Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

Lockout News and Discussions thread

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

  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    Through its Twitter feed dedicated to labor talks with the union, the NBA office is disseminating information about its revised proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement.

    If these statements are accurate, the new offer would appear to have a few additional concessions to the players than have been reported so far.

    Under the revised offer, the repeater tax would only apply against teams that go over the tax threshold four times in five years. Under the previous proposal, it was believed that the repeater tax would kick in for teams that paid the tax three times in five years.

    In addition, projections for the luxury tax threshold would be between $70 million and $85 million over six seasons, after which the NBA has agreed to give the NBPA an opt-out.

    The NBA also states that maximum salaries would range between $13 million and $19 million, presumably referring to the first-season salary of a max deal.

    Via NBA Office (via Twitter)
    NBA, NBA CBA
    Read the Full StoryDiscussSend FeedbackBuy Tickets


    Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...#ixzz1dRySTJQV


    Hopefully it's enough

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Gotta laugh at the slogan..........NBA....it's fantastic. The fan part is the last thing they think about.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        I am tired of being Charlie Brown.....
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          The players are getting to choose between 72 games worth of paychecks and 0 paychecks. This isn't rocket science.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            Originally posted by Tom White View Post
            This is what I am guessing has happened. That, and the agents getting the troops all stirred up.

            My question is this:

            I wonder how many of the angered players have actually read what was in the proposal, and how many are relying on what the agents are telling them is in the proposal?

            Remember, as Buck stated earlier, the last CBA was something like 224 pages long.

            Just how many players do you think have EVER read that one for themselves?

            It was over 440 pages from what I saw and I wonder if I was looking at the whole thing

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              NBA Labor (nba_labor) on Twitter

              Originally posted by NBA Labor
              NBA Proposal: More mid-levels than 2005 CBA: $5M for non-taxpayers, $3M for taxpayers, $2.5M for room teams

              Fact: Under prior CBA, only 3 players per season received more than $5M salary using mid-level exception

              NBA Proposal: More cap exceptions for teams who are not taxpayers...

              NBA Proposal: Projected tax level ranges from $70M-$85M over next 6 years; more than enough money to keep teams together

              NBA Proposal: New trade rules to promote more player movement

              NBA Proposal: Projected max salaries range from $13M to $19M and growing

              NBA Proposal: Increased minimum team salary - from 75% of cap to 90%

              NBA Proposal: Plyr-friendly changes 4 restricted FAs: qualifying offers higher & 100% guaranteed, shorter match period 4 offer sheets

              NBA Proposal: Ability to stretch waived player’s salary frees up more money for teams to spend on FAs

              NBA Proposal: Players retain full Bird rights

              NBA Proposal: Repeat tax rates apply only when team is taxpayer 4 out of 5 yrs (not 3 out of 5)

              Over last CBA, only 4 sign-and-trades by taxpayers that new rule would have prohibited

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                This entire lockout would have been over by now if Hunter had not questioned and challenged Fisher's loyalty to the union. Fisher then had to backtrack from wanting to accept a deal and show that he was just as loyal and not a pushover. That episode consolidated the hardliners in the union and quieted those who wanted to settle. Hunter was the winner and regained the momentum that was moving toward Fisher. Then Kessler made a damn fool of himself. Hunter is the big winner and will no doubt keep his job. There are many games that Hunter is playing all for the good of Hunter. He is at this point unpredictable.
                Last edited by speakout4; 11-11-2011, 09:10 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  My thoughts right now is that the owners do hope the players take this deal, but if they don't the owners will do what everyone has suspected, they will wait the players out until they start losing paychecks and their wives start complaining.

                  if no deal this week, I still see a deal in early January like 1999

                  You read comments from the players that they do not know their next move, well the owners lead by Stern know what their next move is, they will wait for the players to start to splinter. Decertifying doesn't change that. Owners drastically changing their offer doesn't change that either
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-11-2011, 09:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Holy smokes.

                    So now the minimum a team spends (90%, up from 75%) is $8.76M more in 2012 than it was under the old deal (based on projected '12 salary cap).

                    This is great news if you're a) a free agent or b) a player for the Clippers, Kings, Wolves, etc. Those teams have to now overpay for free agents or give their current players raises.
                    Last edited by imawhat; 11-11-2011, 09:17 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      Holy smokes.

                      So now the minimum a team spends (90%, up from 75%) is $8.76M more in 2012 than it was under the old deal (based on projected '12 salary cap).
                      This is also bad news for a team like the Pacers next year... It hampers the ability to trade for and absorb a large contract...
                      Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        this is the best article I've seen today on this whole mess


                        http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.co...38893/33243068

                        Player support for owners' plan dwindles

                        Posted on: November 11, 2011 6:17 pm
                        Edited on: November 11, 2011 7:14 pm


                        NEW YORK -- Support among players and agents for the owners' revised collective bargaining proposal appears to be lower than it was for the previous offer, and approximately half the union membership is expected to sign decertification petitions in a show of defiance, multiple people involved in the process told CBSSports.com Friday.

                        "This isn't going to fly," said one formerly moderate agent now on board with the movement to decertify and vote down the owners' latest ultimatum proposal -- if it goes up for a vote at all.

                        At least 15-20 agents representing an array of agencies held a conference call Friday to plot their next strategy as players and their representatives angered by the proposal prepared to submit the decertification cards to the National Labor Relations Board seeking an election to dissolve the union.

