Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Lockout News and Discussions thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Originally posted by flox View Post
    I don't quite understand this logic. If I was working for a company that was losing money but I was still being paid a wage, I would expect the company to cut other costs rather than ask for money back from employees.
    I would bet that your company would A) reduce your benifits, B) reduce or eliminate you annual raise, C) reduce the work force, (would you be in favor if it were YOU that was let go??), or D) any possible combination of the above... And that is simply if you are a non unionized employee... In this same example, if you were a unionized employee, and your contract happened to be up, I bet the company would try to get as many concessions from you and your union as possible... But at least all of your buddies and yourself would have a job... Lets face it, if the company would continue to hemorrhage money, they will at some point close down and then NO ONE would be employed...

    Originally posted by flox View Post
    I am rooting for a player victory. I hate the current NBA system and want it to crumble.

    If the owners were trying to push for a change that fixes the system, I would root for them. But it doesn't look like they are interested. They are only looking for more money.

    This is why I'd rather root for the players. And if this means contraction, then so be it.
    I agree that I hate the system as it is right now, but if the players get their way, then it will be more of the same... "I dont want to play for ______ any more... Trade me now, and only to ________...
    Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Originally posted by flox View Post
      I am rooting for a player victory. I hate the current NBA system and want it to crumble.

      If the owners were trying to push for a change that fixes the system, I would root for them. But it doesn't look like they are interested. They are only looking for more money.

      This is why I'd rather root for the players. And if this means contraction, then so be it.
      You're rooting for the players but okay with contraction? So let's say 4 teams fold and 60 players lose their jobs. You think that's a victory for the players? More money for the players that still have jobs is worth sacrificing 60 other players? That is the definition of greed. I hope no players actually feel that way.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
        What if the Pacers were the team that folded or were contracted...would you still feel that way?
        No, he would not care...
        Regardless, if any team were to be contracted, the players would have to deal with the ramifications of that down the road, and they are not as simple as New Orleans Hornet organization does not any longer exist...
        Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          Actually it makes a TON of sense to fold the Pacers, along with the other ABA teams. Easy way to kill the old ABA television deal.


          Edit: Also, HOLY COW.

          ESPNSteinLine Marc Stein
          NBPA letter also confirms union can no longer bargain w/owners and informs that unfair labor practice charge filed w/NLRB must be withdrawn
          That's brutal. Did the union realize that?
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • Re: An Excellent Summary of the entire lockout and future regret

            Here is the fundamental problem, and I believe 99 percent of you will agree with me: The owners and players share too much in common. People on each side of the table believe absolutely that they are in the right, that they won't be dictated to, and that they would rather see no season in 2011-12 than to surrender to their partners-turned-enemies.

            The result is that they are all doomed to regret their role in what has happened. Because someday they're going to think about why they got into this business. The owners bought into the league because they love sports, and the players have always played because they love to play. That love is what brought them together, and now look at the harm they're doing to the thing they love most.
            The vast majority of players will look back 20 years from now and regret that they listened to union leadership and greedy agents destroyed much of the goodwill the league had built up from the days when Larry and Magic came out of college and transformed public perception of the NBA.

            Owners will be grateful that they withstood pressure from the media and agents and superstar players and salvaged the league from its unsustainable business model. They will have virtually no regret, unless you count the large market owners regretting that they could not crush the remainder of the franchises and maintain as much of the status quo as possible.

            The whole "love of the game" angle ceased a long time ago, and has absolutely no reason to even be considered as what brought players and owners together. It is "all about the Benjamins" and has been for a very long time. That has been reconfirmed in such a resounding fashion at this point as to make the assertion of the author of this piece seem laughable in my opinion.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              sounds like the only hope is they get a judge that tells them to keep negotiating and cut this silly crap out like the NFL judge did.

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                I wonder how many old guys will say screw it and retire? Last March, Jason Kidd said he would probably just retire if the entire season was missed because it would be too much to get back in shape after missing an entire season. If they don't play until the fall of 2012 then that's a year and a half since you last played a significant game. That's a looong time for a an old guy.

                http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba...ory?id=6235594

                It would be a shame if he really did retire. He was a huge part of the Mavs success and easily had a couple good years left in him. Such a solid team leader. He does so many things for them. Runs the offense, savvy defender, and is a leader.

