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 cordobes View Post
    I'm fairly sure the access to the books is under very strict confidentiality agreements. Generally the other side doesn't really get to get the full financial reports on their hands; just to nominate some independent auditors and accountants to look at them and make reports. Maybe it's different there, but in any case I'd be beyond surprised if strong confidentially clauses aren't in place.
    They can still argue that the NBA isn't losing the amount of money that they're claiming, and offer some type of proof, without getting out sensitive information. They already tried doing just that when they tried using the NJ Nets as the example.

    The NBPA hasn't been claiming the losses were over-inflated, or just plain wrong, for a couple of months now.

    They've dropped that complaint. Why can't everyone else?



    Originally posted by cordobes View Post
    Still, the BRI split they agreed to covers the $300 million. I'm not sure why the owners think they can get the players to agree to concede even more when under the last CBA the negotiated salaries were superior to the 57% BRI split in every year except one - which suggests that the owners would spend more than 57% of the BRI absent a collectively bargained cap.
    Once again, they aren't arguing over money now. They're arguing how that money is spent. There is a difference.



    Originally posted by cordobes View Post
    What 8% increase? The players, as a bargaining unit, would go from making to 57% of the BRI to 50% of it. How much money that is would depend on the revenue growth. But their earning potential certainly suffers a cut.
    Each year players get automatic raises, because of the revenue growth. When players sign contracts, the automatically get the highest percentage of growth, whether or not the NBA grows the same amount.

    Revenue has been increasing at a slower pace than the players salaries have been increasing. Which is why there is a difference.

    The players don't actually "lose" any money. They aren't given a raise for the next two years. Once again, there is a difference.

    After the two years are up, instead of an 8% increase, they would be getting a 6.5% for Bird Rights players, and 3.5% for non-Bird Rights players.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Originally posted by aaronb View Post
      I mean in terms of talent as opposed to salary.....I.E, you wouldn't see a LeBron/Bosh/Wade aligning themselves in all likelihood.
      No, but I'd hope that isn't what the uproar is all about. Preventing another Miami doesn't make the bad teams any better.

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

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

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        This is due to small sample size. If NBA teams played 20 games a season every team would have a chance as well.
        That's the opposite of what I'm saying. Meaning 3/4ths DO NOT THINK they will win a title in the NFL, not the other way around.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          Originally posted by Hicks
          So do you think less than 3/4 of NFL teams go into a season without hope of winning a championship? That sounds far-fetched, if so.
          Isn't basketball a different animal when it comes to the impact of 1 or 2 Players to the roster compared to the other Professional Sports?

          Sure, in any sport....you can "catch lightning in a bottle" with drafting a great Player and having him play on Team that has a great FO that can fully utilize his skills to its max potential while surrounding him with a great supporting cast....but it would seem that Basketball is different in the sense that there is a greater impact that 1 or 2 Players can have to the Teams fortune then in any other sport.

          Although there may be perennial playoff teams in every professional sport that make it to the Playoffs....going back to that list that ( I think ) KStat posted about the # of different teams that have won the NBA Championship in the last 30 years.....do we see similar results in other sports?
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            I don't understand all the buzz about that sham decertification thing.

            Sure, the players dissolved the union because they weren't happy with the results of the bargaining process and to allow the players to litigate on court. And sure, if in the future reforming the union is the best option, they'll do it. Nobody can be obliged to bargain forever. Unions can't be forced to bargain against their will.

            When has that argument been successful? The NFL used it when their union disclaimed interest in the early 90s, the courts didn't accept it and they ended up paying treble damages to the players and allowing the free-agency - in fact, the NLRB ruled that the disclaimer of interest was valid even if used as a litigation strategy. They used it again last year, but the courts never affirmed it - the injunction relief the players were asking was accepted first, rejected by the 8th circuit later, but not because of that sham decertification argument.

            I suspect that if the union stops bargaining - I don't see how Hunter's salary, their involvement in the lawsuits or whatnot is relevant - the courts will rule in the same way. Not sure, but it doesn't make much sense to me they'd rule differently this time.

            It'd take an extremely labor friendly court to say that the unions can't be dissolved if the workers idea is to get a better deal via litigation. The fact the players' lawyers decided to fill the lawsuit in the very labor friendly California courts system suggest they're not too worried about this.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
              Agreed. But it doesn't mean that the players can't win another injunction relief case. Four judges got to vote on that case and they were evenly divided by partisan lines: 2 republican appointed judges ruled that the Norris-La Guardia was applicable to lockouts, 2 democrat appointed ones ruled it wasn't. Some agents and their lawyers were also convinced that a lawsuit from rookies/free-agents would succeed because the rationale - that the employment relation subsists - would become invalid.

              I think the players believe they can get a favorable ruling at or below the circuit level that would order teams to open doors, while allowing the owners to just put a bond on the treble damages and carry on the litigation if they so desire.
              I'm not sure that's right. Boies already stated that the players aren't seeking an injunction to lift the lockout. They're going straight for a summary judgement on punitive damages. Though you could say that the threat of such a ruling might lead the NBA to lift the lockout through settlement, but it seems unlikely that a court will order the lockout to be lifted.