                        The NLRB almost certainly wouldn't authorize an election unless the National Basketball Players Association withdrew its unfair labor practices charge against the NBA -- something union officials are not believed to be considering, as an NLRB complaint remains the most ironclad chance for a federal injunction lifting the lockout, legal sources said.

                        Even if the NLRB charge were dropped, an election would still take 45-60 days to schedule. In the meantime, negotiations between the league and union leadership could continue. The pressure perhaps would be shifted to the owners to modify their proposals if they are serious about having the 72-game season that Stern promised Thursday night, complete with Christmas Day games and a regularly scheduled All-Star weekend, if the players approved the existing offer.

                        In addition to the seven major agencies that have been clamoring for decertification for months, several other previously moderate agencies have joined the movement, sources told CBSSports.com.

                        "They've lost me," said one of the previously moderate agents. "Three months ago, we thought this would be done. We thought people would be reasonable."

                        The owners' lack of significant movement on key system issues in their revised proposal, plus new, still-to-be-negotiated requests viewed by the players and agents as draconian, make the chances of players voting for the proposal -- or player reps even recommending it for a vote -- extremely unlikely, sources said.

                        The new proposal, one of the agents said, is "probably as bad, if not worse than the last proposal."

                        Union executives are bringing the 30 team player reps to New York Monday or Tuesday to evaluate the latest proposal from the league, delivered Thursday night once again with the threat that if the players rejected it, they would be faced with a worse offer. Commissioner David Stern said the latest proposal, which contains a 50-50 split of revenues, would be replaced by the so-called "reset" proposal in which players would receive 47 percent of revenues and be constrained by a flex cap with a hard team payroll ceiling and a rollback of existing contracts.

                        In the revised proposal, the owners made the following moves toward the players' position:

                        * Increase the mid-level exception for luxury tax-paying teams to three-year deals starting at $3 million, available every year. The previous proposal called for mid-level deals for tax teams to be for two years starting at $2.5 million and available every other year.

                        * Allow tax-payers to execute sign-and-trade transactions for the first two years of the agreement. Such trades would be banned for tax teams after that. They were completely banned for tax-payers in the prior proposal.

                        * Create a new, $2.5 million exception that can be used by teams that are under the cap. It would allow teams that previously only had cap space to sign a minimum salary player to offer more.

                        * Increase the team payroll floor (i.e. minimum team salary) to 90 percent of the cap in the third year of the deal and 85 percent in the first two years. It was 85 percent across the entire agreement in the previous proposal, and 75 percent in the prior CBA.

                        * Increase annual raises for Bird free agents to 6.5 percent, up from 5.5 percent in the prior proposal. Non-Bird players' annual raises remain capped at 3.5 percent, as in the previous proposal. In the prior CBA, Bird raises were capped at 10.5 percent and non-Bird at 8 percent.

                        * Increase qualifying offers to restricted free agents.

                        * Allow player options in contracts for players making less than the average league salary. In the previous proposal, player options were banned. There were no restrictions on player options in the previous CBA.

                        * Accept the union's proposal that each side be able to opt out of the 10-year CBA after the sixth year.

                        But union officials and agents were disappointed that the league did not address the so-called tax cliff, by which teams are double-penalized for barely wading above the tax line, and they disagree with the league's position that mid-level restrictions would be in place if the signing pushed the team's payroll above the tax. The players want teams to be able to use the exception as long as they are under the tax line before the signing occurs.

                        "We'll try in court, because it can't get worse than this," one of the formerly moderate agents said. "... The owners are selling players short on their intelligence, and they're definitely selling their representatives short."

                        The introduction of a series of B-list issues -- drug testing in the offseason, an age-limit of 20, and a provision that would allow teams to send players to the D-League during the first five years of their careers and make substantially less than the NBA minimum -- formed a rallying point for players and agents who formerly were open to considering the league's proposal to become unified against it. League officials said Friday that these B-list issues are not in the owners' written proposal, and that both sides agreed to "park" them to be discussed after there is agreement on the framework of the major issues.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                          does this address any Small Market concerns to make it more competitive?
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            That proposal is very fair. In fact, I'm disappointed in how much the owners conceded. Not sure how much those changes are going to promote competitive balance.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Why would that matter?

                              There is a serious disconnect here. There is no relationship between how much the owners are able to make and how much the players should be getting paid. They are two completely separate things. The market will dictate how much they can get (via the CBA I suppose). It might be a situation where the owners make billions and the players are making minimum wage. Why is that a problem? If that happened, the players should just start their own league because they'd make a lot more than minimum wage.

                              So, the question is, how much do the owners HAVE to pay the players? The question is not, how much should the owners pay the players based on the revenue. That concept is one of a partnership. It's simply not a partnership and the players need to understand that or it could be a lost season.

                              It matters because you compared it to the housing market.

                              Why the constant "start your own league," neither side wants that. If we lose a season, maybe something like that could happen, we don't know. It wouldn't be the first time someone started a new basketball league. But the current owners want the players to play for them and I would think it would be easier for the players to play in the current league. So I guess I don't understand your point.

                              It seems like that your thought is the owners can do whatever they want, if the players don't like it, start another league. Maybe it's time the owners understand they can't bully employees and tax payers for whatever they want.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Did that agent seriously just say it can't get worse? This is the kind of person advising these players? Oye.

                                Also, can someone paste Stern's quotes from his Friday interview? I'm still not at my desktop to do it. He basically told the agents that if they play with fire, they'll get burned.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X