                Simmons keeps bringing this up on twitter and hes' right: Why did they wait until freaking October to start serious negotiations when they have known for YEARS that this was going to be an ugly situation. That is the leadership's biggest failure here.

                I've generally supported the NBA and owners and you can blame both sides for this, but I put most of the blame for that on the NBA and Stern. They were the ones who wanted the significant changes so it was more on them to initiate the process. Stern has been the commissioner for almost 30 years, so I think it's legitimate to hold him accountable for not getting this process started sooner.

                They waited until their backs were against the wall when they couldn't put it off any longer and are paying for it.

                This whole thing is just ridiculous. As Simmons said, there will probably be a book written on this. Has any professional sports league ever screwed up such a golden thing? Maybe Tony George with IndyCar, but that's about the only example I can think of.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 11-15-2011, 07:24 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
                  It wasnt just the players that were mislead, it was us the fans... They were never as close to a deal as was claimed...
                  That's not true.

                  On October 28 (a Friday) the league front offices and player agencies were told to and started planning for free agency to begin on Monday, October 31. Both the league and the players were preparing for this to be the case, until all hell broke loose that weekend.

                  They were on the 1 yard line, they just couldn't punch it in.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                    That's not true.

                    On October 28 (a Friday) the league front offices and player agencies were told to and started planning for free agency to begin on Monday, October 31. Both the league and the players were preparing for this to be the case, until all hell broke loose that weekend.

                    They were on the 1 yard line, they just couldn't punch it in.
                    So true. I have often wondered whether the hardliners on each side would have toed the line if Hunter/Fisher and Stern/Silver had been able to agree on something before Garnett, et. al. and Allen, et. al. stuck their noses into the mix.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      I think among a whole list of things, perhaps the biggest mistake the union made was not to put it to a full vote - I think that will come back to haunt them

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I think among a whole list of things, perhaps the biggest mistake the union made was not to put it to a full vote - I think that will come back to haunt them
                        The NRLB would have expected that.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          http://sheridanhoops.com/

                          The NBA’s nuclear winter has begun


                          By Chris Sheridan
                          November 15, 2011 at 7:48 AM

                          NEW YORK — The above image is the new Avatar on colleague Alan Hahn’s Twitter account — @alanhahn.

                          Yes, nuclear winter arrived yesterday, the day before what was supposed to be the first payday for players in the 2011-12 NBA season. But today is forecast to be another 65 degree day in the city that used to be the headquarters of the National Basketball Players Association, which technically no longer exists. Sort of. Just don’t try checking their Web site for clarification.

                          It is time for another mea culpa, because I have maintained a sense of optimism throughout this arduous negotiation and failed to back off when I should have. A little less than two weeks ago, when Billy Hunter was still demanding a 52.5 percent share of revenues but would not answer my question at union headquarters about whether he was prepared to drop one penny below 52 percent, as he had previously claimed, an alarm bell should have gone off.

                          And when Hunter dropped all the way down to 50-50 without being very, very specific about what that 50-50 offer was contingent upon, I should have forecast both his demise and the demise of this negotiation.

                          The best deal that Hunter and David Stern could have done to save face, save an 82-game season and save some semblance of the goodwill from the public that had been built up over the past few seasons was a 51-49 split. Once Hunter showed a willingness to drop to 50-50, he had given away the store. He went past the tipping point, commissioner David Stern did not throw him a lifeline, and the 50 players in the room yesterday were so ready to abandon ship that it took less than an hour from the time attorney David Boies entered the room to get to the point where the player reps were raising their hands in unanimity to have a new captain steering their vessel.

                          Who knows where this thing goes next, because the winds can shift dramatically in this epic epoch of idiocy. If I am Stern, I immediately either call Jeffrey Kessler and make him a better offer, or I start bellowing about how the latest proposal should have been put to a vote of the entire player population, trying to make someone else the villain and the object of the public’s scorn. (He’ll likely choose the latter).

                          But you know what? Stern has only himself to blame, because he could have pushed this thing over the finish line two weeks ago when the possibility of an 82-game season was still alive. Instead, he hammered away and hammered away, bringing out the competitive edge in his players, who wouldn’t be playing pro sports for a living if they hadn’t been born with the competitiveness gene. There is a reason why there is a mercy rule in several sports, and it should have been invoked. Instead, Stern went for a 50-point victory when he was leading by 40 late in the fourth quarter, and now look at how that strategy has panned out.
                          One of the themes I have constantly come back to is that these were smart, reasonable men negotiating this deal, and common sense and logic dictated that a mutually acceptable endgame was going to be there for both sides to embrace, even if they had to do so reluctantly.