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                Let me try to word this better than I did above:

                Kstat said, '3/4 of the [NBA] STILL would go into every season with little to no hope of winning a championship'

                My response was trying to say that I question that fraction (3/4) or percentage (75%). My question to him was to see if he truly felt 25% of NFL teams DID think they were going to have a good shot at a title each season.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  That's the opposite of what I'm saying. Meaning 3/4ths DO NOT THINK they will win a title in the NFL, not the other way around.
                  There's always more hope in football than basketball. That's the nature of the sport, not a failing of the league itself.

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

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

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    Is it 14 or 16? Either way, I wasn't saying that the NBA has the same parity as the NFL, because it couldn't. But there are still issues with parity in the NFL, the holy bastion of competitive balance.
                    14. My bad.

                    NE, Stl, Tampa, Oakland, Carolina, Philly, Pitt, Seattle, Indy, Chicago, NYG, Arizona, NO, and GB.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                      I still don't really understand what leverage the players legitimately have?

                      Can a Union legally insist that an employer operates at a loss? Can't each of these players exercise their free market rights to play oversees?

                      At this point I hope they stayed locked out long enough to completely overhaul the whole Salary/Revenue sharing system to benefit the league as a whole.

                      Nothing worse than missing half a season and ending up with a terrible deal like we saw in 99 IMHO.

                      Going to court is a pain in the *** and is extremely expensive - milions of dlaars this will cost them. Plkus at some point before the 2 or 3 years it will take to litigate this, the owners want to get back to basketball because the last thing any owner wants is their franchise value to decrease 50%

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        You could have a hard salary cap, total revenue sharing and non-guaranteed contracts in the NBA, and 3/4 of the league STILL would go into every season with little to no hope of winning a championship.

                        Which team is LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Durant, Rose, etc. Playing for? Ok. There's your list of contenders. Take all the other teams and toss them in a pile. Maybe once in a blue moon you can catch lightning in a bottle with the right collection of players.

                        Revenue sharing does not score points. Non-guaranteed contracts do not collect rebounds, and a hard salary cap does not make plays in crunch time.
                        I'm not disputing what you say & overall I think you are right however isn't what the goal of the change in basketball issues designed to make it so that star players can not force their way onto the same team making super teams and leaving it so that only large market teams could afford that?

                        No doubt in my mind that LeBron's jump last year played a part in these labor talks but IMO Melo's move played just as important of a role in that he forced his way onto the Knicks and then the upcoming Chris Paul to the Knicks & Dwight Howard to the Lakers threats kicked it into over drive.

                        Honestly with the Heat already together you put Paul on the Knicks & Howard in L.A. and let's just be honest here, people would really need to stop supporting their local clubs and just invest in being a casual fan of the NBA because for the next 10 years (or better) the titles are going to go through those clubs and if not them some other super group that will be put together.

                        Also while I agree with your premise that star players are always going to rule the day, I do believe that the NBA rules help along those lines. Star players dominate in College and Europe as well, but not nearly to the level they do in the NBA and I think some of that is the style of play and the rules that are enforced. (Yes before you say it I admit that the NBA star players are far above and beyond the star players at the other level)

                        So again I agree with what you are saying but I think that there are some exceptions.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                          When has that argument been successful? The NFL used it when their union disclaimed interest in the early 90s, the courts didn't accept it and they ended up paying treble damages to the players and allowing the free-agency - in fact, the NLRB ruled that the disclaimer of interest was valid even if used as a litigation strategy. They used it again last year, but the courts never affirmed it - the injunction relief the players were asking was accepted first, rejected by the 8th circuit later, but not because of that sham decertification argument.
                          That's not the same situation, though. I thought that battle was over whether or not free agency was even allowed to exist in the NFL. That's lightyears from where the players in the NBA are it in that regard. They have it much better than NFL players.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            14. My bad.

                            NE, Stl, Tampa, Oakland, Carolina, Philly, Pitt, Seattle, Indy, Chicago, NYG, Arizona, NO, and GB.
                            Comparing the 9 from the NBA, it's really not that far apart. I'm not saying the NBA has the level of parity of the NFL but it's also not awful.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              There's always more hope in football than basketball. That's the nature of the sport, not a failing of the league itself.
                              Is there a way to quantify this 'hope'?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                The NBPA hasn't been claiming the losses were over-inflated, or just plain wrong, for a couple of months now.

                                They've dropped that complaint. Why can't everyone else?
                                There's a difference between agreeing with something, and accepting that they can't fight it. The owners have leverage, the players don't, so they knuckled under.

                                Actually, the 7% BRI giveback by the players doesn't quite cover all the NBA's stated losses ($270m vs $300m), not to mention the small profit that NBA teams were seeking. So by your argument, does that mean owners were overstating their losses if they're happy with 50% now?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X