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

How close were we to not having a season at all. Inside story of how the lockout ended

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How close were we to not having a season at all. Inside story of how the lockout ended

    I know many or maybe even most of you don't care to relive anything about the lockout, but I found this article very interesting. For those who weren't following along back in the lockout, Ken Berger of CBS Sports IMO was by far the best reporter covering the lockout and here is his article.

    http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...ing-nba-season

    We'll never know how close we came to losing NBA season

    By Ken Berger | CBSSports.com NBA Insider


    ORLANDO, Fla. -- On the eve of the All-Star Game, Billy Hunter and David Stern were in front of the microphones again, standing in front of their respective backdrops at separate events on a weekend that most people understand was close to never happening.

    The story of how close has never really been told.

    For Stern, it was his annual All-Star media address Saturday night, his most high-profile public appearance since the lockout ended. Earlier in the day, a few miles outside the city, Hunter was flanked by several of the players who served on the executive committee during the lockout. He stood in front of a National Basketball Players Association banner at a food drive where the union teamed with Feed the Children and city officials to provide free meals to more than 3,000 families.

    All of this happened three months to the day after the last-ditch bargaining session that finally ended the lockout. Looking back on the night when the final negotiations began -- Nov. 25, Black Friday -- several people involved in the talks recreated an incredible scene that underscored just how close the NBA came to losing the entire season.

    No Christmas Day. No 66-game schedule. No All-Star Weekend. Nothing.

    Sometime between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. ET on Nov. 25 -- and various sources' recollections of the exact timing vary by an hour or so -- the 2011-12 NBA season almost perished.

    In fact, based on accounts provided to CBSSports.com by people on both sides of the negotiations, the 2011-12 season was all but pronounced dead that night. Several times. Somehow, some way, it was brought back to life.

    "It was almost a wrap quite a few times," said Maurice Evans, a member of the players' executive committee. "Numerous times, both parties almost ended it. But each time, it was a last-ditch effort by someone to keep us together."

    In the early evening hours of Nov. 25, as dozens of customers lined up to browse the Apple store outside the law offices of Weil, Gotshal & Manges on Fifth Avenue in New York City, the final effort to save the season had gone terribly wrong. Hunter, according to sources, informed Spurs owner Peter Holt, the chairman of the labor relations committee, that the negotiations were over and that he was leaving. Hunter stood up and gathered his belongings.

    "We're done; that's it," Hunter said, according to a person who was in the room. "We’ll let this play out in the courts. I'm not f------ negotiating anymore."

    The two negotiating teams scattered, and high-level members of the players' legal team tried in vain to talk Hunter back in the room. At some point, around 9 p.m. according to a person familiar with the conversation, Holt was on the phone with an official from the NBA office. The message was clear: Talks had broken down. The fight to save the season was over. Get ready for the news conference.

    Recollections of what happened next vary somewhat depending on who's telling the story. In one version, Holt received a knock on the door while he was still on the phone with the league official. It was a representative of the union, asking that Holt and the owners return to the bargaining table.

    This version was categorically denied by a source from the players' side, who said Hunter was strongly resisting efforts from his staff to continue bargaining. According to this version, it was Holt who knocked on the players' door. When he was let in, Holt asked to speak with union president Derek Fisher and Evans to make sure they were in agreement with Hunter that the talks were over. Hunter lashed out angrily at Holt.

    "Don't you believe me when I tell you we're finished?" Hunter said, according to a person in the room. "We're done."

    This is where some strange events from that night come into focus and begin making sense -- events that were mindboggling at the time, and then were forgotten or eclipsed by the 3 a.m. haze when an agreement finally, in fact, was reached.

    At about 10:25 p.m., reporters waiting outside the law office were startled to see Stern approaching from 59th Street and walking along the perimeter of the building. It was a surreal sight -- the 69-year-old commissioner of the NBA, who was presumed to have been inside negotiating, looking harried and rushed as he strode past the waiting reporters with only a wave. He was alone.

    While the talks were deteriorating inside, Stern had stepped away to have dinner with his wife to celebrate their anniversary, two people familiar with the events said. All that Holt and Hunter's staff could persuade Hunter to do was wait until Stern came back before walking out of the talks for good.

    "Me, Billy and Derek were all on the same page," Evans said. "When we wanted to leave, we all wanted to leave. When we wanted to stay, we all came back into the room and listened."
    One of the people involved in the talks that night estimated that Stern was out of the room for about 90 minutes. When he strode toward the building at about 10:25, the talks -- and the season -- were on life support, at best.

    Meanwhile, the league official who had been told by Holt around 9 p.m. to prepare for a season-canceling news conference, waited, too. And waited. And waited. Soon, 10:30 became 11:30, which became 12:30. It was now Nov. 26, and interested parties monitoring the talks from afar began collapsing -- with their cell phones and Blackberries on and within reach.

