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



    NBA just tweeted this

    1:17 shows how a good team would be constructed in the 3rd year of the deal. Interesting the middle class still makes a **** ton of money.
    Last edited by pacer4ever; 11-13-2011, 09:11 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Originally posted by asmithxc View Post
      During a lockout, you are correct. Because the previous CBA is still in effect.

      Once there is a decertification, there is no CBA in effect -- the previous CBA becomes void (and, if there is no union, the players cannot collectively bargain and therefore cannot create a successor agreement). Because these contracts are part of that CBA, they, too, become void.
      Thanks for that clarification. This is basically what I expected.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        I read the proposal and nothing jumps out as unfair. I wonder though why they lowered the RFA offer sheet period to 3 days oppose to having 7 days.


        also

        Extension-and-trades prohibited. If a player signs a contract extension,
        then the team is prohibited from trading the player for a period of six
        months following the date of the extension. If a team acquires a player in
        a trade, then the team is prohibited from signing the player to a contract
        extension for a period of six months following the date of the trade.
        If it is prohibited why can they still do it after 6 months It sounds like Birds will transfer which I figured they would outlaw.

        Maybe I am just reading that wrong.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post

          NBA just tweeted this
          The NBA does one hell of a job spinning this for the fans. I wonder if any of the players will be swayed by this stuff...
          "man, PG has been really good."

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
            I read the proposal and nothing jumps out as unfair. I wonder though why they lowered the RFA offer sheet period to 3 days oppose to having 7 days.
            My guess? The players won't have to wait as long to figure out where they're playing. That and it gives teams more incentive to negotiate an offer sheet if the other team has less time to figure out a way to keep their player i.e. more potential player movement from a group that traditionally doesn't see much (RFAs).
            "man, PG has been really good."

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              That proposal is perfectly fine.

              Players, stop being a bunch of whiny, greedy *****es and sign the ****ing contract already.

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                I read the proposal and nothing jumps out as unfair. I wonder though why they lowered the RFA offer sheet period to 3 days oppose to having 7 days.


                also



                If it is prohibited why can they still do it after 6 months It sounds like Birds will transfer which I figured they would outlaw.

                Maybe I am just reading that wrong.

                If a team has to wait 6 months to be traded then the threat of losing him in free agency is over. The player will be locked into a contract, and have missed free agency. The player can demand a trade, but he would no longer be holding the team hostage with free agency as a deadline. The other rule seems to open up more players to free agency, at which time they may have to sign with another team if the team that acquired them doesn't ahve the cap room to sign them, those teams being teams above the luxury tax quite a bit already.

                All and all the offer is very fair, and if the players think it's getting much better they are delusional. I hope every players is reading the REAL offer and seeing that it isn't quite so **** at all. Then if Billy and Derrick sell the offer fairly at their rep meeting I don't see how players could possibly turn this down.
                Last edited by daschysta; 11-13-2011, 09:36 PM.
                Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ls.html?src=tp

                  link to Nov 6 Nov 10 and the reset proposal as well


                  about to see what is different about the 6th and the 10th see if the owners gave a lot up.

                  read the reset proposal the players better take this deal. The reset proposal is no joke.
                  Last edited by pacer4ever; 11-13-2011, 09:35 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Personally i'd love the reset proposal, but I would much rather see basketball this year.

                    Stern wants a season badly, but the players continue to play chicken with him at their own risk. They can't keep assuming that he won't follow through. The longer this takes the more likely he is to go to the reset.
                    Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      The Tom Coverdales(see avatar) of the world will gladly step in and take your spot.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post

                        If it is prohibited why can they still do it after 6 months It sounds like Birds will transfer which I figured they would outlaw.

                        Maybe I am just reading that wrong.
                        Idk what they'll do with the Bird rights in this case, but I think it won't matter much in practice.
                        If you trade for "Melo" at February deadline, you can't extend him until almost September. I doubt any player/his agent/team would want to be in this situation.
                        It's either a Deron-type trade a year in advance, or free agency, or resigning with your old team. New Melodramas unlikely.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          Originally posted by asmithxc View Post
                          During a lockout, you are correct. Because the previous CBA is still in effect.

                          Once there is a decertification, there is no CBA in effect -- the previous CBA becomes void (and, if there is no union, the players cannot collectively bargain and therefore cannot create a successor agreement). Because these contracts are part of that CBA, they, too, become void.
                          So if there is decertification all contracts are void and therefore once a new CBA agreement is in place and the union recertifies and all contracts magically are unvoided. I doubt that very much and I would like to see a legal opinion by an labor law expert. You can't say that a league lockout retains the old contract but a decert. doesn't. That is way too much of a one sided advantage.