                          You know what? I was naive. And to those readers who have complained that I gave them a false sense of hope, I apologize. But you know what else? This should have been settled. Everyone can see that. It was the logical thing to do.

                          But sometimes, logic is trumped by greed and idiocy. Life ain’t always fair. That is the lesson of the day.

                          With that, let’s have our daily look around the Web, where vitriol is in such high supply that today’s excerpts run a little longer than usual:

                          From Jason Whitlock of FOXSports.com: “After Stern’s media mouthpieces were done blasting the players, the commissioner took to his business partners’ airwaves (ESPN) and blasted the players again. He called Hunter irresponsible, described the union’s move to decertify a “charade” and generally dumped all over union leadership. Throughout this process, Stern has huffed and puffed about take-it-or-leave-it proposals/ultimatums. He played the role of bully. And maybe in the coming days he will back up that tough talk with even tougher action. Maybe Stern will cancel the season and make good on his promise to give the players an even worse deal. If so, his legacy as commissioner should go up in flames along with the season.

                          Stern never struck the right tone with players. He treated the players like they’re the media members who live in fear of Stern’s wrath. He treated the players with little regard for respect. Unlike the media, the players do have a rare skill that has significant value globally. They’re not going to respond well to being bullied. As commissioner, Stern’s goal should’ve been about getting a deal done and making sure his workers were happy going back to work. Stern should’ve demanded that his media mouthpieces fully and fairly aired the players‘ position so the players felt like they had been heard and respected. Stern’s bully tactics backfired.”

                          From Ian Thomsen of SI.com: For the NBA owners and players to shut down their league during the worst economic times in more than 60 years has got to be the dumbest thing they could imagine doing. At a time when so many businesses are fighting for every last dollar, the NBA players and owners are giving back money to their season-ticket holders — their die-hard fans — and saying we don’t want it. Put that money back in your pockets for now, and when we decide to start playing again, think about whether we are worthy of your investment. The priorities and sensibilities of the owners and players exemplify an arrogance that now threatens the future of their business. But the players and owners don’t see it that way.

                          They are too focused on viewing their relationship as a divorce rather than a marriage. Someday the owners and players are going to view this argument the way millions of people around the world view it today. At that time in the distant future, when it will be far too late, everyone involved is going to feel regret for his role in a mess that — given the economic environment and the pessimistic mood of the country — threatens to become worse than the Tim Donaghy scandal, the 2004 brawl in Detroit and the 1998-99 lockout combined.”

                          From Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo Sports: “ As much as anything, the NBA has started down this dark, uncertain path because leadership has been so deplorable. From union officials to agents, from star players to the commissioner’s office to hardline owners, they’ve all conspired to take a do-able deal and push it to a catastrophic brink that will cause irreparable damage to the industry. … Ultimately, Stern has failed to finesse those hardliners, instead inspiring as much loathing with some owners as he has with players. He can’t sell a fair deal to his hardline owners, which left him unable to sell a one-sided agreement to his players.

                          A source briefed on the meeting said (Kobe) Bryant essentially told those player reps: If we’re going to give up our salaries for a year, you better be in this for the long run. You better be prepared to fight.

                          Make no mistake: Hunter didn’t sell those players on a long court battle, a possible victory with millions and millions of dollars paid for damages. He sold it as a way to lure the owners back to the table, to do something he had been unwilling to do out of self-interest for the longest time: Create leverage and take the fight to the NBA. He’ll never admit it, but those players didn’t walk out of the room completely believing they had forfeited a year’s salary.

                          Too many of the player reps didn’t know the difference between a disclaimer of interest, decertification and “Dancing with the Stars” when they walked into that meeting. As it usually goes in these labor talks, whoever gets the players’ ears last can talk them in and out of almost any directive. The agents were locked out, cell phones confiscated at the door, and Hunter had a captive audience with some big fancy antitrust lawyers to make his case. Too many of those player reps are young kids who were given the task as a locker-room punishment, or older guys looking for the free annual meeting in the Caribbean.

