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 October 4

    IraHeatBeat Ira Winderman
    by HicksPD
    82. At worst they'll schedule them back in, perhaps play some 3 in 3 nights RT @reypena33029 How many NBA games do you estimate they'll be?
    1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout news October 4

      Here's Chris Sheridan's projected timeline from a month ago:

      Originally posted by Chris Sheridan
      Here is a projected timeline that pushes things about as far as you can push them:

      Oct. 1: An agreement is reached on aggregate dollars.

      Oct. 4: All remaining issues are settled.

      Oct. 5-19: The agreement is put into writing.

      Oct. 20: Free agency opens and players already under contract are allowed to report to their teams.

      Oct. 21-31: Training camps are held, and each team plays two exhibition games.

      Nov. 1: The season opens on time, with three games: Bulls-Mavericks and Thunder-Lakers in a TNT doubleheader, along with Rockets-Jazz.
      He was a little overly optimistic, but if things go as we all hope in the next four-days, he'll be pretty damn close.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout news October 4

        Yahoo! Sport's Adrian Wojnarowski on NBC’s Sports Talk:



        Edit: It's only 68-seconds worth. I thought it was the full interview.

        Last edited by Lance George; 10-05-2011, 09:55 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout news October 4

          Originally posted by glazedham42 View Post
          I don't expect them to totally fix the competitive balance of the league in one CBA, but I definitely want to see them make one or two significant changes in that direction. Not really sure what they would be exactly. They need to make the league about teams again, not players. While they're at it bring back hand checks, make a technical a technical again, and learn how to properly call the continuation on a foul situation. Tired of seeing Wade get fouled at the three point line and take 9 steps before he shoots, and they call it an AND-1. That's my wish list.
          Sounds like a good list to me.
          If we get no hard cap the 1 thing that I want to see is the end of sign and trades. If a player signs a contract under Bird rights a rule needs to be in place that he can't be traded for 12-18 months. This take the power of the forced sign and trade away from the player. If he wants to go to a new team he has to take the shorter contract with smaller annual raises.
          That would go so far in slowing down movement to big market teams.
          We may not have seen any free agent movement last season with that in effect. Melo would still be a Nugget and I doubt if Lebron leaves the extra 25 mil on the table to join the heat.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout news October 4

            This has actually been pretty encouraging. I'd like to see an awkward Jeff Saturday/Bob Kraft moment at the podium when they announce a deal, but this time with Stern and Wade or Garnett.

            Let's get back to basketball!
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout news October 4

              Seems as though everyone is pretty confident on a deal getting done by monday

              AUSTRALIA'S NO.1 PACER FAN

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout news October 4

                It's amazing that the players see salary rollbacks as such an issue. If they agree to a lower BRI of say 50-51% then the escrow would just increase. At the end of the year they won't get the escrow money back like they did this year because of the lower BRI. They lose 14% no matter how you look at it. Instead of taking the hit on their monthly income they take the same hit by losing the escrow money.

                At some point this weekend I hope the league issues it's last, best, and final offer to request it's put to a vote. I think the majority of the players would approve a 50/50 bri split with a stiffer LT threshold and some new rules to effect competitive balance such as limits to the MLE, Bird rights, and sign and trades.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout news October 4

                  Ruocco and Lundberg: Jared Jeffries - ESPN Radio

                  Jeffries sounds pretty optimistic.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout news October 4

                    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                    Ruocco and Lundberg: Jared Jeffries - ESPN Radio

                    Jeffries sounds pretty optimistic.
                    Man that was a Great Interview, thankyou for posting.

                    AUSTRALIA'S NO.1 PACER FAN

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout news October 4

                      So nothing new yet ,how can this get done if their not even talking so sad

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout news October 4

                        Howard Beck had a blurb that High level officials had a phone call yesterday (Wed), but thats all I can find.

                        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/sp...ml?_r=1&src=tp

                        By HOWARD BECK

                        Published: October 5, 2011


                        "No further meetings are scheduled this week. High-ranking officials from both sides spoke Wednesday by telephone, however, and it is possible they will meet again before the league starts canceling regular-season games on Monday. "

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout news October 4

                          Thanks ,you think they would have a little more urgency oh well guess the days still early

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout news October 4

                            The player salaries lost to a lockout - TrueHoop - ESPN

                            Originally posted by Larry Coon
                            If this week’s negotiating sessions represented the 11th hour of the labor dispute, then we’re quickly approaching the 59th minute. The league has made it clear that if a deal is not in place by Monday, regular season games will be cancelled. Fans of Derek Fisher might even point out that we’re quickly approaching the point where just four tenths of a second remain.

