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

ESPN: Silver: NBA needs 'enforceable' free-agency rules

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

  • ESPN: Silver: NBA needs 'enforceable' free-agency rules

    https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...e-agency-rules


    Silver said he wasn't overly concerned by it. But he added that he was cognizant of the fact all 30 teams need to feel they have a chance to compete on a level playing field.

    "I think at the end of the day, it's positive for the league," Silver said. "I will say, though, I'm mindful of this notion of balance of power, and I think it applies in many different ways. An appropriate balance of power between the teams and the players, an appropriate balance of power I'd say among all our 30 teams, big markets, small markets, some markets that are perceived as being more attractive than others, tax issues, climate issues. At the end of the day, you want to make sure you have a league where every team is in a position to compete.
    ....
    The league has only so many ways it can police tampering, particularly when it comes in the form of players talking to one another, something the NBA has no realistic way to combat. And while Silver wasn't directly addressing that topic during his news conference Tuesday, he did repeatedly say that he believes the league needs to look at having "enforceable rules" on its books.

    "I think the consensus at both our committee meetings and the board meeting was that we need to revisit and reset those rules, that some of the rules we have in place may not make sense," Silver said. "I think that's what we discussed. I think it's pointless at the end of the day to have rules that we can't enforce. I think it hurts the perception of integrity around the league if people say, 'Well, you have that rule and it's obvious that teams aren't fully complying, so why do you have it?'
    ......
    One thing Silver said he remains unhappy with is players making public trade demands. After previously decrying the practice, Silver said it continues to be something the league has to address in the wake of Anthony Davis being sent to the Los Angeles Lakers several months after making his trade request public before February's trade deadline, and Paul George going to the LA Clippers after privately making his own trade request last week.

    "First of all, you know, of course that's nothing new in the league in terms of trade demands. But it concerns all of us," he said. "I mean, it falls in the same category of issues of the so-called rule of law within a sports league. You have a contract and it needs to be meaningful on both sides. On one hand, there's an expectation if you have a contract and it's guaranteed that the team is going to meet the terms of the contract, and the expectation on the other side is the player is going to meet the terms of the contract.

  • #2
    Not sure what he can do. Players are always going to "leak" their trade demands. Truthfully, the trade demand in itself is not the problem. It's the trade demand with the "I'm only going to play for certain teams" that becomes the problem. If players want to keep their freedom of movement, then sign shorter contracts. If you sign a contract for 4-5 years, then you better not make a public trade demand. Now, if you come to me privately, then I'll see what I can do. For players, it should be a "risk" for them to request a trade. Play out your contract, and then you can choose where you want to go in free agency.


    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

    Comment


    • #3
      The whole trade demand issue is really simple. Any contract that is 4-5 years in length comes with a 3 year trade ban, on the part of both the team and player. You are stuck with each other for 3 seasons. Players still get the guaranteed money they are after. Team still gets a minimum of 3 years of service from the player. This would be in effect for any players 2nd contract, so it excludes rookie deals.

      I mean the league just can't be having players like PG13 requesting trades after one year on his new deal.

      To fix the superstar team ups exclusively on the coasts/ big market teams.... make it a rule that a team can only have 2 max slots.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        To fix the superstar team ups exclusively on the coasts/ big market teams.... make it a rule that a team can only have 2 max slots.
        What are the evils of the dreaded "Hard Cap"? I know the P.A. will never go for it but the small market owners have to be tired of being at a competitive disadvantage. A Hard Cap seems to be one of the aids to keep parity in the NFL. Could it be done with the guaranteed contracts that the NBAPA is "do or die over?"

        Something has to give...
        ...Still "flying casual"
        @roaminggnome74

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think the players understand the ultimate ramifications if this nonsense continues with players dictating every move. Hint, it leads to a lot less money in their pockets.

          Comment


          • #6
            What the league really needs is a hard salary cap, not this BS cap with all these exceptions, luxury cap, etc. Implement a cap that is hard set a X percent of the previous year's revenue. It will level the playing field, make the NBA more about team building, and limit players abilities to determine where they go. Add in some injury exceptions etc and your good to go. Easy.
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • #7
              Fun idea, hard cap and all players not on rookie contracts to have player options starting year 3 of contracts. Will increase free agency and spread talent out unless players take pay cuts to play with their buddies

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                What the league really needs is a hard salary cap, not this BS cap with all these exceptions, luxury cap, etc. Implement a cap that is hard set a X percent of the previous year's revenue. It will level the playing field, make the NBA more about team building, and limit players abilities to determine where they go. Add in some injury exceptions etc and your good to go. Easy.
                The hard cap works for the NFL because the players union is not as strong as the NBA players union.

