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

NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #91
    Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/analysis-t...-on-the-table/

    Analysis: The Deal On The Table

    After Tuesday’s meeting among each team’s representatives to the National Basketball Players’ Association (NBPA) we know the Players will not take the deal the Owners have put on the table as currently written. However, they do want to negotiate a little bit from the offer, choosing to ignore the NBA’s Wednesday afternoon deadline as an expiration of the offer.

    It’s now on the NBA and the Owners to decide if they really do want to tear up this offer and go to an alternate, more restrictive one, or if they are willing to swallow their pride and also ignore the deadline in favor of more negotiations.

    Actually, the negotiations will happen…where they lead is still a question.

    Let’s take a look at the deal on the table, how it differs from the previous CBA, and where the Players would like to see changes.

    The Luxury Tax

    The offer has some elements specific to teams in luxury tax territory. One of those is restrictions on player movement, meaning a tax paying team could not participate in a sign-and-trade deal of one of their own free agents and they would not have the Bi-Annual Exception (BAE) available. In addition, their Mid-Level Exception (MLE) would be reduced, limited to a two-year deal starting at $2.5 million with a 3% raise for Year Two. The old CBA had no restrictions on luxury tax teams.

    The tax itself will be more prohibitive. Instead of a dollar-for-dollar tax, the amount of tax would increase for each $5 million over the luxury tax amount a team reaches. The first $5 million is taxed at $1.50 per dollar, the next $5 million at $1.75 per dollar, the next $5 million at $2.25 per dollar, and anything over that at $3 per dollar. In addition, there will a further penalty on teams who are repeated tax payers. The Owners proposed $1.50 per dollar, the Players $.50.

    The Players are receptive to these new items to a point. They would prefer the sign-and-trade and exception restrictions go away because they have the potential to restrict player movement, and they don’t want the luxury tax to be prohibitive to the point of effectively creating a hard cap, which includes items like the repeater tax.

    The Exceptions

    The offer on the table allows for a MLE starting at $5 million with a 3% raise. (Note: This is in addition to the luxury tax restrictions noted above.) It could be offered for three or four years, alternating annually. The old CBA has a MLE set at $5.765 million last season with 8% raises, for up to five years.

    The BAE, valued at two years starting at $2.08 million with an 8% raise in 2010-11, would still be for two years at a lower starting point with a 3% raise.

    This seems to be acceptable, though the more dollars and years the players can get the better.

    The Contracts

    With the deal on the table there will no allowance of “extend and trade” deals, which will become commonly known as the Carmelo Anthony Provision. Maximum contract lengths will be five years for players with “Bird rights” and four years for non-Bird free agents. Raises will be limited to 5.5% for Bird players and 3.5% for non-Bird players.

    The old deal allowed for the extend and trade, allowed contract lengths of six (Bird) and five (non-Bird) years, and allowed raises of 10.5% (Bird) and 8% (non-Bird).

    As with the exceptions the players would prefer longer contracts with higher raises, but these are workable.

    But that’s not all. In the offer the Owners have proposed 10% of every contract go into escrow. Under the old deal the amount was 8%. This is a protection for the owners against the final distribution of Basketball-Related Income (BRI) for a season. That was set at 57% to the Players in the old deal and the current offer of a banded amount between 49% and 51%, based on where total actual Income falls. If BRI falls short of the agreed amount, the escrow money goes to the owners (enough to make up the amount), and if it comes out ahead, the players get that money as a rebate check (in a sense, considering it’s the money they were promised in the first place).

    This is workable, but it’s not ideal. The end result is players will be getting smaller, shorter contracts and having more money automatically deducted from their checks which they may never see.

    One final item to note for the contracts: options. The deal on the table prohibits Team, Player and Early Termination options except on rookie scale deals (for first-round picks). Players, if they agree to a fully non-guaranteed final year of their deal, could have the option of opting out.

    This one may not be a huge deal. Players like to have control, but if we ran the numbers over the past ten years it’s likely we would find the majority of options have been exercised (David West a notable exception from this past June).

    The Amnesty Provision

    The offer also includes an amnesty provision where a team could choose to waive one player and have 100% of his salary not count against the cap or towards the luxury tax. The player would be paid the full amount he is owed and become an unrestricted free agent, free to sign with any team except the one who just let him go.

    Generally the Players are okay with this because the player in question will receive his full contract amount, but they have one request – don’t count the contracts of Amnestied players towards the Players’ division of BRI. For example, if the Portland Trail Blazers chose to Amnesty Brandon Roy, the $69.5 million check he receives would not count towards the players’ percentage of BRI. Instead, it wouldn’t factor into the equation at all.

    All of these are what are regarded as “system” issues, which are the balance to the more highly publicized BRI split. The Owners don’t want to give up a 50% of BRI while the Players don’t want to go that low. Both are willing to negotiate that number based on the give and take in system issues, but finding that balance between the two agreeable to both sides is the sticking point in the entire process.

    The outcome of the Players’ meeting on Tuesday had one interesting point, made by Los Angeles Lakers guard and NBPA President Derek Fisher:

    “We’re open to discussions, open to negotiation. We’re open-minded about potential compromises on our number, but there are things in the system that are not up for discussion that we have to have in order to able to get this season going.”

    But then union chief Billy Hunter said he believes the Owners will give the Players a 50-50 split on BRI. Therein lays the problem, because of the aforementioned balance in these negotiations between systems issues and BRI. The deal on the table is roughly a 50-50 split, but the Players want systems changes. Fisher indicated compromise is available on the number, so which is it?

    This is a hard road for the Players, coming off a system they benefited from greatly with 57% of BRI, but they can no longer have it all. At this point, they simply will not earn a 50-50 split if they ask for systems changes – presumably to their benefit – to the offer on the table. At this point the offer on the table IS the best combination of BRI and systems issue they can hope for.

    However, it doesn’t seem like that is a realization that will be forthcoming quickly enough to get a deal done.
    Sittin on top of the world!

    Comment

    • #92
      Re: NEWS ONLY Lockout thread

      This may have been discussed elsewhere, but Stephen A is reporting that Indiana is one of the 10 teams that are against the current deal.

      http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/72...better-nothing

      According to numerous team sources, obviously prohibited from talking publicly, the league's labor relations committee received a written letter from 10 owners vehemently opposed to the offer presently on the table. All of them -- Charlotte, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Memphis, Indiana, Portland, Minnesota, Sacramento, Denver and Milwaukee -- were emphatic that they believe this is a bad deal, that the players should actually receive less than 50 percent. Yet, Stern went ahead and made the offer, anyway.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment

      Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
      Working...
      X