                            The two sides left the negotiating room Tuesday about three percentage points apart on the biggest issue. The split of basketball related income (BRI) is the elephant in the room. It’s the key to the entire process -- come to an agreeable number on the BRI split, and everything else will fall into place.

                            The rhetoric following the negotiating sessions made it difficult to pin the two sides to an exact number, but it essentially boils down to the owners offering 50 percent, with the players drawing a line in the sand at 53 percent.

                            Three percent. It’s the difference between an opening tipoff and an empty arena.

                            For both sides, the negotiating process boils down to a simple question -- should we accept the offer on the table, or can we do better if we say “no” and wait?

                            For the players, the cost of saying “no” can be easily quantified. The owners have offered the players 50 percent of BRI. This season’s BRI is expected to be around $4 billion, so the owners are offering the players a $2 billion slice of the pie. The players are holding out for a 53 percent share, so they’re looking for $2.12 billion.

                            That’s $120 million that separates them. Of course, that’s just in year one. Over the course of a six-year agreement, assuming four percent growth per year, the total is closer to $796 million.

                            To say “no” and wait means to suffer the consequences. Those consequences very soon will be cancelled games, meaning revenue will be lost that will never be recouped. The players will be faced with choosing between a 50 percent share of a larger pie, and a 53 percent share of a smaller pie. The longer they hold out, the more the pie will shrink.

                            If we use the 1998-99 lockout as a guide, a canceled game costs each player 1/82nd of his salary. A full NBA regular season lasts 170 days, so each missed week represents 7/170th of a player’s income. So if a week’s worth of games is cancelled because they say “no” to the owners’ 50 percent offer, the players miss out on $82.4 million.

                            The players are holding out for an additional $120 million in 2011-12, but holding out costs them $82.4 million per week. They would lose everything they stand to gain this season in less than two weeks. On Monday the league is expected to announce the cancellation of the first two weeks of the season, which will cost the players $164.8 million.

                            Over a six year agreement, the players would burn through the $796 million in a little under 10 weeks. If they continue to hold out for 53 percent, and the owners hold firm at 50 percent, the players will reach the break-even point around December 16th. If the sides settle for 53 percent past that date, then the players would have been better off by taking the owners’ offer of 50 percent before games were cancelled.

                            Keep in mind that December 16th represents the point at which the players as a whole will break-even. Each individual player would need to stay in the league for six years to recoup his lost wages. In a league where the average career lasts fewer than five years, that’s going to be a problem.

                            This is one reason the owners have an advantage in this labor dispute -- they have a longer window of time to recoup their losses. An average player is likely to be out of the league in a few years, but an owner can hang on to his team for decades.

                            The players and owners need to find a way to bridge the gap. They are close enough now that a creative solution -- such as a system where players are guaranteed to make no less than 51 percent and owners are guaranteed to pay no more than 52 percent -- can save an 82-game campaign.

                            For players, holding out for a better deal simply doesn’t make sense.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout news October 4

                              Larry Coon is the most trusted opinion I have of all these NBA reporters. He's not really a reporter, but can be lumped in that group with his job at ESPN now. Coon is a lawyer. He understands this negotiation process better than any of the nitwit reporters. I was listening to Stern and Silver's interview the other night (twice actually) and thought to myself.... How ignorant are the people asking these questions. Stern immediately called on Sheridan first. Sheridan was one of the few that had a clue. The guy from Bloomberg, not so much. Some chick from SI, moron. Aldridge, baffled me with his stupidity. The dumbest guy in the room was probably Broussard. He gives false information constantly and is a name dropper. That is all he does. Name drop. But that's how he got connected in the first place. Berger and Sheridan seem to be the only two credible people I heard from. There was one person who I heard ask a question about each percentage being roughly the equivalent of $40M, and it was a good question. I listened the second time and couldn't figure out who it was. But three out of about 20 reporters asked decent questions that weren't an absolute waste of time. Thank you Larry Coon. I can't believe we haven't heard more from you since this is the entire reason ESPN reached out to you several months ago.

                              Sorry about the tangent, but I was awestruck by the questions. It is almost as bad as listening to our Senators ask Ben Bernanke questions that they aren't capable of asking.
                              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout news October 4

                                It sure would be nice if some new info was released...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X