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

Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

    I have no clue who this guy is. So this could all (probably is) just be BS...

    Sources just informed that David Stern may retire and step down as commissioner within the next 48 hrs.
    via @Fadde

    https://twitter.com/#!/fadde/status/145021510304804865

    Comment


    • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

      Problem is if you nix this deal for New Orleans, how can you approve any deal. What is or is not enough in a trade is subjective. If you can't approve any deal, you are basically saying to New Orleans, you are going to just lose him as a Free Agent w/o compensation. HOW is that fair.

      Or is it that he just can't go to a large market team, which is in complete violation of the relationship between the league and players.

      Ya, its a conflict of interest for the owners to collectively own the Hornets, but thats why they put Demps in place to independently manage the team.

      Stern has to let this go through, right now everyone is pissed off including GMs, players, agents, fans....only people not pissed are about 20 plus owners and that one Kardashian sister.

      Comment


      • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

        "Sources just informed that David Stern may retire and step down as commissioner within the next 48 hrs. "

        I would to, if I was Stern... Oh by the way, Adam, you might want to call some of your owners after I leave, I guess there is something going on... I'll be on a beach.

        Comment


        • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

          They can approve any deal that is good enough. A trade with young players and draft picks and salary cap flexibility. Pretty much the opposite of the proposed trade with LA.
          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

          Comment


          • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

            Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
            I have no clue who this guy is. So this could all (probably is) just be BS...



            via @Fadde

            https://twitter.com/#!/fadde/status/145021510304804865
            Fadde Mikhail: An NFL marketing agent and self-described CEO of Creative Sports International, Mikhail represents two players who are clients in Wichard’s agency – Buffalo Bills running back C.J. Spiller, and New York Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie. An address and Marriott Rewards number linked to Mikhail appear on a July 2009 hotel receipt, along with Austin’s name and Pro Tect Management.

            http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...ncagents092910
            "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

            Comment


            • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

              The rational thing to do for Stern would be to fire NO's GM. The GM and Stern clearly have different views about what's good for the Hornets.

              Comment


              • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                Like I stated in the other thread:

                1) I'm glad this trade got nixed. For a league-owned team to play a hand in the formation of another big market superteam would have been extremely hypocritical and irresponsible.

                B) I have maintained from the beginning that a league-owned team is a conflict of interest and it still baffles me as to why it is allowed. With that said, if it has to happen, then any trade proposal that is submitted to the league should be voted on by all 30 team owners, since they do all technically own an equal percentage of the Hornets.

                Blue) **** the Lakers.

                Comment


                • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                  Has the full contents of Gilbert's letter been posted yet? I didn't see it.

                  Report: Cavaliers owner urged Stern to veto Chris Paul trade - Sheridan Hoops

                  Originally posted by Chris Sheridan
                  This is going to be one crazy day.

                  And the craziness began just after midnight, EST, when Yahoo Sports published an e-mail it said was sent from Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert to commissioner David Stern, deputy commissioner Adam Silver and some other owners urging him to shoot down the three-team trade that would have sent Chris Paul from the New Orleans Hornets to the Los Angeles Lakers .

                  Curiously, the Yahoo report is unbylined. (It also does not mention whether it was written in Comic Sans font.)

                  Here is the text of the e-mail:

                  “Commissioner,

                  It would be a travesty to allow the Lakers to acquire Chris Paul in the apparent trade being discussed.

                  This trade should go to a vote of the 29 owners of the Hornets.

                  Over the next three seasons this deal would save the Lakers approximately $20 million in salaries and approximately $21 million in luxury taxes. That $21 million goes to non-taxpaying teams and to fund revenue sharing.

                  I cannot remember ever seeing a trade where a team got by far the best player in the trade and saved over $40 million in the process. And it doesn’t appear that they would give up any draft picks, which might allow to later make a trade for Dwight Howard. (They would also get a large trade exception that would help them improve their team and/or eventually trade for Howard.)

