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

Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

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

  • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

    Hardcap and franchise tag are a fallacy as long as you dont share revenue.

    owners/frontoffice have the keys, certainly the less succesfull teams do, they keep throwing them in the bowl not noticing the bowl is see-through.

    saying no to Howard, saying no to CP3 does A: not destroy your team instantly, B: avoid you getting crap back on your roster ala murphleavy C: gives you exactly what Cuban is talking about; flexibility.

    why ?

    a: the ball is in the player's court the next year to leave approx 30 million on the table or to pocket it and stay put.
    b: the player can only sign for teams with enough cap-space, any other option will have to go through you! therefore YOU call the shots, not an acceptable trade, then screw it and let him sign for the bullets.

    Now the players has only a limited choice and it will always go through his wallet.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      Yes. Because the players will fight it to the death. That means killing the next 2 seasons,at a minimum.
      The average NBA player is only in the league for 4 seasons. The first opt out date is 2017, which is 6 years from now. Most of the players involved in this past CBA fight will be out of the league by 2017. The fight will be a brand new fight for most of them.

      You're looking at it like the fight is just taking a break, as opposed to a completely new discussion involving new blood.

      To try and say it won't be done, because these set of players wouldn't allow it doesnt mean that a completely new set of players wouldn't be willing too.

      They won't know any difference than what they know, which will be playing under this new CBA and preserving it.

      Billy Hunter and Stern are gone. Stern has already said this was his last go around. New people brings new personalities. There's no way you can say, with any confidence, what they will and wont do.

      It all depends on how this CBA works out.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

        Originally posted by able View Post
        Hardcap and franchise tag are a fallacy as long as you dont share revenue.
        Obviously you didn't hear. Revenue sharing was more than tripled with this past CBA.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Obviously you didn't hear. Revenue sharing was more than tripled with this past CBA.
          and obviously you are not a math major

          there is NO report on sharing except for whispers it could at most treble.

          well if it did, then i have news for you: the old "sharing" was 50 million
          the new therefore MAXIMIUM woudl be 150 million.

          there is one "however" in there; the teams were receiving 1-1 lt dollars (split among teams under), that no longer happens, only half of that, and while teams work to get closer to the cap and under the LT that takes away at least half the increase.

          So hallelujah the NBA shares 100 million dollar in revenue to the poor brethren!

          150 million on a portrayed full season with 4.2 billion turnover

          well under my predicted 5%

          fyi: the NFL shares 75%
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
            a hard cap and a franchise tag for superstars works for the NFL.
            This.

            I've seen a lot of talk in this thread, but the bottom line is that the NBA isn't a very competitive league. Some might point to money in terms of contracts. Some might point to non-NBA revenue a player can generate. Others might point to things like beaches, mountains...things many people weigh when deciding where they want to live.

            Whatever the reason, the result is the same. The NBA isn't competitive and hasn't been that way for decades. The only question is whether you consider that to be a problem. Apparently, the majority of owners...people who actually know the issues...think it's a problem...and I'm with them on this issue.

            Edit: the franchise tag (or two) would certainly help create competitive balance. The hard-cap helps a little, but there are workarounds.
            Last edited by BlueNGold; 12-10-2011, 04:38 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

              I'm not a math major? Atleast I don't have to resort to purposely distorting the truth.

              You've went from claiming there wasn't any revenue sharing, to now admitting that they're in the process of atleast tripling it.

              Since you're moving towards the actual truth, I'll speed up the process
              It is expected that revenue-sharing will increase from $40 million to $160 million initially and keep rising to nearly $200 million, Stern said.
              http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...acy/51782532/1

              So it will actually quadruple revenue sharing, and eventually multiply it by 5.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                Originally posted by kellogg View Post
                Not sure...ask the Green Bay Packers and the NFL.
                Putting that the NFL is totally different than the NBA the Packers are a storied franchise(probably the storied franchise) in the NFL.

                That also factors in to whether a player wants to play there or not.

                A winning tradition.

                Comment


                • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  I'm not a math major? Atleast I don't have to resort to purposely distorting the truth.

