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

Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

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

  • #16
    Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

    Originally posted by Bball
    There is always the chance Stern knew of the issue I am speaking too (well, there's the chance I am wrong too ) and this is a backdoor way to appear tough but allow the suspensions to be cut. "I tried to rule with an iron fist and the courts interferred this time"

    -Bball
    I'd accept that scenario.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

      I think Stern is less concerned about the suspensions holding up than he is about maintaining his committee of one in deciding these matters. If the players win there will be a precident for the union going around Stern.
      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

        Well when I first read this article I got the impression that the suspensions would be reduced.But now after reading a lot of peoples replies IMO I think J.O. should get 10 Jack 20 Artest 35-40.If the suspensions have a chance to be reduced they need to hurry up or else it won't even matter with J.O.'s and Jack's.
        Super Bowl XLI Champions
        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

          Originally posted by recap
          This article makes it sound like the NBA made a mistake by not getting an injunction before the hearing. Interesting. Any lawyers out there have a take on this?
          My brother is a Washington D.C. big time attorney. Here is his response to this information for what it is worth-very good information and explanation to what we may see coming up.


          "The law on arbitrations is essentially that you cannot get court review of an arbitration decision except on very narrow grounds. One of those narrow grounds, however, is where the arbitrator did not have the authority to make the ruling. (Arbitrations are creatures of contract; all parties have to have agreed to arbitration to give an arbitrator any power.) Here, the NBA will argue in federal court that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (the contract) does not provide for arbitration of these sorts of disputes. That argument will still be available to the NBA."

          Makes sense.
          Two=the number 2
          Too=means "also"
          To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

          Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
          They're=they are
          There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

          Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

            Let's revisit exactly what Granik/ The NBA said when it chose not to get a TRO against the hearing last week:

            Associated Press

            NEW YORK -- The NBA informed the players' union Sunday it will not seek a temporary restraining order in federal court, clearing the way for a grievance hearing over suspensions for the Pacers-Pistons brawl.

            Arbitrator Roger Kaplan will preside over the hearing Thursday and Friday at a Manhattan law office. Suspended players Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson are expected to attend. Artest was sidelined for the season, Jackson for 30 games, and O'Neal for 25 for fighting with fans Nov. 19.

            The NBA has already filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging Kaplan's authority to hear the grievance, and the league was expected to try Monday to prevent the hearing from going forward.

            But in phone calls Sunday between attorneys for the two sides, the league told the union it would not be seeking a restraining order.

            "Our position hasn't changed. We've started a proceeding in federal court, and it will remain pending while we see what the arbitrator does," NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik said.

            The union categorized the league's decision as a significant change of course.

            "Our goal all along has been to secure a hearing on the merits of the case as soon as possible. Now, the last impediment from that happening has been removed," union spokesman Dan Wasserman said.

            Kaplan must rule on two issues: Whether commissioner David Stern's penalties can even be appealed to an arbitrator, and the underlying matter of whether the commissioner had just cause for some of the longest fight-related suspensions in league history.

            The league contends the commissioner has sole authority to discipline players for on-court behavior -- and is the only avenue of appeal.

            Indiana's Anthony Johnson, who has already served a six-game suspension, also is contesting his punishment.

            Granik said that because the league does not want to forfeit its right to possibly challenge Kaplan's eventual ruling in federal court, it will not take part in the first segment of Thursday's hearing to argue whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction.

            The second part of the hearing will be the actual grievance itself, and the league's attorneys will argue that Stern's punishments were both fair and consistent with terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

            Kaplan will hear arguments on both issues -- jurisdiction and just cause -- before issuing a ruling on either. If he rules against the union on the jurisdictional issue, the second part of the hearing will have been rendered moot.

            If he rules in the union's favor on both arguments, the league would take immediate action in federal court, Granik said.


            ================================================== =

            In other words, had the league actually shown up at Kaplan's office last week, they would have been signalling that they believed he had jurisdiction. For numerous reasons, they could not afford that risk.