                          This would be an opportunity for someone like Derrick Rose to get a max contract from any team he wished. We know that is not going to happen.

                          Why can't one argue that with decertification the previous CBA is also in effect? You state that during a lockout the previous CBA is in effect so the same should hold with a decertification. Just can't see that.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            Etan Thomas has been involved in the NBA labor negotiations, but he still has questions.
                            Editor's note: Etan Thomas is an 11-year NBA veteran and, as the executive first vice president of the National Basketball Players Association, is an active member of the players' negotiating team.

                            1. To his credit, David Stern can spin information with the best of them. That being said, I have not met one player who, after fully understanding the particulars of the NBA's proposal, concluded that this is an acceptable deal. So my question is, what will it take for the NBA CEOs to understand that they are not going to be able to manipulate the players through the media?

                            Answer: They won't because they can (& have). Players don't understand the deal, they are reacting to the deal based off greedy agents & ego-driven "stars". Players need to get the joke that the economy sucks, they have it better then EVERY other sport, & it is time water found its level.

                            2. The NBA CEOs know that their proposed system functions as a hard cap, because no team will be willing to pay that strict a penalty for going over the luxury tax. Do they think the players can't see that?

                            Answer: They care about controlling cost & competitive balance, not increasing the gap of pay to the highest paid sports athletes in the world, who play either less games, &/o have less physical risk then any other sport. Players only see what they do not get for themselves, not what good it will bring the sport. Ask ANY NFL player what they think of the offer you are presented!

                            3. Do the NBA CEOs think the union can't see that this "new revision" is worse than the proposal they gave us last week, even though the "clock has stopped" on their ultimatum?

                            Answer: It's not - and even if it were, you should still STFU & take it! Players have had a great deal for a LONG time, but it is time they realize that not everything in life comes with the same guarantee that their contracts do, & they should pray every day & night that you have such a security as that.

                            4. Are the NBA CEOs convince the union can't figure out that the way in which they constructed and defined the mid-level exception, no team will ever use it?

                            Answer: I am dumber for reading that comment. Thank you, & I Hate You! Yes, they will, & IF you are lucky enough to be offered it, you would take it!

                            5. Did the NBA CEOs believe with Michael Jordan to the negotiating table we were going to be intimidated or awed to the point that this awful deal would start to look more attractive to us?

                            Answer: No, but he is the best finisher there ever was & ever will be, so what else would you expect? My guess is he just wanted to throw it down one last time into the faces of those he use to posterize nightly (like you), &/or he saw LeBron at the other side of the table & smelled weakness. Either way, you lose - Taste It!

                            6. David Stern obviously issued his "terrible deal now or even worse deal" later ultimatum because he wanted to scare the players into meeting his every demand. Did he really expect that his threat would cause the union to come running with apologies for being bad employees and beg him to let us go back to work?

                            Answer: No, he thinks you are too dumb to be that smart - & he is right. The only thing that will make me feel better about losing the '11-'12 season will be watching the pittiful deal you dumb-a$$ Players will sign later on. Fools!

                            7. When the union was given the two options of a horrible deal now or an even worse deal later, why are people really surprised that we chose neither?

                            Answer: Even we are surprised anyone (even NBA players) are that dumb. If the average NBA player IQ was as high as that of the tree that will compose the paper that your "even worse deal" will be signed on, then I would be watching basketball in December, & your players would look a lot smarter. Trust me, players in the league are mutch better "on the court" then "in court" (though many have spent almost equal time on/in both).

                            8. During recent negotiations, reporters continuously tweeted and wrote articles citing "anonymous sources" saying that we were closer to a deal then we actually were, or that progress was being made. Why do reporters keep giving false hope to fans?

                            Answer: They know most of youy cannot read, but are hoping that those that read to you are smart enough to tell you what a fool you are & that you only get paid when you play.

                            9. During the 1998 lockout, David Robinson made the statement after one of their failed negotiation sessions, "They don't negotiate. They tell you how it will be, and they don't want to listen to the players." Isn't it interesting how history repeats itself?

                            Answer: You were dumb then & you are done now, what's your point? The only difference is the owners have seen what being as dumb as you has gotten them & they have gotten smarter..

                            10. When someone buys a fast-food franchise, they don't just get keys and a congratulations card. They receive instructions on how to successfully operate the business. Instead of the NBA CEOs attempting to create rules to save them from from themselves , wouldn't the NBA be better off with a training session by David Stern, teaching each NBA CEO how to successfully run his business and avoid the pitfalls of CEOs past?