                  When the Lakers got Pau Gasol (at the time considered an extremely lopsided trade) they took on tens of millions in additional salary and luxury tax and they gave up a number of prospects (one in Marc Gasolwho may become a max-salary player).

                  I just don’t see how we can allow this trade to happen.

                  I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way that I do.

                  When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?

                  Please advise….

                  Dan G.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                    Originally posted by Pingu View Post
                    The rational thing to do for Stern would be to fire NO's GM. The GM and Stern clearly have different views about what's good for the Hornets.
                    This had absolutely nothing to do with what's good for the Hornets. How is that hard to understand?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                      I liked this take from Slate, especially this point:

                      — The owners don't seem to realize that the more they act as a cartel to squeeze players' monetary compensation the stronger the hand of teams in the desirable locations becomes because non-salary compensation (including both endorsements and non-monetary benefits of playing with your friends or winning championships) starts looming larger in the equation.

                      And the rest of the article:

                      http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...overnance.html

                      The NBA's Crisis of Governance
                      By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Friday, Dec. 9, 2011, at 8:19 AM ET


                      More fun, but about as convoluted, as the European Union treaty negotiations was last night's bizarre happenings around Chris Paul. First, the Los Angeles Lakers announced that they were acquiring Paul -- the best point guard in the game -- from the New Orleans Hornets in a three team trade that also involved the Houston Rockets. There were two flies in the ointment. One is that the Hornets are actually owned by the NBA itself rather than by a separate ownership group. The second is that the owners believed themselves to have just won a labor dispute that was specifically supposed to counter the disadvantages faced by so-called "small market" owners who were incensed by the prospect of a top-tier star like Paul going to the Lakers. So under pressure from the owners, NBA Commissioner David Stern took the nearly unprecedented step of vetoing the trade.

                      Several bullets in response:

                      — As a causal matter, the veto seems to have happened in large part because of the unusual ownership structure of the NBA. But procedurally speaking, I don't think that was relevant and owners can now pressure Stern to veto all kinds of trades they don't like.

                      — It's far from clear that this was actually a good trade for the Lakers. See John Hollinger for long form of the argument, but suffice it to say that this would have risked LA giving major minutes to replacement-level big men only to discover that there's only one ball for Paul and Kobe to share.

                      — By contrast, this was an excellent move for Houston who were getting Pau Gasol for spare parts and a draft pick. They're the clear losers here.

                      — The owners don't seem to realize that the more they act as a cartel to squeeze players' monetary compensation the stronger the hand of teams in the desirable locations becomes because non-salary compensation (including both endorsements and non-monetary benefits of playing with your friends or winning championships) starts looming larger in the equation.

                      — The owners also seem to be in denial about the reality that the marginal value of a win is higher in teams with large (and/or rich) fanbases, so a flat distribution of talent is economically inefficient. Trying to redistribute talent, rather than profits, ends up reducing profits.

                      — It's not clear to me why they don't just eliminate this New Orleans franchise. Everyone knows there are too many NBA teams. Nobodoy wants to own this team, nobody wants to play for it, and there's no a priori reason to believe an NBA franchise in New Orleans can be financially viable.

                      As a whole, I see this as a synedoche for the worst aspects of the American economy as a whole. Many NBA franchises are perennially mismanaged, but the Association is structured so as to prevent the liquidation of mismanaged franchises and their replacement by functioning sqauds. Incompetence is papered-over rhetorically by the conceit that teams playing in the countries largest and second-largest metro areas are somehow saddled with "small markets" while the San Antonio Spurs pay luxury tax. Then rather than raise their game, the owners cartelize to reduce the labor share of income and now are engaged in anti-competitive meddling in transactions. But nothing about this veto undermines the real advantages enjoyed by the Lakers, even while they've managed to screw over the scrappy innovatively managed Houston Rockets.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                        Listen I hate that the league had to get to the place where it had to veto a big market based trade.

