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

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    More genius from a player as Amare says that players have been considering starting their own league.

    #justshutup
    Sounds like a players' ultimate dream. They can reduce the league to 6 teams with Amare and Melo joining the Heat. Boston could use someone like Deron Williams. Woo hoo, NBA all star weekend all the time.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout news

      Talk of players starting their own league is dangerous for the union. Less teams mean less jobs for the players. Let's say they try a 10 team league with 12 players per team. So 120 players still have jobs. That leaves 380 players unhappy (assuming 500 players total).

      Talk of a new league may make the common players start thinking that the union is all about the stars. And that's when the union will start to fall apart.

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout news

        This 50 is the middle, or whatever the middle crap is just talk. The owners wanted 50 from the start... so the players were at 57, the owners were at 43... so that they'd get what they wanted.

        The entire time they were just wanting 50. If the players wanted 55 the owners would be at 45.

        There has been 0 movement on the owners position. They want 50. There has been 4 points movement on the Players position from 57 to 53.

        The owners are saying, we're not agreeing on the middle between 50 and 53, we want 50, and we're not budging.

        The owners have had 0 budge in anything in this. It's all just a negotiation for them to get what they really want.

        Please tell me we all understand these basic concepts... have you guys ever negotiated your salary before? It's all the same thing.
        Removed link to my website after a PM from Able.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout news

          I know that I'm probably gonna get some "oh you're just being a homer" comments from this, but you wanna know the first player who has said something anti-Stern/league that also doesn't totally blow me away with his arrogance and ignorance? Danny Granger.

          He just tweeted
          dgranger33 Danny Granger
          I say we play all the games Stern canceled for charity...

          http://twitter.com/#!/dgranger33

          You wanna get fans on your side and also make a statement against the league? Do something like this. Don't be so focused on yourselves and how you're being forced not to play or how you might start your own league.

          Players can be smart with PR they just haven't been...at all, not shocking that a guy with a degree, who almost went to an Ivy League school makes the first comment that actually helps the players in the PR battle. Way to not make it about you, and not make it about money Danny. First truly smart move from a player that I've seen.


          Comment


          • Re: Lockout news

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

            Also something doesn't add up to me as things were seemingly close to a deal several weeks ago. Ken Burger tries to explain in his article
            The NBAPA got the superstars who are already set for life involved. Thats what happened.

            If they had gotten guys like Danny or Matt Bonner or Okafor involved instead (even though Danny is probably in pretty good shape with his contract), the Players would look a lot better in the court of public opinoun.
            Last edited by Sandman21; 10-12-2011, 02:09 PM.
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

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

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout news

              Sad thing is you get guys like Granger, Okafor etc. involved in this and we probably have a deal. Instead we're stuck with King James, Melo and D-Wade...


              Comment


              • Re: Lockout news

                I think most of you guys are far too hung up on BRI% negotiation.

                I believe that the negotiation of revenue split has very little to do with where we are today. The biggest problem is the system, not the money. In fact, Stern as much said the same thing when he stated that if agreement could be made on system that money would fall into place.

                I suppose that if I were a player, I would mostly be concerned about the money that was coming my way. I would want it guaranteed once my name was signed on the dotted line, especially if I didn't have the final say in where I was going to play.

                But, especially considering the current economic times, I would say that if the players are going to continue to get guaranteed contracts, they must be willing to give up quite a bit to secure them. They get the guaranteed money, so perhaps it would be a noble gesture on their part to give a little and let the owners have a major say so in the system.

                If I were a player, the major thing that I might be concerned about would be length of contract. How long will I get my guaranteed money once I put my name on the dotted line? As for MLE, LLE, Bird rights and so forth, why should I care so much as long as I'm going to get my guaranteed money for 3 years instead of 2, or perhaps 4 years instead of 3?

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout news

                  Someone in the Union needs to tell Amare to put a sock in it:

                  http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...medium=twitter

                  How long do you think players can go without getting paychecks?:

                  "We can go years man. We've been preparing ourselves for this lockout for three years now. … It's humbling in a way for you to be able to humble yourself and really learn how to budget and spend your money. A lot of times when you're bringing in a certain amount of income, you spend out of your means. I think now it's going to humble the guys to understand it's very important to save, very important to budget."
                  "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

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

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout news

                    Granger's tweet doesn't come off as overly combative, it doesn't come as childish and it doesn't come off as selfish which is what sets it apart from the other players' comments so far. Too bad more of them aren't communicating in a more effective manner.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout news

                      Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                      Someone in the Union needs to tell Amare to put a sock in it:

                      http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...medium=twitter
                      Yeah it's so hard to stay within a budget. If you gave me one year of Amare's salary I could set up 3-4 generations of my family for their entire lives. What a looney.

                      Also, is it really considered humbling to have to budget your money? Guess most people "humble" themselves everyday.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout news

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Also, is it really considered humbling to have to budget your money? Guess most people "humble" themselves everyday.
                        Humbling for him because he never had to worry about it in the first place.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout news

                          Originally posted by Doddage View Post
                          Humbling for him because he never had to worry about it in the first place.
                          He shouldn't have to worry about it now even.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout news

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            He shouldn't have to worry about it now even.
                            He's not, he's probably just utilizing the union tactic of trying to garner sympathy from the public.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout news

                              Hall of Famers split, agree lockout hurts NBA
                              http://www.foxsportsflorida.com/10/1...08&feedID=3682

                              In 1957, two years after becoming the first president of the NBA players union, Boston's Bob Cousy helped negotiate a major breakthrough.