                          Hunter should’ve been out recruiting the best of the best for this labor fight, but why would he want Shane Battier in that room, challenging him, asking him like he did in June: Why are you still taking a salary when the NFL’s DeMaurice Smith gave up his during the lockout? Hunter sold a plan that – surprise, surprise – keeps him on his $2.5 million salary, keeps him in charge of the court battle. But most of all, this move gives the NBA a much better chance of selling a judge on Stern’s charges that this was a charade, a phony negotiating tactic.”

                          From Dave D’Allessandro of the Newark Star-Ledger: “ By already agreeing to drop their share of the basketball-related income from 57 percent to 50 percent, the players in effect helped the owners make up for any shortfall they claim to have had last year. That’s the most significant concession to come out of the last six months of “negotiation” by far. Not enough. There are other givebacks all over the latest league proposal. Some are absurd, some are not. An example of the latter: Owners wanted to stop the trend of players leaving for larger markets, mostly by preventing taxpaying teams from having sign-and-trade options in free agency; and by killing “extend-and-trade” deals, such as the one Carmelo Anthony took with Denver last year. Fine. We’re not entirely against some restrictions, frankly. It had to be administered after what happened to poor Dan Gilbert, who had the value of his Cleveland franchise drop from $467 million to $220 million when one guy with a massive ego split for South Beach. Of course, if such a thing had to happen at all, we’re not entirely against it happening to an owner like Gilbert — a fellow practiced in the art of suckering the public into iffy outlays, as both a subprime mortgage whiz and casino owner. It’s guys like Gilbert who have driven this lockout. We’re glad the players stood up to him, even if some think the numbers are fair. But sometimes it’s not about numbers. The NBA’s asset is its work force: They don’t produce a product, the laborers themselves are the product. And if the majority of the work force thinks it’s getting a raw deal, it’s time to use whatever leverage you have. Take it to court, or at least threaten the move. Yes, there has been failure on both sides. The players don’t always understand the business model, or appreciate that some of it has to change. The owners’ failure is about tone and sensibility. You don’t say, “Take it or leave it” to these guys, especially when you’re not giving anything back. A judge would agree: You can’t give ultimatums and call yourself “a negotiator.” And since that’s true — and league attorneys know it — this will never get to a judge.”

                          From Ken Berger of CBSSports.com: “The blood, for the moment, is on the players’ hands — because they once again allowed themselves to be cornered in this negotiation, with another ultimatum and no good way out. And when professional athletes — and Hunter — have no other choice but to fight, they are always going to fight. The owners pushed too hard, demanded too much, sought absolute victory to the point where they are going to wind up beating themselves.

                          A $3 billion shift from players to owners by lowering player salaries from 57 percent of revenues to 50 percent — a $300 million annual giveback, all of the money the owners said they were losing — wasn’t enough. The owners sent Stern in for blood, and he’s got it now — all over him. The players? What was described Monday at the Westin Times Square — site of the infamous blowup of talks over the BRI split on Oct. 4 — had the feeling of a pre-ordained act to remove Hunter from power and transform this fiasco from a pointless staredown into the mother of all antitrust lawsuits. As Hunter described, union officials explained the owners’ proposal, which would’ve been replaced by a far worse one if the players didn’t accept it. He then laid out the options: present it to the full body for a vote; reject it; make a counterproposal; or give the NBPA the authority to “do whatever they deem necessary and appropriate going forward,” Hunter said. ”And then all of a sudden, the players said, ‘No, we want to talk about decertification or disclaimer,’ ” Hunter said. “So it actually came from the floor.

                          And when it came from the floor, then that’s when we began to engage on the issue.” The players then decided that a disclaimer was the route they wanted to pursue, because, you know, players tend to spend a lot of time sitting around thinking of obscure legal strategies. … A disclaimer was the one weapon at the union’s disposal that causes the most chaos the fastest, so maybe there is legal genius in that alone. Once the players file their antitrust lawsuit, the league presumably would follow through on its threat to void all player contracts. Technically, the league would be free to start over — with new rules, a new draft, and new ways of assigning players to teams. The players would bargain individually, and they wouldn’t be considered scabs since they are no longer represented by a union.