                Comment


                • #9
                  A hard cap is a really hard idea to implement with almost all guaranteed contracts. What happens if a team signs players, is under the cap this year, but the raises to the players next year take them over the cap? That's just one of many examples where a team can get boxed in, be over the cap, and have no way to fix it themselves.

                  I think there are ways to tinker though and really hurt this type of team building without radically changing the league. Restricting the buyout market would help. Cutting out the exception for luxury tax teams. Even maybe a limit on how many vet min contracts you can have on the roster at one time would be helpful.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                    A hard cap is a really hard idea to implement with almost all guaranteed contracts. What happens if a team signs players, is under the cap this year, but the raises to the players next year take them over the cap? That's just one of many examples where a team can get boxed in, be over the cap, and have no way to fix it themselves.

                    I think there are ways to tinker though and really hurt this type of team building without radically changing the league. Restricting the buyout market would help. Cutting out the exception for luxury tax teams. Even maybe a limit on how many vet min contracts you can have on the roster at one time would be helpful.
                    I think the hardest thing would be negotiating with the Union. A hard cap could be implemented if you have smart people working on it. You could do a rolling 3-year average with a maximum and minimum with a plus/minus 10%, you could tie player contract raises into cap increases (or decreases as the case may be), get rid of many of the exceptions, etc... It would be more simple to implement and understand than the current system, and would be fair to all teams.

                    As for the players, you make it work through union negotiations. Players currently get 50% of the revenue (give or take) and used to get 57%. Maybe you bump that up to 52%. Maybe you appease the players through player options on the last year of contracts, etc...
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post

                      What are the evils of the dreaded "Hard Cap"? I know the P.A. will never go for it but the small market owners have to be tired of being at a competitive disadvantage. A Hard Cap seems to be one of the aids to keep parity in the NFL. Could it be done with the guaranteed contracts that the NBAPA is "do or die over?"

                      Something has to give...
                      I have pushing for this for awhile. A hard cap and no limit up to the cap any one player can earn. So you want Lebron pay him 75% of the cap and pick up some G Leaguers
                      You may have to give a higher percentage of total revenue to players but for the Pacers and others like them this is the only solution.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                        I don't think the players understand the ultimate ramifications if this nonsense continues with players dictating every move. Hint, it leads to a lot less money in their pockets.
                        This is why I cant stand the "do what's best for you and your family", shortsightedness that we pretty much are forced to tolerate these days. Because that's all they are concerned about, themselves, and they refuse to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, they dont actually know what's best for themselves.

                        30 teams who feel like they have a chance and wanna invest in you its what's best. And it's only a matter of time before the disrespect they are showing the majority of their own market results in limited opportunities for themselves. Everyone wants to go to the coast, but once those teams are satisfied. What's left? A bunch of teams with leverage over you and an inferiority complex, that's who. They've also destroyed the market for the marginal players, who's wages aren't growing at all. But its cool, because it's not them right? We signed Austin Croshere to a deal that paid him 10 million a year. Austin Croshere today wouldn't get much more than that under the same circumstances. But the stars are pushing 50 million a year now.
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Make every contract a maximum length of 3 years. All free agency becomes UFA. Limit max contracts per team to 2. Expand roster size by 1. Allow teams a certain number of fully non-guaranteed contracts, limited to those below a certain percentage of the cap.

                          Award the #1 in the draft on a rotating basis and do the rest based on record. Every 30 years each team is assured the number 1 pick. Or make 1 and 2 a coin flip so each team has a shot at #1 every 15 years.


                          Name-calling signature removed

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Banta View Post
                            Make every contract a maximum length of 3 years. All free agency becomes UFA. Limit max contracts per team to 2. Expand roster size by 1. Allow teams a certain number of fully non-guaranteed contracts, limited to those below a certain percentage of the cap.

                            Award the #1 in the draft on a rotating basis and do the rest based on record. Every 30 years each team is assured the number 1 pick. Or make 1 and 2 a coin flip so each team has a shot at #1 every 15 years.
                            I like your thoughts on the draft. The rules on teams....too complex.
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by owl View Post

                              I like your thoughts on the draft. The rules on teams....too complex.
                              It would get the Pacers a number 1 pick in 2050 if implemented next year.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X