                              Per diem had been $5. The union got it up to $7.

                              More than a half-century later, per diem is more than $100. And salaries have increased a tad since Cousy said he was highest-paid player in the NBA at $35,000 annually when he retired from the Celtics in 1963.

                              But the Hall of Fame point guard still sees some similarities between the NBA of his day and today's league, embroiled in a lockout that has led to the first two weeks of the regular season being canceled. And surprisingly, what Cousy sees now leads him to actually gravitate toward management.

                              "If all the information I read in the newspapers is accurate, I think in this case I would lean on the side of management," said Cousy, retired in Worchester, Mass., and one of five Hall of Famers whom FOX Sports interviewed regarding the lockout. "If 22 teams are losing money,” as commissioner David Stern has said.

                              Cousy's take is these are trying times for the NBA and the economy, and players must recognize that. If so many teams are indeed losing money, players need to appreciate the opportunity provided by the league.

                              "Our approach 50 years ago was we knew there were six or eight owners who were in danger, most of them not making any money," said Cousy, who remembers it was "like pulling teeth" getting players to pay their $10 annual union dues. "And we knew six or eight owners were willing to put up their money that allowed us to play a child's game and earn a pretty good living as opposed to selling insurance like everyone else. So when we started the union in this league, our demands were very modest."

                              Under Cousy's presidency, the players also were able to cut down the number of preseason games, from the days when the Celtics "went all over New England playing 21 games in like 24 days." Now, teams play a maximum of eight.

                              But don't count Cousy's former Boston teammate John Havlicek as leaning toward management. He's solidly behind the players.

                              "The owners put themselves in this position with all the things they were doing, and now they want the players to protect them from themselves," Havlicek, retired in Weston, Mass., said about owners claiming losses after handing out excessive contracts in recent years.

                              But there's one thing all these Hall of Famers agree upon. Cousy, Havlicek, Lenny Wilkens, David Thompson and Rick Barry all say the lockout, which began July 1, can do nothing but hurt the NBA.

                              Wilkens, a Hall of Famer as both a coach and a player, coached Atlanta when the NBA lost games for the first time during a 1998-99 lockout that shortened the season from 82 to 50 games. But Wilkens believes this second work stoppage could lead to more damage due to the depressed economy.

                              "I'm a little disappointed it got to this point," Wilkens said from Seattle, where he coached the SuperSonics to the 1979 NBA title and has had aspirations of bringing another team to the city since the franchise bolted to Oklahoma City in 2008. "I thought last year was a great year (in the NBA). There were a lot of young players developing, a lot of young teams developing. (The lockout) hurts both sides.

                              "I thought we were fortunate (in the last lockout) to recapture the fans' attention. This could hurt a little bit more. I think with the economy, people will have to make tough choices."

                              Cousy believes the lockout could do "irreparable harm" because people "have busy lives" and will move on if it lingers. Thompson agrees.

                              "When you get into November and December and there are no games being played, people will forget about the NBA," said Thompson, who lives in Charlotte and makes regular public appearances in the area. "When you have millionaires and billionaires bickering over dollars, that will turn fans off.

                              "Hopefully, they get this resolved and there aren't any more games lost other than first two weeks of the season. But I would like to see them starting talking again rather than take a week off. Both sides need to get in and get this resolved and everybody get back to work."

                              Owners and players met Monday in New York but could not reach an agreement to end the work stoppage. There are no plans to meet this week.

                              With the NBA claiming losses of $300 million annually, a key element in negotiations has been how much of the league's basketball-related income players will get. In the previous collective bargaining agreement, players received 57 percent. The NBA wants to cut that to 50 while the players are remaining steadfast at 53 percent.

                              "The players are getting bad advice," Barry said from his home in Colorado Springs, Colo. "I'm not a big fan of (union executive director) Billy Hunter. What are they going to get if they lose 30 games and get zero concessions? What are they going to get if owners are going to hold their position? Owners screwed up their finances the last time (with collective bargaining agreements of 1999 and 2005). They want a chance now to break even and that's not unreasonable."

                              Barry's belief is not only will players lose money due to lost games, but also future revenue will be diminished due to the NBA declining in popularity because of the lockout. While such a dip would hurt the owners as well, Barry believes he has a solution for the lockout that would help the players.

                              "There is chance where they could go in and look like heroes," Barry said. "They could salvage their game."

                              Barry believes players should agree to the proposed 50-50 split and say they're doing it to "help the game." But Barry said the players then should request that they receive 60 percent of revenue past a certain point at which the owners break even.

                              "If they let the lockout continue, revenues aren't going to go up and the popularity is not going to be there," Barry said, arguing that players are hurting themselves more than owners by not settling now. "It's insane. It's so stupid. (The players) need to minimize the negative effect by doing a deal now."

                              Thompson, though, believes players already "have moved quite a bit and have given up a lot." Referring to the 57 percent, Havlicek said it's "hard to give something back you already had in negotiations."

                              Somehow, there has to be point for compromise.

                              "People don't like to see lockouts," Havlicek said. "They don't like to see people making a lot of money (on both sides) negotiate the way it has come down to. People who are paying the ticket prices think it's unfathomable there would be a lockout."

                              Cousy, at 83 one of just seven living players who played in the NBA's first All-Star Game in 1951, wishes today's players could adopt some of the spirit possessed by the NBA's pioneers.

                              "We were as happy as pigs in mud that people actually paid us money to play," he said.
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout news

                                Someone get Rick Barry to the NBPA meeting this week. Heck, get him to the negotiating table!
                                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X