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

Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

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

  • Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?


    The first thought that comes to mind on this subject if this were to happen would be the Player Agents throwing themselves out of windows because they wouldn’t be able to pay for their Rolexes or Mercedes…all kidding aside. What would the NBA be like if this were to happen?
    fficeffice" />>>
    Would there be ……..
    • A better salary cap and more workable luxury tax? Having the salary cap in place every year like the NFL gives your bigger contracted player much more flexibility to show just how much HE cares about winning compared to Greed. Being able to restructure shows more good will to your commitment to winning and to your organization. Teams would then be able to slot their players into dollar slots on the pecking list. Trading players between teams would then become much easier because of the contract flexibility.
    • More competitive teams, and yet better front offices that would have to actually manage a teams finances .Owners such as Mark Cuban or Micky Arison would no longer have a selling advantage such as the no state income tax that routinely draws the top name players to an area or a specific team. Teams could easily slot players with large or small $$ amounts, but when was the last time a team with a VERY high payroll (see the Knicks and Mavericks) won a World Championship. No, by the nature of the beast teams will have to actually scout the colleges for better role players for their teams.
    • Sensible contracts due only to the players actual skill , no longer would agents of certain star players be able to hold up teams because they want one of their less gifted clients to get a decent contract. Yeah, that never happens….The NBA scouting camps that happen after the college season has completed would then become more of an NFL scouting combine. A controlled environment that coaches and trainers could actually accurately rate the basketball skills instead of the dunking ability. They would also be able to give better psychological evaluations on each player wanting to enter the draft. Those evaluations would be worth their weight in gold.
    • The bottom line is that players would then have to perform night in and night out and not mail in a game. In the pre-free agent days players actually worried about their job security. Shouldn’t they now?
    I am curious to see what rest of the Pacer nation thinks about on this topic, and who knows maybe someone in an NBA front office will take notice.

  • #2
    Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

    The main reason I'd like to see the non guaranteed contract is maybe it would eliminate someone like Alonzo putting the screws to two teams like he did. Getting paid big bucks for being a cancer is one heck of a trick. So actually maybe he should be admired for his skill in doing so.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

      The NBA is the only organization that I know that has gauranteed contracts. Do any of you. I know when was working we sure did not. It just allows anyone who wants to to loaf up until the last year then show up. I know that not the case by most players, but there are some. So why do they have the gauranteed contracts?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

        Originally posted by OTD View Post
        The NBA is the only organization that I know that has gauranteed contracts. Do any of you. I know when was working we sure did not. It just allows anyone who wants to to loaf up until the last year then show up. I know that not the case by most players, but there are some. So why do they have the gauranteed contracts?
        I am pretty sure that the MLB and NHL have them but I am not sure because frankly I could care less about those two leagues.
        Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
        I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

          Non Guaranteed contracts is something i'm strongly for.

          It would go away from being a players league. Really, for the most part, it would elminate the thought of a player only playing well in his contract year because he wants that big guaranteed contract.

          About the only real negative about non guaranteed contracts is that players can demand to re-negoiate but that is really how it should be. They should get paid what they deserve.

          It would be a hard sell to get the Players Union to agree, but it is something that the league needs to push for. It would suck for those lazy players, but it would be great for the rest who want to win.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

            The biggest problem in the NBA isn't the "thug" players.....

            Its the "thug" players union!

            Time to put the blame , where the blame belongs!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

              Originally posted by rommie View Post
              Non Guaranteed contracts is something i'm strongly for.

              It would go away from being a players league. Really, for the most part, it would elminate the thought of a player only playing well in his contract year because he wants that big guaranteed contract.

              About the only real negative about non guaranteed contracts is that players can demand to re-negoiate but that is really how it should be. They should get paid what they deserve.

              It would be a hard sell to get the Players Union to agree, but it is something that the league needs to push for. It would suck for those lazy players, but it would be great for the rest who want to win.
              I think it would single-handedly reverse the half-hearted, apathetic attitude that accompanies a large chunk of players. That's why the NFL is such a great league. One thing as well, there is such a disparity in talent level between the West and the East. I think this would eventually level out the talent field, by not hamstringing ball clubs with bad contracts long after a player has outlived his usefulness. All in all, I would love to see it, but the NBAPA would sooner cut off a limb than give away their guaranteed status on contracts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

                Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                The biggest problem in the NBA isn't the "thug" players.....