                  You've went from claiming there wasn't any revenue sharing, to now admitting that they're in the process of atleast tripling it.

                  Since you're moving towards the actual truth, I'll speed up the process

                  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...acy/51782532/1

                  So it will actually quadruple revenue sharing, and eventually multiply it by 5.

                  IF that is the deal that is accepted, then it is OVER THE DURATION OF THIS CBA!

                  200 million??? for all i care they shove it because that is still UNDER my prognoses of 5%

                  I never mentioned anywhere there was no revenue sharing, pls quote me where i did.
                  not worth mentioning sharing, yes, and unless you want to call sharing 1% of the gross product really sharing then you wont have an argument there, which you still dont have but ok,

                  My argument was not that they dont share, my argument was that A: hardcap and franchise tag were a fallacy without revenue sharing (see NFL 75%) something that is not going to happen in my lifetime in the NBA.

                  secondly i made a case stating that it is the owners who are at fault (and their front offices) and not the players, but you ignored the for reasons only you can come up with.

                  So now we have established that revenue sharing can at best for the near fiture reach 4% of the gross product while changing the LT so that teams under the LT get less then ever

                  LT changes: formerly 1 - 1 all dollars go to teams under the treshold
                  LT now: several layers, more severe penalty system, less teams over
                  which at best will equal to the same amount of LT being received by the league as before, however...........

                  50% of that remains with the league to do as the league sees fit.
                  50% gets distributed over ALL teams (including those over the LT)

                  So, what you gain on sharing, you lose on LT revenue.

                  really that hard?
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                    Originally posted by able View Post
                    Hardcap and franchise tag are a fallacy as long as you dont share revenue.
                    Uh, right here. Not sharing is different than not sharing enough. Like I said, I don't need to purposefully distort the truth.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Uh, right here. Not sharing is different than not sharing enough. Like I said, I don't need to purposefully distort the truth.

                      Great answer, you really brought in arguments to take my case of the table and still saw chance to call me a liar without bringing any proof whatsoever to the table.

                      Or do you really want to argue that sharing 1% of the gross product really is revenue sharing ??????
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                        Originally posted by able View Post
                        that is definitely a reasoning that will get you murphleavy scenarios, please, that is enouhg of an example to not go that route.

                        You ARE creating cap space and you WILL have to be more prudent on talent that comes at lowers cost as well as your picksm, i.e. you have to be smarter, i say that is good.
                        You can't compare a superstar in his prime to the then-untradeable Stephen Jackson and Ron Artest. If the Magic traded Dwight Howard for Murphleavy, they would be rightfully skewered.

                        The Pacers are currently in as good of a position as you can get a team: a young, playoff core under contract and a ton of cap space. Yet, we don't appear to be players for Howard or Paul, let alone both, even though we could more easily accomodate them than any other team in the league. Why is that?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                          Do they share money? Yes. Therefore it's revenue sharing. Once again, not sharing any isn't equal to not sharing enough.

                          Zero is zero. Anything more than zero is more than zero.

                          When you know that they do revenue share, and you make a post where you claim they do not, that is lying. If you would have said they didn't share enough, then that would have been a matter of opinion.

                          I might have poor math skills by your standards, but I'm pretty strong at understanding english.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Do they share money? Yes. Therefore it's revenue sharing. Once again, not sharing any isn't equal to not sharing enough.

                            Zero is zero. Anything more than zero is more than zero.

                            When you know that they do revenue share, and you make a post where you claim they do not, that is lying. If you would have said they didn't share enough, then that would have been a matter of opinion.

                            I might have poor math skills by your standards, but I'm pretty strong at understanding english.
                            No you are not, understanding English, but it is fine, get back to me when you are ready to discuss the content of my post instead of fragments of imagination that don't quite topple the topic but let you score in the "i'm right" department
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                              Well I hope you don't forget to mark that win down on your chalkboard. I would hate for you to not pat yourself on your back.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Howard and Paul will end up Lakers- Nothing in NBA changes

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                IF that is the deal that is accepted, then it is OVER THE DURATION OF THIS CBA!
                                Wait, do you think they mean 200 million shared total in 10 years?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X