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

Is terminating the contract of Vin Baker the right thing to do? articles from Bo

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

  • Is terminating the contract of Vin Baker the right thing to do? articles from Bo

    The Celtics can do it now, and they probably will. They gave him 3 chances, so I guess that's all you can ask them to take.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...urn_for_baker/

    Point of no return for Baker

    He misses 10th straight game; Celtics expected to let him go

    By Shira Springer, Globe Staff, 2/13/2004

    CHICAGO -- Vin Baker was not permitted to return to the Celtics for last night's game against the Bulls at the United Center, marking the 10th game he has missed because of an indefinite suspension that began Jan. 23.

    Since Baker missed his 10th game, the Celtics now have the right to terminate the power forward's contract. All indications are they will take steps to do so this morning, a move that will not sit well with Baker and his representatives.

    "As stated previously by my representatives, I have and continue to do everything that is required of me to remain in compliance with my after-care program and eagerly await being officially reinstated to play," said Baker in a statement released last night. "I am surprised and disappointed that I have not been cleared to play as of today, but remain optimistic knowing that I have gone above and beyond what has been asked of me during my absence. My representatives have and will continue to communicate with team officials on my behalf, until I am reinstated."

    When an NBA team decides to pursue the termination of a contract, the first step is to place the player on waivers for 48 business hours. If the player goes unclaimed, the team holding his rights can terminate the contract.

    Since the deadline to place a player on waivers yesterday passed at 6 p.m., the Celtics have their first opportunity to place Baker on waivers at 10 this morning. And according to league sources, it's expected they will do so.

    It is also expected Baker will clear waivers because no NBA team will want to assume the two-plus years and approximately $35 million remaining on the deal. Because of the weekend and national holiday Monday, the earliest Baker can officially clear waivers is Wednesday at 10 a.m. If he does so, the Celtics can begin so-called divorce proceedings.

    Those proceedings are sure to be contentious, as the players' union is almost certain to file a grievance. It would not be surprising if the Celtics and Baker ended up in arbitration. It is difficult to place a value on what it would be worth for Baker to walk away from the Celtics, but at this point, any attempt to reach a monetary settlement would likely find the sides very far apart. Numerous sources familiar with the situation have mentioned figures that range from $3 million to $30 million. Once Baker severs contractual ties with Boston, he is free to sign with another NBA team.

    Owner Wyc Grousbeck, who attended Chicago's 107-87 blowout win over Boston, declined comment on the Baker situation. Director of basketball operations Danny Ainge stated he knew essentially nothing about the case.

    "It's in the hands of the doctors," said Ainge. "That's all I know."

    Baker's representatives maintain he is "ready, willing, and able" to return to the Celtics and NBA-level basketball. Under an agreement reached between Baker and the Celtics during the offseason, Dr. Lloyd Baccus, an Atlanta psychiatrist who became head of the NBA's drug program in 1994, is the only person with the discretion to determine when -- or if -- Baker can come back.

    "Our position remains the same," said Baker's personal adviser and lawyer, Steve Singleteary. "We know that Vin is ready to be reinstated and he has done everything asked of him and more."

    Added Baker's agent, Aaron Goodwin: "Vin's ready to play. He's in great physical condition and compliant with the doctors. He's just waiting for the doctors to release him to play."

    Since the Celtics indefinitely suspended the power forward, Baker underwent further treatment to address a relapse of his alcoholism. The indefinite suspension indicated that Baker had been found in "noncompliance" with his after-care program on at least three occasions this season. On Jan. 6, Baker was fined and suspended for three games for his failure of multiple alcohol tests.

    Baker underwent treatment for alcoholism last spring at Silver Hill Hospital in New Canaan, Conn. As part of an extensive league-supervised after-care program, Baker is subject to regular alcohol testing. For the first six weeks of the season, the carefully designed program appeared to work well as Baker earned the starting job at power forward, regularly played more than 30 minutes per game, and posted one of the best field goal percentages in the league. There was a noticeable decline in his play throughout December, when Baker's average dropped nearly 4 points and his average playing time decreased by almost seven minutes. Since the beginning of January, Baker has spent almost as much time away from the team on suspension than playing because of "noncompliance" with his after-care program.

    "I appreciate the continued support and prayers of the fans, my teammates, colleagues, friends, family, and the players' association," said Baker, "and assure you that I am ready, willing, and able to get back on the court and contribute given the opportunity."

    © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.


    http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...fe_not_career/

    Fight is for life, not career

    By Michael Holley, Globe Columnist, 2/13/2004

    For basketball reasons only, I never wanted the Celtics to trade for Vin Baker 19 months ago. For reasons that had nothing to do with the game, I recently hoped the Celtics wouldn't be able to find an honest reason to terminate his contract.

    If that meant the team's owners would have to pay a luxury tax at the end of this season, so what. If it meant fewer dollars to spend on free agents, so be it. Saving a buck isn't nearly as important as saving a man's life.

    Anyone who has ever seen alcoholism up close has to be worried about Baker's life. He is someone who gets a lot of his self-worth from playing basketball, and he no longer has a basketball job to train for. The Celtics are expected to waive him this morning, putting an end to the forward's 89-game Boston career.

    Games. The irony is that they didn't define the native New Englander's time here. The problems did. Baker is a 32-year-old man with a tagline -- recovering alcoholic -- that will last much longer than the 11 years of his NBA career.

    "Addiction is a demon," John Lucas said yesterday, "and the demon never takes a day off. It's patient. It's quiet. It always, always wants you back."

    Lucas, the No. 1 pick in the 1976 NBA draft, played until 1990. He has been sober for nearly 19 years. Many of those years have been spent educating people about addictive diseases. One of those diseases is so commanding that it can bring a 6-foot-11-inch millionaire like Baker to his knees.

    The intensity of addiction was clear to Lucas when he played for former Celtics coach Bill Fitch in Houston. Fitch knew Lucas had a problem, so Fitch would make the guard watch film with him -- in the coach's hotel room -- until 4 a.m.

    "At that point he would say, `The bus leaves at 7. I think it's safe for you to go to bed now,' " Lucas recalled. "He gave me that kind of attention, and I still didn't make it that time. I wanted to, but I couldn't.

    "I think athletes need to understand that it's not knee surgery. It's not a bad ankle. It's not going to heal and go away. It's going to be there."

    Who knows why it's there for Baker?

    There is no cliched, made-for-Sociology 101 answer. When you talk with Baker, you quickly realize how gentle and thoughtful he is. He is rich. He was raised in a two-parent home. His father is a preacher. He has received recognition, awards, and even an Olympic gold medal.
    None of those things matter, obviously, when it comes to alcoholism. Baker's struggles with the powerful disease not only put his own job in jeopardy, it led to the demotion of the general manager who traded for him.

    I still remember the afternoon I called Chris Wallace and asked him to sell me on the Baker deal. He mentioned many things, many of which I disagreed with. But at least they were all basketball-related. Wallace was convinced that he could get 10 points and 5 rebounds a night out of Baker.
    That wasn't too much to ask of a big man in the Eastern Conference, and especially not someone with Baker's history. The Celtics never got their consistent 10 and 5, and Wallace never got a chance to put a sober, at-peace Baker with Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker.

    We all blasted Wallace for making the trade, and a few people reasoned that the GM should have done his research first. I'm sure he did. I'm also sure that he talked to Baker and found himself taken with the engaging forward.

    Wallace is not the first person to fall into that category. And Baker is not the only person who was able to function on the job -- for a time -- as an alcoholic. Lucas said he has met and heard from many people who don't refer to themselves as alcoholics, but who drink for the same reasons that some alcoholics do.

    "What makes this subject so compelling is that it's not all about drinking," Lucas said. "It's about life. Let me explain. There are several layers to addiction. There is a compulsion of the mind; your mind tells you that you really need that drink. But there is also an emotional and spiritual bankruptcy there. That person has lost his way, lost some of his values. There is something going on with that person that they find unacceptable. There is something that makes them feel that a drink will take the pain away."

    Lucas knows Baker, but he wanted to make it clear that he was speaking generally. He also said the tugs and doubts never fade. Part of recovery is handling ordinary problems without needing a drink.

    Four months ago, Lucas found himself confronted with turning 50. "In my mind, I'm the only one turning 50," he said. "I'm saying, `My life is over. Where's my AARP card?' But that's silly, isn't it? I'm not the only one who's 50. Life is just beginning."

    Let's hope that's the case for Baker. There will likely be lots of appeals from the NBA Players Association, regarding the status of his contract. The Celtics will likely attempt to void it while the union will try to protect one of its own.