                Its the "thug" players union!

                Time to put the blame , where the blame belongs!
                its partly the 'thug' union but i also think its about the players themselves because i don't think it is an unreasonable thing to ask for (from the players perspective). so the league shares as much blame in that regard as the union for letting contracts and such get so far out of control. but the players are the ones who have decided that just because they have a guarenteed contracts they don't need to play until the final year (obviously this doesn't apply to every player with a longterm/high salary deal, but a lot). to me getting a longterm deal would be a ton of pressure to live up to it so you'd work your *** of to 'earn' it. but instead players seem to coast.

                another thing the NFL does is lace their contracts with incentives. i'm not aware if the NBA does this too, but that could also be another idea: put a salary limit for players (like no more than $10mil a season, but load it with playing incentives up to $10mil more...just tossing out example #s). another idea is actually limiting the length of contracts. don't put a salary limit on a player but no contract can be longer than 2 or 3 years. im not sure if any of this is possible, but i also don't know how we can go back at this point to non-guarenteed contracts
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

                  I absolutely would love if the salary side of the NBA was more like the NFL (although I say that with hesitation because I'm largely ignorant of the NFL) because from an outsider's perspective, the NFL is extremely flexible in this arena. The players can't just dog it after they earn a 6-year deal, contracts can be altered, and it just seems in general that whatever they're doing, the players stay hungry, teams are stuck with bad contracts, and we all know the league is thriving.

                  The problem is getting the players union to budge. I don't think they will. And it's sad because they're screwing themselves over but they're too greedy to admit it. Or even if their hearts are at least somewhat in the right place, they still don't see that in the end, this will continue to hurt the NBA.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    The problem is getting the players union to budge. I don't think they will. And it's sad because they're screwing themselves over but they're too greedy to admit it. Or even if their hearts are at least somewhat in the right place, they still don't see that in the end, this will continue to hurt the NBA.
                    I've always thought/been told that the job of a union isn't to protect the top members, but to protect the bottom ones.

                    Guarunteed contracts are more beneficial to a Eddie Gill type player, even though they're making the league minimum. If they were to be cut before they're contract has run through, they wouldn't get as much money as if they were with the team for the full contract length.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

                      I think it would be fair to guarantee that the player is paid for the rest of the year regardless of being cut, but don't let that spill into multi-year guarantees.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

                        Just think if the NFL didn't have non-guaranteed contracts. Would the Pats stay as good as they have been? I highly doubt it.

                        Now, think if the NBA had non-guaranteed contracts. Just think of the Pacers alone. I bet Austin Croshere would have re-constructed his contract, Bender would have been cut a long time ago and those two things alone probably would have given the Pacers many more opitions, making us much better. A team like Sacramento, they have slowly gone downhill since their Western Conference Finals loss to the Lakers, and part of that is they were hampered by Chris Webber's contract.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

                          Just remember to consider this ... the NFL allows signing bonuses, which are guaranteed and count against the cap no matter what. The bonus hit on the cap is prorated out through the life of the contract, but if a player is cut, the bonus accelerates forward. So if, for example, Reggie Wayne and Peyton Manning were cut by the Colts tomorrow, there'd be a huge cap hit. It'd really hamstring the team.

                          The question isn't just as simple as saying, 'We want non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL.' It's truly different system and situation. Not really comparable in my mind.

                          To me, the main reason the NFL seems to have more players that care is because they're so much easier to replace. Player shelf lives are shorter. Finding a No. 5/6 wide receiver is more a matter of perference than anything else. Finding a No. 3 PG, on the other hand, is a different world. You can't just pull someone from the NBDL on a whim and expect them to work out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

                            Here is a good site on the NFL's salary cap.

                            http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Non Guaranteed Player contracts…..Would they help the NBA or destroy it?

                              Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                              The biggest problem in the NBA isn't the "thug" players.....

                              Its the "thug" players union!

                              Time to put the blame , where the blame belongs!

                              How can you separate the two? Answer, you cannot. They are one and the same, so if you are going to label the union as "thug", you are therefore calling the players, "thug". Hint, the union is carrying out the wishes and demands of the players, it is really that simple.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X