                          But a disclaimer isn’t a stronger hand than decertification, and unlike decertification, bargaining talks cannot continue between the league and union. All that can result is a settlement reached by the attorneys — which at some point would take the form of a collective bargaining agreement if a simple majority of players voted to reinstate the union and the owners decided to recognize it. But that eventuality is a long way off, and it would be a moot point if a federal judge rules that the union’s disclaimer tactic is a sham.”
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-15-2011, 09:02 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            I don't quite understand this logic. If I was working for a company that was losing money but I was still being paid a wage, I would expect the company to cut other costs rather than ask for money back from employees.

                            Yes a lot of companies in the US found that the easies way to cut cost to pay the remaining employees was to fired a bunch of employees....
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                              I agree. And it seems odd that the union president and player reps would be legally able to dissolve the union without bringing it to a full vote of the members.

                              So it seems like there might be 2 issues:

                              1) Not allowing the rank and file to vote on the proposal.
                              2) Not allowing the rank and file to vote on disbanding the union.

                              Or did they have a vote to kill the union and I just don't know about it?
                              The union has some big name attorneys in their corner so they may be within their rights in this move, but I'm certain they have some legal obligations to their members to represent their interest after collecting their dues. At the very least I don't see how the players can call for unity any longer when the union doesn't even exist. If there really is a silent majority of the players who disagree with the agents and superstars it's going to be much more difficult to keep them in line now with no union. The door should be open for the rank and file players who really want to accept the leagues offer and play to speak out and take action. It only takes one very vocal player to make a difference. The only thing stopping him is the peer pressure put on him by superstar players to get in line with their position.
                              With no union in place it may be legal for the league to reach out to a few of these players and encourage a movement to accept the agreement. I don't think they would be in violation of labor laws to interact with the players now.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Sounds like the agents have almost complete control now.

                                http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...?sct=nba_t2_a3



                                Today, by unanimous vote of the executive committee and player representatives, the National Basketball Players Association disclaimed its status as your collective bargaining representative. As a result, we will now function as a trade association to assist and support NBA players, but we will no longer engage in collective bargaining with the NBA owners. The Players Association will instead dedicate itself to supporting individual NBA players in the assertion of your non-labor rights to be free of any illegal restrictions on competition for your services.
                                For two and a half years and through more than 50 collective bargaining sessions, we sat at the table and attempted to negotiate a fair labor agreement with the owners. Last week, with the issuance of yet another ultimatum - a take it or leave it final offer of a long-term agreement with unacceptable terms - Commissioner Stern and the owners left us with no other option. It has become clear to us that we have exhausted our rights under the labor laws, and continuing in that forum would not be in the best interests of the players.
                                With no labor union in place, it is our sincere hope that the NBA will immediately end its now illegal boycott and finally open the 2011-12 season. Individual teams are free to negotiate with free agents for your services. If the owners choose to continue their present course of action, it is our view that they subject themselves to significant antitrust liability.
                                Today's decision was not made lightly and holds enormous consequences, including among other things, the following:
                                • As mentioned, we cannot engage in collective bargaining with the owners.
                                • We can no longer assert any labor law rights on behalf of players, and we will be withdrawing our unfair labor practice charge before the National Labor Relations Board.
                                • We can no longer prosecute individual grievances on behalf of players. We will communicate in the future regarding the status of any pending grievances or appeals.
                                • We can no longer regulate agents. Our status in regulating agents derives from our authority under the National Labor Relations Act as the players' bargaining representative. With that status ended, likewise our agent regulation program is terminated.
                                The NBPA will always be here to assist individual players in asserting your rights outside of the labor laws and to improve business conditions of all professional basketball players in the NBA. So, for example, among other things, we will seek to:
                                • Engage in group licensing activities;
                                • Create opportunities for players to enhance off-court income;
                                • Enable and encourage players to engage in charitable and civic activities to benefit both your fellow citizens and your communities;
                                • Serve as a clearinghouse for information related to your services as NBA players; and
                                • Otherwise do all we can to promote, protect, and enhance your careers as professional basketball players.
                                We will continue to correspond with you on business matters on a regular basis, and our New York headquarters will remain open. Please feel free to contact Billy or the NBPA legal staff with any questions or concerns you may have. We urge you very strongly as a legal matter to please not make any public or private comments on these matters. You may refer any questions to the NBPA legal staff.
                                As always, thank you for your support.


                                Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz1dmkyYNZV
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X