutes ago
                                Ken Berger
                                KBergCBS Ken Berger
                                On WFAN in NY, Stern said if no deal by end of owners' meeting next Wednesday and Thursday, "I despair."
                                25 minutes ago

                                THEN MAKE THE DARN DEAL!
                                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X