                            Answer: Glad to see you bring up Fast Food, because with the average NBA education & money management skills, that is were much of this league will be in a year from now! Setting rules to "save them from themselves" is what keeps a competative people (like owners) in check. It is kinda like why the NBAPA agreed to allowing drug testing - to save you too-rich young dumb-asses from yourselves!

                            11. Why wouldn't the NBA consider a rollback on the salaries of the presidents and general managers who mismanaged their teams and were the ones ultimately responsible for their financial problems?

                            Answer: Who said they wont? Either way though, you players should all sign the current deal before your saleries all gets rolled back in the "even worse deal" that you will have to sign on the highter-then-your IQ paper in '12. (When this happens, see the agent encouragibg you from signing this deal!)

                            12. Political sportswriter Dave Zirin asked me if I thought the concession workers, parking lot attendants, janitors, food vendors, secretaries, scouts, trainers, mascots, dance teams and every other employee affected by this lockout would turn their anger on both sides and follow the lead of other protestors around the country. What if they start "Occupy the NBA?"

                            Answer: They should - By sitting the the driveway of the mansion of EVERY over-paid NBA PLAYER who refusing to play, & who refused to take their guatanteed MILLIONS for putting a leather ball thru an iron hoop! Why would they protest the owners who are the ones responsible for providing the employment opporunities for all of them (including YOU!) that helps them care & provide for their families. Owners provide jobs, you provide entertainment, dont ever confuse the two!

                            13. If Occupy the NBA were to happen, would the occupiers see the NBA CEOs as the 1 percent who want to impose their corporate greed, power and will on their employees?

                            Answer: No. They hate you more.

                            14. A few friends of mine told me that although they appreciated my support for the Occupy Wall Street movement, I would never be considered as part of the 99 percent (they made the distinction that I was more like the 5 percent). My question is, if an Occupy the NBA were to happen, would the players be lumped in with the 1 percent because of million-dollar salaries?

                            Answer: Did your friend also tell you that you look like "Preditor" with that stupid hairdo? If not he should, just as he should tell you to STFU & tell you & your & your 1% union to sign the f***'n deal! So, to clearify: Yes.

                            15.[/B] While the issues raised by the Wall Street occupiers differ from the issues of this lockout, aren't there obvious parallels in power imbalance?

                            Answer: You ask a lot of really stupid questions! No!!! You make millions, they do not. They want work, you are refusing millions to work. They are protesting CEO's that make millions, while you are protesting working for millions from CEO's that are in large part losing money. How in the he!! is that even close?

                            16. Who is in the same position of power as the 1 percent ? Who wants a bailout for their own mismanagement decisions? Who is more closely aligned with the corporate interests from which the Wall Street occupiers are looking to reclaim the country?

                            Answers: Those making money off those who are not. Players are making millions, owners are losing money. Wall street has CEO's with guaranteed deals, NBA owners have no such guarantees, especially when they are fooled into signing someone who sucks (like YOU) into a deal that they have no way out of.


                            17. More than 46 million people are living below the poverty line, unemployment is at 9 percent, and those who are employed are in constant fear of losing their jobs. Many people are unable to make mortgage payments or buy their kids clothes, much less think of college tuition. And rumors are spreading that unless a deal is reached this week, David Stern will cancel games through Christmas, even as some fans don't know how they will celebrate Christmas. With that economic reality, what if we simply lose the fans altogether?

                            Answer: For the love of God, STFU. Are you really that stupid? (oops, dumb question myself - shame on me!) YOU are refusing to work for 50% of an owners profit, YOU are turning down millions to play a game for 6 months out of a year, and YOU want to throw "education, housing, and ruining Christmas" on the OWNERS? Hellow Satin, nine to meet you....
                            YOU, and your largely un-educated union members, walking away from the privledge to be paid more then >95% of children will EVER see are the ones who should be questioning what they are doing. Check Yourself!


                            18. Do the NBA CEOs understand that if the fan base shrinks that could decrease game attendance, lower TV ratings, lower overall interest and reduce the overall value of each franchise?

                            Answer: Do Players understand that competitive ballance is a GOOD thing (See NFL). Do Players realize that the NBA has the fewest number of different teams that have played for a championship compared to EVERY OTHER professional sport in the last 25 yrs? Do NBA players think about the fan base at all? Based on your opposition to the competitive improvments put forth bu the owners, the answer is NO!

