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

The Salary Picture

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

  • The Salary Picture

    The Pacers' salary situation improved quite a bit over the summer.

    This time last year, the Pacers had a payroll of more than $80 million. They had the second highest payroll commitments (second to the Knicks) going out to the end of '08-'09.

    Worst of all, the Pacers last year paid 16.8 percent of their payroll to non-players (Miller, Bender and Walker). This year the sum of Edwards' $1.1 million and White's $412 K will amount to 2% of the payroll.

    The outta control payroll was one of three things that bugged me about the Pacers. I'm still bugged by the other two, but I'm pleased to acknowledge:

    1. the reduced total commitment
    2. the reduced commitment to nonproductive players


    To those who say we're in the midst of a two-year rebuilding project, there's hope. Salary cap flexibility is within reach, maybe as early as next year.


    Maybe someone can clear up some uncertainty here. Hoopshype shows the Pacers with $69 million payroll. Their player-by-player listing only shows $58.7 because it leaves out Harrington, Armstrong, Baston and Greene.

    http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/indiana.htm

    And Hoopshype also is listing Jon Bender's salary. But the Pacers aren't paying that, are they? Bender was declared a medical retirement and insurance will pay his last year. So how is Hoopshype right or wrong about the Pacers?

    Patricia Bender simply says Greene and Armstrong will make "minimum" and that Baston will make $1.8 million over two years and Harrington will make $35.3 over four years.

    http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/contracts
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: The Salary Picture

    Bender's salary is not being paid by the pacers and it doesn't count against the salary cap. Hoopshype.com is wrong

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Salary Picture

      UB, I was gonna say the same thing, but you beat me to it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Salary Picture

        Thanks for clarifying the details about Bender. But what do you think about knocking off more than $10 million from the payroll. We are still encumbered with 5 more years of Tinsley and four more years of Jackson, but those are one less than last year.

        Except for Jermaine's max contract, I feel good about the other guys who are locked in for multiple years: Granger, Daniels and Harrington. Even Foster.

        Don't you like the payroll better now that a year ago?
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Salary Picture

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          Don't you like the payroll better now that a year ago?
          Much.

          Would have liked to get out from under Jack's salary, though.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Salary Picture

            I keep tract of the Pacers salaries. Here's the latest I have. If you have information different from this please post it.

            ---
            As of 08-22-06 according to PD members.

            Player.....................2006-07
            Jermaine O'Neal........$18,084,000
            Al Harrington.............$7,600,000
            Stephen Jackson.......$6,120,000
            Marquis Daniels.........$5,880,000
            Jamaal Tinsley..........$5,850,000
            Jeff Foster................$5,225,000
            Sarunas Jasikevicius...$4,000,000
            Danny Granger..........$1,417,800
            Darrell Armstrong.......$1,178,348 (7) The NBA pays $433,797.
            Shawne Williams........$1,139,800 (2)
            John Edwards............$1,080,000
            Maceo Baston...........$900,000 (1)
            Josh Powell...............$744,551 (5)
            David Harrison...........$739,080
            Rawle Marshall...........$664,209
            Orien Greene.............$664,209? (6)
            Jimmy (Snap) Hunter...$100,000 (4)
            James White..............$744,400 (3)
            ----------------------------
            Total................$62,131,397, Pacers are responsable for $61,697,600.

            The luxury tax threshold is $65,420,000.

            The NBA salary cap for 2006-07 is officially $53,135,000.

            (1) http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...608040541/1088
            ---

            (2) Rookie scale
            ---

            (3) White reportedly got two years guaranteed, and it was reported by the Star he got 1st round money. So my guess is he got the same money as the 30th pick. http://www.washingtoninformer.com/SPWhite2006Jul6.html
            ---

            (4) Hunter received $100,000 guaranteed of a most likely minimum contract. ($412,718)
            ---

            (5) Guaranteed in Oct.
            ---

            (6) The first year of his contract will be fully guaranteed according to the source, while the 2nd year is partially guaranteed and the 3rd year is a team option. The Celtics had to dip into their Mid-Level Exception to lock him up for the three year deal, as Greene will earn more than the NBA minimum.
            http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/36779/20050725/orien_greene_signs_3_year_$1.8_million_contract_wi th_celtics/

            (7) When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league office actually reimburses the team for part of his salary - any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $744,551 so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,178,348, the league would reimburse the team $433,797. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots. http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#10 Example updated by me.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Salary Picture

              Didn't you guys read the Question of the Day? It DOES NOT matter to us. We are NOT paying the salaries.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Salary Picture

                I hope Tinsley and Harrison don't read this.
                The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Salary Picture

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Much.

                  Would have liked to get out from under Jack's salary, though.
                  I would also like to get out from under JOs salary. We could have two guys who are pretty decent for that amount. It's not that I don't like him as a player but he eats up nearly a third of the payroll. Even peyton doesn't have that much of a bite and he's worth alot more to his team than JO is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Salary Picture

                    Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
                    Didn't you guys read the Question of the Day? It DOES NOT matter to us. We are NOT paying the salaries.
                    Correction... ANYONE who buys a ticket and attends a game IS paying for those salaries.

                    Had the Pacers maintained a salary structure hovering near $80M, you can bet your posterior that our ticket prices would have reflected a hefty increase going into this season.

                    For whatever reason, a lot of people seem to have a lot of problems grasping that fact. They simply say that they don't care what we have to pay for players, they just want the best players we can get our hands on, while paying max dollars, if necessary, to re-sign the best of our free agents.

