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

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    When keeping it real goes wrong..
    http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/...?videoId=24435

    Concerning number 1, I agree but the more games were lost the more the hardliners would gain in ranks and want compensation in the form of a better BRI split. I don't think Stern misplayed his hand but was forced to play the hand by the owners.

    I could see Stern down playing the final offer part but thats when the rubber meets the road. Stern barely had the offer from the owners on the table. He knew that they wouldn't go for less IMO.

    I kind of agree with this whole sentiment.

    On one hand the players are going to use the Stern "Ultimatum" to state their case for unfair labor board.

    On the other hand Stern had to issue some kind of deadline in order for there to be some kind of movement.

    When has a high profile labor dispute really ever been settled before 11th hour ultimatums?

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Originally posted by billbradley View Post
      How is this riskier for the players and Stern winning big?

      If Stern wins the players lose millions in lost paychecks and the new system favors the owners (most of this was happening no matter what).

      But if Stern loses, we lose season(s) and teams go bankrupt and there is no more NBA as we know it.
      Do you really think the NRLB will let the league lose and be responsible for the demise of the nba. Even the rich teams would find it hard to come up with that kind of money with no current income. Also all teams would then have to return to their further losing money under current CBA.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
        Do you really think the NRLB will let the league lose and be responsible for the demise of the nba. Even the rich teams would find it hard to come up with that kind of money with no current income. Also all teams would then have to return to their further losing money under current CBA.
        I wasn't saying what I believe to happen, but rather commenting on the risk involved.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
          I would think all players would be plaintiffs. I sure would be pissed if I as a player were left out of the 3X and Kobe wasn't
          It is a class action suit, so all players are included.

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            I don't think so. Yesterday I read an article talking about how the players were trying to decide who is named a plaintiff. In the case against the NFL, only 10 players were named.

            Star quarterbacks Tom Brady of the New England Patriots, Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts and Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints were among 10 players who sued the NFL in federal court Friday in Minneapolis, accusing the league of conspiracy and anticompetitive practices that date back years.
            http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...lawsuit-vs-nfl

            If the lawsuit covered all players, why would individual players need to be named?
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I don't think so. Yesterday I read an article talking about how the players were trying to decide who is named a plaintiff. In the case against the NFL, only 10 players were named.


              http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...lawsuit-vs-nfl

              If the lawsuit covered all players, why would individual players need to be named?
              Depends on if it is Class Action or not. If it is not, plaintiffs have to be named since there is no more collective organization. IANAL, but that is my understanding.
              BillS

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

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                Originally posted by asmithxc View Post
                It is a class action suit, so all players are included.
                I would think so.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  E-mail from the Pacers:

                  Dear MagicRat,

                  As we are sure you are aware , the players union announced yesterday they have rejected the NBA's latest proposal and have abandoned the collective bargaining process. Additionally, the NBA has just announced regular season games have been cancelled through Dec. 15, 2011.

                  The NBA is committed to reaching an agreement that is in the best interests of its teams, players, fans and the game. We regret that such an agreement has not yet been reached and we understand the impact this has on our fans, our employees and those who work in Conseco Fieldhouse. Our hope is to continue our goal of bringing an NBA championship to Indiana.

                  We recognize that without our fans and our partners, there would be no NBA or Indiana Pacers team, and we do not take your support for granted. You have been loyal to us in good times and bad and we sincerely appreciate your continued support. As always, we will be sure to keep you informed and aware of any related developments and are available to try to answer any questions you may have.

                  Thank you,
                  All of us at the Indiana Pacers
                  PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                    I wasn't saying what I believe to happen, but rather commenting on the risk involved.
                    I was answering rhetorically rather than addressing what you believe.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                      How is this riskier for the players and Stern winning big?

                      If Stern wins the players lose millions in lost paychecks and the new system favors the owners (most of this was happening no matter what).

                      But if Stern loses, we lose season(s) and teams go bankrupt and there is no more NBA as we know it.
                      ITs risky for the players because the odds of them winning are very slim. If they do win this just means owners are force back to the table and will lose out on most system issues and will have a worse BRI split.

                      If the players lose then say good bye to a 47 players BRI split. IMO it drops to 45% and most of the system issue favor owners in much more strict terms.

                      NO teams will go bankrupt even if the owners lose. IT would however be a punishing blow to the owners and would reset the table for most CBA negotations which is what I think Kessler wants on his resume.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        I've read 20 or so articles today (100 plus tweets I'm sure), no I'm not proud. I'm thinking once the players file the lawsuit, then 'the lawyers' can negotiate this thing. Guess who the lawyers are? Well there's Hunter and Stern....

