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

NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

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

  • #16
    Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

    Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
    Hehehe!

    These two words get misused more than just about any others I can think of, aside from "to, two and too"

    Your correct in what your saying, but that is just your're opinion

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Your correct in what your saying, but that is just your're opinion

      AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

        You guys are really trying to make poor anthem have a stroke lol.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

          Originally posted by TheDon View Post
          AAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
          You are making two much of all this, I am going too leave right now and come back in to hours. Otherwise I will loose it. Either way though it is a lose, we loss either way
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-26-2011, 02:41 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            You are making two much of all this, I am going too leave right now and come back in to hours.
            You're a bad man.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Your correct in what your saying, but that is just your're opinion
              Hehehe!

              These two words get misused more than just about any others I can think of, aside from "to, two and too"
              And along comes Unclebuck to remind us of another misused word...

              This is two much fun too continue.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                I think the chances of avoiding a lockout went up. But maybe not by much, according to this analysis:

                http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...out/index.html



                Still, I'd think the NBA would try harder to negotiate a deal before entering a lockout situation.
                Just what I was going to say. These are two significantly different situations.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

                  This is a good article

                  http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...rom-nba-owners


                  NBA owners intend to submit a revised collective bargaining proposal to the players by Friday and are hopeful the document will "get the conversation going" in the wake of NFL players' significant anti-trust victory in federal court, a person familiar with the situation told CBSSports.com Tuesday.

                  The person declined to divulge details of the new proposal, which will arrive in the hands of National Basketball Players Association officials nearly two months to the day before the expiration of the current CBA at 12:01 a.m. July 1.

                  While high-ranking NBA executives and attorneys believe the NFL has a chance to win its appeal to the Eighth Circuit on a U.S. District Court ruling Monday temporarily suspending pro football's lockout, there is no dispute among basketball officials that the ruling puts the onus on the NBA and its union to negotiate a new deal rather than have the process hijacked by the uncertainty of the courts.

                  David Stern and the NBA received a wake-up call with the recent NFL ruling. (Getty Images)
                  "We're both going to give it our best shot and try to avoid the courts," a person familiar with the bargaining talks told CBSSports.com.

                  The ruling enjoining the NFL lockout by U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson, pending appeal, put the NFL in limbo Tuesday. Agents were unsure whether their clients should report to team facilities, and the league stated that no official workouts should take place until after a stay of Nelson's ruling is granted or a ruling is rendered on appeal -- which is expected to take weeks. In a sign of the weirdness, about 20 members of the Miami Dolphins held their own practice Tuesday on a soccer field not far from the team's official training facility, according to the Miami Herald.

                  But more to the point of where the NBA stands in its bargaining position with the players, the NFL faces the difficult burden of imposing work rules under which business can be done in the meantime. If the NBA went the same route -- locking out players and leaving itself vulnerable to an unfavorable court ruling that would require it to operate -- the menu of alternatives may not be as appetizing as simply negotiating the best deal owners can get with the players while the union still exists.

                  "There's no question it's a victory for the players," an NBA management source said of the NFL ruling. "There's no other way to characterize it."

                  If the NBA, facing a similar legal outcome, attempted to impose rules that were more restrictive than those in the expiring CBA, it would open itself up to further legal action, legal sources said. There also is a significant risk to the players, who would have voluntarily relinquished their right to bargain collectively. The risk to NBA players' future salaries is greater than for their NFL counterparts because NBA contracts currently on the books contain more guaranteed money. The NBA owners' position, legal sources say, would be that all future guaranteed money -- about $4 billion in total -- would be null and void if the NBPA followed the same course of decertification and anti-trust action. The players, of course, would sue to recoup the money -- opening another uncertain and time-consuming legal front and putting their future earnings in the hands of a federal judge.

                  The NBA's situation also is different because the league has documented that it is not operating profitably under the current CBA. Commissioner David Stern said recently that 22 teams are projected to lose a total of $300 million this season. Similar losses in prior years of the agreement have been documented to the union in the form of audited financial statements and tax returns.