            Further, once the jurisdiction issue is resolved, if the judge actually rules that Kaplan has jurisdiction, the NBA is going to to say, "Okay, Kaplan, when would you like to meet to get this process started?" I can't imagine a scenario in which a judge would simultaneously give Kaplan jurisdiction and also rule that the first meeting, held before the jurisdicition issue was resolved, was valid or binding.
            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


            • #21
              Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
              Will, do you think the courts, who have moved quickly in order to rule in favor of Stern in the past, would issue an injunction forcing the league to abide by the arbitrator *that quickly*?

              Have they even set a court date for a hearing on the initial motion yet?
              Jay hit the nail on the head , this thing is far from over the NBA will fight. J.O and Jax will serve there full suspensions before this all get's worked out. Basically J.O and Jax are in this because if they can get the suspensions reduced they could posiably get lost salary back..same with AJ.
              Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

                Originally posted by Arcadian
                I think Stern is less concerned about the suspensions holding up than he is about maintaining his committee of one in deciding these matters. If the players win there will be a precident for the union going around Stern.
                I disagree. He's going to lose that right in the next contract anyway. What I think Stern will do if Kaplan rules in favor of the players is just say, "Okay we'll go along with what he decided just to promote harmony."

                I think Stern's more concerned with getting along with the union than punishing player's. He's punished them and got his point across, why push it if it hurts relations with the union?

                I've thought all along his reason for coming down so hard was then he could back off a little and look like a good guy, while still scaring the 'heck' out of the players.

                Remember what Granik said? " . . . the league does not want to forfeit its right to possibly challenge Kaplan's eventual ruling in federal court . . . "

                They didn't say they were going to challenge Kaplan's ruling, just that they didn't want to forfeit the right. There's the possibly that they won't challenge the ruling too. I don't think they will challenge it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

                  I have said for about 3 weeks now that Stern will compromise this thing if the arbitrator rules in the players favor, and I firmly believe that

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                    Will, do you think the courts, who have moved quickly in order to rule in favor of Stern in the past, would issue an injunction forcing the league to abide by the arbitrator *that quickly*?
                    No, I don't think the league will challenge the ruling.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

                      Originally posted by Will Galen
                      No, I don't think the league will challenge the ruling.
                      So you think that if the arbitator reduces the suspensions the league will not do anything and we will have JO and everyone back soon?And Unclebuck you think that Stern will compromise a deal?I dunno I myself think the league will challenge it.But I could be wrong.
                      Super Bowl XLI Champions
                      2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

                        Stern likely won't come out and say they will compromise, they will file their suit, but I think before too long (before this goes to federal court) and in a quiet manner a deal will be brokered.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

                          There are a few scenarios possible:

                          First Will's version, very very likely. not challenging could also be part of a below the table deal; We'll et you have this one, but X is what we get back (in the CBA negotiations).

                          Second; They will challenge, go to court and let the judge decide, if that happens IMO they (the NBA) will lose, PA has a very strong case and even the most "right" wing judges do not look to lovingly at "employers" or "contract-parties" with so much "uneven" rights.

                          Finally: (forgetting all the combo's) this is a "schpiel" from Stern.
                          It could very well be that the is playing poker, with a hand he can only win.

                          they challenge, they lose or they win, no matter what, the PA will HAVE to make this a "strong-point" in the CBA negotiations, meaning that if Stern stays put now, he "gives" the impression that it is important to him, this while it is not really, the man studied law, he knows, understands and feels that it was never meant this way, he has a freebie in Ron, so he can take the "bad guy" and a few of his "mates" and throw the book on them, now the PA is forced to make a stance (see the article, conclusion correct) In doing this the NBA (read Stern) has gained points in something HE wants in the CBA, age-limit/contract length/guarantee term etc.
                          That scenario makes it totally unimportant to Stern what happens, he has what he wanted already, bargaining chips, no matter what the outcome.

                          That scenario is the reason I keep saying Stern was just waiting for "anything" to do what he did, it provided him with the best tool he could ever get to back the PA up before the real negotiations even started.
                          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

                            Any word from Kaps???

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Washington Post > Arbitrator Could Reduce Pacers' Suspensions

                              who cares...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X