                            19. Could the outrage of the fans push the negotiations along more effectively than any labor committee, union, board of governors or mediator?

                            Answer: No, if so I would be watching my Pacers, not responding to your ignorance.

                            20. Why does race always have to be injected into this power struggle? Do people understand that the only color the 1 percent care about is green? They have a lot of it, they want a lot more of it, and they will step on anyone's (black, white, brown, etc.) neck to get it.

                            Answer: I'm impressed. I thought I read the dumbest words ever uttered in question #17, but I was wrong. The only introduction of "race" into ANY of these negotiations has come from players themselves & from the players own counsil. Bringing this up was the dumbest thing I've ever read. I now have a new respect for professor Patrick Ewing form the last negoations when you were all too diumb to remain silent.

                            21. During the lockout of 1998, Michael Jordan famously said to Wizards CEO Abe Pollin "If you can't make a profit, you should sell your team." That was then and this is now. Why do people have difficulty understanding that he is no longer a player but currently joined at the hip with the rest of the CEOs of the NBA, who -- like Bank of America, Wall Street and the rest of the 1 percent -- not only want but expect a bailout for their own actions?

                            Answer: WHAT? You mean why do fans not understand now that he can see the books, & see what the currentstructure is doing to the league as a whole? NEWS FLASH: We do! We believe he has seen things from both sides, & while he does have a current bias, he also knows how good players can have it - after all, he IS an owner now, right?

                            22. During the NFL's lockout, Troy Polamalu said, "I think what the players are fighting for is something bigger. A lot of people think it's millionaires versus billionaires and that's the huge argument. The fact is, it's people fighting against big business. The big business argument is, 'I got the money and I got the power, therefore, I can tell you what to do.' That's life everywhere. I think this is a time when the football players are standing up saying, 'No, no, no, the people have the power.'" Isn't it interesting how the common theme here is power and greed?

                            Answer: NFL players DO NOT have Guaranteed contracts - the NBA does. NFL players DO NOT have (a current) 57% (or the 50% purposed) of their owners profits - the NBA does! NFL has competitive balance & a stricty player conduct policy & drug policy - the NBA does NOT! NEVER compare yourself to the NFL - you only look stupider & stupider...(if that is even possible!)

                            23. If your boss came to you and said, "Listen, I know we are coming off of record overall profits as far as overall revenue and the most lucrative year in history but we have made some individual decisions that we are not happy with and we need you to take massive pay cuts. We need you to agree to construct the rules so that we can no longer make those mistakes, and we want you to make it easier for us to get rid of you if we choose." What would your reaction be? Would you say "Some money is better than no money," or would you gather the rest of your fellow employees and stand up for yourselves?

                            Answer: My bosses have told me that while I make tens of millions of dollars playing a GAME, and make millions more strickly based of the exposer & opportunity they provide me, but they are losing millions due to a pro-player deal signed many years ago, that now an un-forseen global economic structure has shifted, and changes are needed - tough changes that many (if not ALL) Americans themselves have already had to make is needed, yet I see only "The Man" bringing my party down. I have had it too good by almost EVERY person's anylisis, yet I feel I deserve 100 x that of every school teachers, police officer, fire fighters, hospital nurses, truck drivers - Hell, nearly EVERY American, including most (even likely my own) business owner, yet I will refuse to play a game! How many of you feel like I do, that an owner that takes risks, risks the misses, and wants is screwed because I (NBA player) do not want to take less then 50% of their take (or the guaranteed % my contract demands - which ever is greater!).
                            Ethan, you are dumber then a rock, less likible then a phlem-filled cough, and are 110% why fans side with the owners (as much as we dis-like that option). WE WANT NBA BASKETBALL IN 2011!!!

                            Etan Thomas is (turd of a) 11-year NBA veteran and a (suck-a$$) poet, (Fictional NBA labor) author and (very Non) motivational speaker. His website is etanthomasknowsnothing.com.


                            *The opinions expressed are that of PacerGuy (& likely/ hopefully) that of YOU!
                            Last edited by PacerGuy; 11-13-2011, 10:43 PM.
                            "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                            (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              What the players also have to understand is we have been in a down economy for almost all of the last CBA. The owners need to get a deal that is fair for the economy and even better than the economy . Because they need to recoop all there losses that happened when the economy went to hell. It sucks that the economy is bad but the owners need this CBA to go there way and if the economy improves during the next CBA and the league is making enough money they can get more % of BRI. But 50-50 is more than fair in this market.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
                                *The opinions expressed are that of PacerGuy (& likely/ hopefully) that of YOU!
                                Wow. What a post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X