    At about 3 a.m., one of those league officials received a call that a news conference was, in fact, about to happen. But the topic would not be the canceling of the season, but rather an agreement in principle on a new collective bargaining agreement. About eleven minutes later, this tweet went out, broadcasting the news that the NBA season had been saved.

    "I don't exhale," Hunter said Saturday, when asked to reflect on the relief he felt in those early morning hours.

    "Both sides had come too close to turn around," Evans said. "I'm glad we were able to get it done."


    So now the conversation turns to whether the deal that was struck will turn out to be good for both sides, and how that determination will be made. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said recently that it would take "three or four years" to make that call. As to whether the owners got a good deal or not, Cuban said, "We'll see what happens if we have a chance to opt out of it in six years."

    The criteria?

    "Are all the teams making money?" Cuban said.

    Some union officials already are shaking their heads at this apparent moving of the target by Cuban, who voted against the deal. Throughout the process, deputy commissioner Adam Silver spoke of two distinct goals: 1) giving every team, if well managed, the opportunity to be profitable; and 2) achieving competitive balance.

    But Hunter, speaking Saturday at the Orlando state fair grounds, said he saw this coming.

    "That was a camouflage," Hunter told CBSSports.com. "That was a subterfuge. That's what I'd said to you guys all along, and you never bought into it. So I can't understand why now, on the back end, when he says something all of a sudden it rings true. I said all along that's what it was about. It was about them making money. It wasn't necessarily about any competitive balance, and I said that to them in many, many meetings. It was about splitting up the dollars and the owners putting money in their pockets."

    On Saturday night, after Stern reiterated that he would not be commissioner when the parties have a chance to opt out of the labor deal in 2017 and said he would recommend Silver to succeed him, Stern disputed Hunter's characterization of the owners' goals.

    "We said that teams who are well managed should have the ability to make a profit and compete," Stern said. "And so there's no guarantee. It's only an opportunity. And I think that's what [Cuban] meant. I don't think he misspoke. I think that's what he meant. He didn't say there was a guarantee to make a profit; it was the opportunity to make a profit. And if that opportunity exists, that's what we want. That's what we're heading for. I think that will be achievable and it should make everybody very happy."

    Hunter said Stern has told him TV ratings, attendance and merchandise sales are all up this season despite the lockout, and that Silver mentioned at a recent meeting over unresolved bargaining issues that revenues are expected to exceed the league's expectations this season. But as far as evaluating the deal from the players' perspective, Hunter said this coming free-agent summer would be telling.

    "When we see how the signings go this summer, then we'll know what kind of deal it is and if the deal is everything that we thought it would be," Hunter said.

    Addressing Cuban's comment about the owners possibly opting out of the deal after six years, Hunter said it was "a lot of hot air."

    "If they want to opt out, then it's on them," Hunter said. "The players may elect to do the same thing six years from now."

    However it plays out, neither Hunter nor Stern will still be in charge. Hunter, 69, said Saturday that he has four years left on his contract after this season and strongly hinted that it will be his last.

    "I've got four grandchildren, and what I'm doing now is, I'm trying to spend as much time as I can with my grandchildren," Hunter said. "I don't know how much time I've got left on this planet, so I don't think that far ahead."

    On what was going to be the last night of the labor talks one way or another, there was little reason to look forward to All-Star Weekend, or having a season at all. Simply put, it was all gone.

    On Sunday, three months to the day, the NBA is back with its showcase event. Reason enough, it would seem, to exhale.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-27-2012, 04:18 PM.

  • #2
    The best news from this article is that Stern and Hunter will be gone! Hopefully their successors will put ego aside and do what's best for the league.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: How close were we to not having a season at all. Inside story of how the lockout ended

      Not much of an inside story.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: How close were we to not having a season at all. Inside story of how the lockout ended

        I was convinced there would be no season at all. It took me awhile to get excited about the season, my mind was set that it wasn't going to happen.

        Since then I've watched more NBA ball than I had the previous 2 or 3 seasons combined. I've always watched every Pacer game, but this season I've watched tons of other games.
        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: How close were we to not having a season at all. Inside story of how the lockout ended

          I was so unhappy with the parties that it took me a while to get back into the NBA as well. My grandfather got us tickets to the opening night game for Christmas and I haven't missed a game since.
          Senior at the University of Louisville.
          Greenfield ---> The Ville

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: How close were we to not having a season at all. Inside story of how the lockout ended

            Originally posted by 2minutes twoa View Post
            The best news from this article is that Stern and Hunter will be gone! Hopefully their successors will put ego aside and do what's best for the league.
            I was thinking the same thing. Man, I REALLY hope that KG isn't one of the successors.


            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

            Working...
            X