                  If the NBA decided that going to court would provide a better outcome than negotiating, its trump card would be the belief that no federal judge or appeals court panel would force a sports league to operate at a loss. But if it goes that far, some outcomes are more appealing to both sides than others. For one, the league could opt to impose work rules leaving the current soft-cap/luxury-tax system in place but unilaterally reducing the players' share of revenue from 57 percent to, for example, 40 percent. The legal argument would be that the owners have no choice but to impose a pay cut because they are being forced by the courts to operate and are losing money under the existing model. It is unknown whether such a tactic would survive legal challenge, which could be lengthy, expensive, and less productive than negotiating before it got to that point.

                  Another option: Owners who believed the courts would not approve rules allowing them to be profitable simply could decide to shut down their businesses. The specter of contraction -- a negotiating tactic that would evolve into a very real threat during a lengthy court fight -- would not be desirable to the players because of the dozens of jobs that would be lost.

                  The question the players would be asking themselves during a court battle is, would they rather take a 20 percent pay cut, lose an entire season, or lose dozens of jobs if the least profitable teams went out of business? Similarly, the owners and Stern -- who has ruled the NBA with an iron fist and absolute control for more than a quarter century -- would be forced to ask themselves whether they'd rather negotiate with union chief Billy Hunter (the evil they know) or have the future of their sport decided by the courts (the evil they don't).

                  That's the problem with the courts. No judge will ever go so far as to write a new collective bargaining agreement for owners and players. That part will be up to them. Whether they choose to do so before the courts get involved or after, when it will be far more difficult, should be an easy call.

                  So as the playoffs roll on this week, with thrilling outcomes, potential upsets and sky-rocketing TV ratings, a judge in Minnesota has done what neither Stern nor Hunter has been able to do for two years: transformed the chances of an NBA lockout from inevitable to unlikely. At the very least, she has taken what seemed like a slam-dunk tactic for the owners and turned it into a heave at the shot-clock horn. As a result, the best option for NBA owners and players is to call a timeout, huddle up, and get this done. Whatever they do to each other behind closed doors will be far less painful than the alternative.
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-27-2011, 11:24 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

                    Another option: Owners who believed the courts would not approve rules allowing them to be profitable simply could decide to shut down their businesses. The specter of contraction -- a negotiating tactic that would evolve into a very real threat during a lengthy court fight -- would not be desirable to the players because of the dozens of jobs that would be lost.

                    The question the players would be asking themselves during a court battle is, would they rather take a 20 percent pay cut, lose an entire season, or lose dozens of jobs if the least profitable teams went out of business?
                    havin a laugh are we ?

                    Like the Maloofs will shut down a business they paid 500 mil for ? like Simon is dropping an estimated 267 million.
                    That's a lot of years losing money if you shut it down.

                    And that is if you belief the losing money story, which I am sure is in large parts "created" in the books.
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

                      What if as part of the contraction process proposal the players have to consider the NBA buying out the teams being contracted?

                      The Silnas got a pretty good deal agreeing not to field a team and just going away....
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

                        If I've been reading correctly, unlike the NFL, the NBA is opening their books to the NBAPA. If they're fudging these losses, we'll likely hear about it from the players, I have to imagine.

                        As for contraction, I agree that if it came to that the NBA would likely have to buy the teams from the owners.

                        At this point, all I care about is a speedy resolution. If they can figure something out by July, great.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: NFL lockout deemed "illegal"... How does it effect the NBA's collective bargaining this summer?

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          If I've been reading correctly, unlike the NFL, the NBA is opening their books to the NBAPA. If they're fudging these losses, we'll likely hear about it from the players, I have to imagine.
                          And so we have. From an article posted by UB in another thread:

                          http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...qdE_story.html

                          Despite the NBA owners’ unprecedented decision during these labor talks to open their books to the union, the sides can’t even agree on what the numbers say. Silver said last week 22 of the league’s 30 teams lost money this past year with collective losses at $300 million (better than the $340 million lost the previous year). Hunter maintained during an interview days later that not even a single team is in the red, saying the union disputes elements of the league’s accounting, such as including as losses depreciation figures and certain third-party transactions with team-owned companies.
                          Contraction is a potent threat against the players, and I guess there's a financial argument there that the surviving owners would be better off with fewer teams. On the other hand, I see this as something of an empty threat as long as Stern remains the commissioner. He's always put great stock on the NBA's brand and reach, no way would he allow a contraction.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X