                        I really think if these arrogant people on both sides can get over their feelings being hurt then we can have a deal. Yes, Stern is the rep for hardliners and yes they want everything, but even they don't want a lost season. It's up the the owners to let there be an agreement, it always has been.

                        I'm convinced yesterday didn't cancel the season, it changed the paperwork you have to do to start one.

                        It may not happen this week, but I still say you're next two moments of Zen are 11/30 (Saves Xmas) and Jan 7th (Saves season).

                        11/30 is probably too soon for Sally Stern to get over not being the biggest **** in the henhouse for a day.

                        Every moment lost from here out causes more Delonte West tweets and Cuban, Buss, Dolan pressure.

                        We are finally to the point where EVERYONE is losing. That's some good incentive.

                        PS one other point, Stern wouldn't throw the players a bone to save face... so they took one. Whatever the outcome they can say they didn't roll over now. Thats a pretty big deal for a competitive person.

                        PSS Great double header tonight with Duke v. Mich ST and Kentucky v. Kansas. If you miss Pro ball, watch Kentucky/Kansas - 4 or 5 lottery picks in that game.
                        Bottom line is, if the players weren't going to take that last deal, then they had to do this. And we know the players don't want to miss an entire season.

                        I haven't read the past deal. And I know people have said "it's a new CBA, the players aren't losing anything." But in their minds, they were losing a lot. Things don't just start fresh. And to top it all off, as you mentioned, THEY felt they were bullied into it. And you just can't do that to people like professional athletes.

                        Jeez, if the NBA had appealed to the players in a different, way, instead of bullying, they might have gotten more of what they wanted. And if they had actually bothered to negotiate with the players, they might have found some compromises that both sides would agree too.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          Do you really think the NRLB will let the league lose and be responsible for the demise of the nba. Even the rich teams would find it hard to come up with that kind of money with no current income. Also all teams would then have to return to their further losing money under current CBA.
                          We're not in front of the NLRB anymore. The NLRB does not have jurisdiction over antitrust actions -- the treble damages come from the Sherman Act, which is an antitrust law. (It is worth noting that the NBA will probably still pursue a claim in front of the NLRB that the NBPA's disclaimer of interest is a sham and they are bargaining in bad faith -- if they win that, it helps them tremendously in the antitrust suit, I'd think).

                          I do not think most federal judges would be concerned about the demise of the NBA. However, if the players won, the NBA would appeal -- and they would almost certainly settle the case for something that the owners could afford while on appeal. That being said, I cannot imagine it will be easy for the players to win on summary judgment, and there's little chance they have the patience to wait for a full trial and appeal process -- that can take years. (A recent Supreme Court antitrust case, Leegin, was brought in early 2003 and took over 3 years before the circuit court decided the appeal and a year and a half before the initial trial court reached its decisions).

                          So basically: if the players win on summary judgment, the league will settle. If the players lose on summary judgment, I'd look for the players to settle or drop the suit.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            I was answering rhetorically rather than addressing what you believe.
                            Ah, well I guess the question is, does the NBA "really believe."

                            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                            ITs risky for the players because the odds of them winning are very slim. If they do win this just means owners are force back to the table and will lose out on most system issues and will have a worse BRI split.

                            If the players lose then say good bye to a 47 players BRI split. IMO it drops to 45% and most of the system issue favor owners in much more strict terms.

                            NO teams will go bankrupt even if the owners lose. IT would however be a punishing blow to the owners and would reset the table for most CBA negotations which is what I think Kessler wants on his resume.
                            The owners have a ton more to lose than the players and it's not just going back to the negotiating table. And 200 mill would certainly cripple franchises.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              This is %99.999 of the problem with competitive balance in the NBA. I keep saying it, but that is it in a nutshell.

                              Nobody wants to be the next city to lose LeBron or Carmelo. You can shuffle deck chairs all you want with everyone else.

                              It bothers me that the Knicks didn't have to make one shrewd management decision or draft pick, yet were able to cherry-pick two superstars off of two teams that did.
                              Technically, they only cherry picked Melo....Billups just came along for the ride. If you are referring to Amare, he was signed as a FA. Ultimately, it was Amare's choice to go to the Knicks.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post

                                Jeez, if the NBA had appealed to the players in a different, way, instead of bullying, they might have gotten more of what they wanted. And if they had actually bothered to negotiate with the players, they might have found some compromises that both sides would agree too.
                                Problem is that until there was a deadline. The players showed absolutely zero urgency in getting a deal done.

                                Usually high leverage negotiations aren't done until they are up against a deadline and there is pressure from both sides of the isle.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X