                    But in the end, someone has to pay. If total team salary increases, then ticket prices will reflect that beyond just the normal increases we might have expected from year to year.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Salary Picture

                      Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                      Correction... ANYONE who buys a ticket and attends a game IS paying for those salaries.

                      Had the Pacers maintained a salary structure hovering near $80M, you can bet your posterior that our ticket prices would have reflected a hefty increase going into this season.

                      For whatever reason, a lot of people seem to have a lot of problems grasping that fact. They simply say that they don't care what we have to pay for players, they just want the best players we can get our hands on, while paying max dollars, if necessary, to re-sign the best of our free agents.

                      But in the end, someone has to pay. If total team salary increases, then ticket prices will reflect that beyond just the normal increases we might have expected from year to year.
                      Correction even if you don't go to the game the Simons are still paying the salaries. There are many other ways they make money besides ticket sales. Conrad Brunner said that the fans shouldn't worry about salaries, it's not their concern.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Salary Picture

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Bender's salary is not being paid by the pacers and it doesn't count against the salary cap. Hoopshype.com is wrong
                        Technically, I believe that Jonathan Bender is still getting checks from the Pacers organization. I'm not 100% here, but I think the way it works is that the Indiana Pacers continue to pay Bender the same as they always have by cutting him a check every pay period (every two weeks).

                        Then the Pacers submit an insurance claim to their carrier, and eventually (these things tend to take a loooong time to process) they get a lump sum equalling whatever the percentage is that Bender's contract was insured for. From media reports, the Pacers seemed to have most of the contract insured, but from what I've heard from insurers (I work as an editor of an industry magazine), there really is no 100% coverage available for player contracts anymore. And due to the confidentiality of these policy claims, it's doubtful that the fine financial details will ever be reported accurately.

                        But that's all semantics as far as us as fans or the League office in control of the CBA is concerned. The League has declared Bender medically unfit to play and his contract is entirely off the books as far as our salary cap is concerned.

                        So Hoopshype is wrong about the salary cap, but we are actually still paying Bender, and I doubt the Simons will actually be getting 100% reimbursement from their insurance policy as it has been reported. (Although 75-80% is entirely possible.)
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Salary Picture

                          Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
                          Correction even if you don't go to the game the Simons are still paying the salaries. There are many other ways they make money besides ticket sales. Conrad Brunner said that the fans shouldn't worry about salaries, it's not their concern.
                          Just where do you think that the $80M (or $59M) this season comes from. They sure as hell don't make enough from television and jersey sales to cover that amount.

                          If you know anything at all about accounting, then it would be quite easy for you to agree that the Simons simply write the checks. It is the fans that pay the salaries.

                          Brunner can say anything he wants, but I've been around for the full 40 years. And I can assure you that, beginning in the '80s, when salaries were only beginning their spin out of control, ticket sales began jumping astronomically. They haven't stopped since.

                          If the salary cap were increase $15M tomorrow, and the Pacers suddenly shelled out another $15M - $20M in salaries, anyone who buys a ticket would be in for a big surprise.

                          That's just simple economics. If the costs to a business significantly rise, then their revenues must also significantly rise to cover those added expenses. And in professional sports, that means higher ticket prices.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Salary Picture

                            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                            Just where do you think that the $80M (or $59M) this season comes from. They sure as hell don't make enough from television and jersey sales to cover that amount.

                            If you know anything at all about accounting, then it would be quite easy for you to agree that the Simons simply write the checks. It is the fans that pay the salaries.

                            Brunner can say anything he wants, but I've been around for the full 40 years. And I can assure you that, beginning in the '80s, when salaries were only beginning their spin out of control, ticket sales began jumping astronomically. They haven't stopped since.

                            If the salary cap were increase $15M tomorrow, and the Pacers suddenly shelled out another $15M - $20M in salaries, anyone who buys a ticket would be in for a big surprise.

                            That's just simple economics. If the costs to a business significantly rise, then their revenues must also significantly rise to cover those added expenses. And in professional sports, that means higher ticket prices.
                            I completely understand that they get a lot of the money to pay for salaries from the fans but it shouldn't matter to us. When the payroll increases, they don't increase ticket prices. Fans may give the Pacers money but they do not pay the players. The Pacers are the ones making the contracts and writing the checks, not us. I'm not retarded I understand where the money comes from but some of you guys act like the players are working for you.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Salary Picture

                              Originally posted by beast23
                              For whatever reason, a lot of people seem to have a lot of problems grasping that fact. They simply say that they don't care what we have to pay for players, they just want the best players we can get our hands on, while paying max dollars, if necessary, to re-sign the best of our free agents.

                              Yeah.

                              Plus, the better teams are not those with the maxed out payrolls. Teams are better advised to keep their payrolls manageable and moderate rather than chasing talent at any price. The correlation between money and performance is pretty loose, and even when you can afford it, as the Knicks can, spending doesn't buy wins.

                              Finally, from a strictly personal point of view I don't believe professional athletes deserve what they are paid, and I'd rather the Pacers were low in the scale rather than one of the most costly teams.

                              There is nothing disloyal about this. Of course I want them to be good and win games. I wish the payroll were lower because I really believe they'd be a better team right now if they were several million dollars lower. And there are several teams in the NBA with lower payrolls that are certainbly better than the Pacers.

                              Anyway, let's don't let trolls divert this thread. The point is really a positive one. The Pacers have improved their payroll, which is a good thing.
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X