    But there are lots of things more important than contracts in this case.
    Celtics ownership and management will have to answer a lot of questions before 2004 is over. They'll have to answer arbitrators as well as their own consciences. Did they do all they could to help Baker?

    And Baker will have to submit some truthful answers, too. Is he continuing to do all he can to help himself?

    Whether he plays another game or not is irrelevant. He is a recovering alcoholic, so he is no longer on an NBA schedule. The opponent is inside Vin Baker now. He'll be fighting for the rest of his life
    .
    Michael Holley is a Globe columnist. His e-mail address is holley@globe.com.

    © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

  • #2
    Re: Is terminating the contract of Vin Baker the right thing to do? articles fro

    He's on Waivers:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1734398

    BOSTON -- The Boston Celtics put Vin Baker on waivers Friday, the next step in releasing the suspended former all-star from a contract that would pay him $36 million over the next 2½ seasons.


    Baker was suspended indefinitely on Jan. 23 for violating a testing program he agreed to last season when he left the team to check into alcohol rehab. He missed his 10th consecutive game on Thursday night, triggering a clause in the agreement that would allow the Celtics to release him.


    By placing him on waivers, the Celtics initiated the process of terminating his contract. Unless another team claims him before Wednesday morning -- a slim possibility -- they can release him.


    "Until the waiver process runs its course, the team will refrain from further comment on this matter," Celtics spokesman Bill Bonsiewicz said in a statement posted on the team's Web site.


    Any move is expected to be contested by the players' association, and it could wind up in arbitration. A spokesman for the NBPA did not immediately return a call seeking comment.


    Baker's spokesman, Jay Nkonoki, could not immediately be reached for comment.


    Saving Baker's salary wouldn't allow the Celtics to be a player on the free agent market, but it could keep them out of luxury tax range.


    Baker missed two months and the playoffs last season after he checked into a Connecticut rehab center. He agreed at the time to follow an aftercare program this season and submit to frequent testing.


    But Baker failed to comply with the terms of the agreement at least three times before he was suspended indefinitely last month. The agreement dictated that only the doctor overseeing Baker's care could determine when he's ready to return, but after the suspension reached 10 games, that authority would transfer to the team.


    In a statement issued late Thursday, Baker said he had done everything required of him to remain in compliance with his program and awaited clearance to play again.


    "I am surprised and disappointed that I have not been cleared to play as of today, but I remain optimistic knowing I have gone above and beyond what has been asked of me during my absence," he said. "My representatives have and will continue to communicate with team officials on my behalf, until I am reinstated."


    Celtics boss Danny Ainge said the decision was in the hands of the team's attorneys.


    "All I know at some point Vin could come back and at some point he could not," Ainge said Thursday night in Chicago, where the Celtics lost to the Bulls to fall to 23-31 on the season.


    Baker's agent, Aaron Goodwin, has not returned repeated calls seeking comment.


    The 6-foot-11 Baker was the eighth overall pick by the Milwaukee Bucks in the 1993 draft. He averaged 21 points and 10 rebounds over his last two seasons in Milwaukee before he was traded to Seattle for the 1997-98 season.


    His first season in Seattle showed only slight drop-off, and he was good enough to be picked for the 2000 U.S. Olympic team. But by the time the Sydney games came around, his play had deteriorated to the point where he was rarely used.


    Baker, who said he began binge drinking during the 1998-99 lockout, was suspended Feb. 27, 2003, and didn't play again last season. But after treatment he returned in better shape and determined to make it up to his teammates.


    He scored in double figures in 21 of his first 35 games, but then his production dropped off again. He totaled just 12 points in four games before being suspended for three games, then played in just two of the next five games before being suspended again.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is terminating the contract of Vin Baker the right thing to do? articles fro

      This is sad... but I can't really fault management.

      What we don't know and don't really need to know is the behind-the-scenes stuff. The C's management has appeared to be supportive and patient, but at some time they have to decide "enough is enough." No matter when they reach that point, the player's union will fight it.

      I understand how/ why the player's union is going to fight this - I'd rather see him suspended indefinitely without pay and that may be where the arbitration ultimately ends up. Because in my opinion, at whatever point they decide to cut him, because he has not performed his duties under the contract, I'd rather see the settlement amount to be $0.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is terminating the contract of Vin Baker the right thing to do? articles fro

        Steve Howe anyone?
        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

        Comment

        Working...
        X