                        This is the bed that Stern has made with this league. This debacle should be his last. He needs to resign.

                        This trade should not happen. But by allowing the state of the Hornets and the 2 year window in the new CBA, the league should have stayed out of it.

                        After the CBA, Stern and Silverman should have made it clear to the Hornet's staff that all deals with Paul need to be assessed by the office of the commissioner.

                        Stern,
                        You have pimped the players to be the league. Now that they want to dictate where they want to go under contract, you are mad? You created this Frankenstein. Now it is time to be held accountable. How can you dish out suspensions to players, coaches, and owners for lack of control, if in fact you cannot control the enforcement of CBA and a league owned team. RETIRE!!!!

                        Sincerely,
                        A Fan

                        Comment


                        • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post


                          Terrible decision by Stern to give into pressure from a few butt-hurt owners. Just awful.

                          How dare those "butt-hurt owners", his employer tell him anything! Do you tell your employer to, I'll be polite, go fly a kite when they say they don't like something you do? Stern has 2 choices: do what his employers want or quit. Same choices you and I have.

                          I read in one of the threads that Stern will "resign" in the next 48 hours over not liking his employers demand to have to invalidate the sale. They overrode his all sovereign power. He seems to feel he is above and unanwserable to his employers. If it's a threat to the owners, then call his bluff and let him walk out the door. It's time for a change, and as far as I'm concerned it's many years overdue! If this is what it takes for a change in NBA office leadership, I'm all for it. Stern got a new CBA, now he can leave. Good-bye and don't let the door hit him where the GOOD LORD split him. JMOAA

                          Comment


                          • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                            The league should come out and say that if they don't sell the Hornets by the end of this season, then the franchise is folding. They should allow them to deal with free agents to fill their roster.


                            Comment


                            • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                              I don't find some random NFL agent as a credible source about if Stern is going to retire.
                              "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                              Comment


                              • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                                Dan Gilbert's letter is the smoking gun for why this is such a farcical situation.

                                This is not about what's best for the Hornets. This is about a group of whiny, vindictive billionaires *****ing that another billionaire got a shiny new toy and they didn't.

                                Had Dan Gilbert known that LeBron was going to leave Cleveland, would he have tried to trade him? Would he be happy if Robert Sarver and the likes forced David Stern to rescind the deal?

                                The owners gave Dell Demps full autonomy to complete any roster move he wanted. Until he made one that some owners disagreed with. Not because it was best for the Hornets that the deal not happen but because they were jealous.

                                By revoking this trade, the league which had given Demps the ability to control all basketball operations for the Hornets, took any and all power away from him.

                                He cannot make any trade now. While the league has shown no aversion to hypocrisy in the past, it would be pushing the bounds even for them to say, "No, he can't be traded to the Lakers but sure he can go to the Celtics, or the Thunder, or Grizzlies." The Hornets will have to keep Paul, who through protest may never report back, for this season. They will then lose him in free agency. The Hornets will get absolutely nothing in compensation for the best point guard in the world. It can be argued that the package that the Hornets were receiving was not enough for Paul or the best deal they could get. I personally felt like getting Rajon Rondo, Jeff Green, and picks was their best option. But Demps, who is paid to make that decision, chose to go the route that kept them the most competitive in the short term. That was his choice and there is no argument that what he was getting was a good haul. There is no argument that what the Lakers were giving up was a huge cost. The Lakers, Hornets, and Rockets all gave up a lot. They all received a lot. It may not have been the best trade in your opinion but it was inarguably a fair trade.

                                I don't see how the Hornets can now make offers to free agents. If they offer to re-sign David West or Carl Landry, what's to stop Herb Simon from nixing the trade because one of those guys is who the Pacers wanted and he didn't agree with the Hornets, who he owns 1/29th of, spending that kind of cash?

                                With an unprecedented and heavy handed decision, the league opened up an enormous can of worms. And I don't think we'll know the full reprocussions for awhile.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X