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

Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

    Cuban at least thinks that the Mavs' free-spending days are over.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/maver...cuban-explains

    What are Mavs thinking? Mark Cuban explains
    December, 8, 2011

    By Tim MacMahon

    I emailed Mark Cuban with one question: What am I missing?

    It took a while to get to the question. The email started with my take on his Mavericks’ recent moves, or lack thereof: It appears that their logic is that the team’s long-term outlook is better if they attempt to reload next summer instead of bringing a championship team back intact to defend its title. The likely low odds of landing a superstar, given the landscape in the league and contract rules, makes this difficult to understand.

    Then again, I didn’t think trading for Tyson Chandler last summer was a last-piece-in-a-championship-puzzle kind of move … so there’s no doubt Cuban and Donnie Nelson have earned benefit of the doubt. Or at least the opportunity to fully explain their decision-making process.

    Still, it seemed that with the harsher luxury tax penalties not kicking in for a couple of years, the Mavs could have kept Chandler and sparkplug guard J.J. Barea and tried to maximize at least the next two seasons. What am I missing?

    Here is the explanation straight from the keyboard of the Mavs’ owner on the first night he is free to speak again about the team's roster:

    If this were the old CBA rules, we probably would have kept everyone together. But the rules changed.

    If we were able to sign everyone to two-year deals, that would have possibly changed things as well, but that wasn’t in the cards either.

    What you are missing is that it’s not about the luxury tax. It’s about the ability to improve our team going forward.

    The reality is that in the new system, cap room will have far more value than it had in the past. I realize that everyone is all freaked out about how and where free agents and future free agents are going, but it’s not just about getting one guy.

    We are not saving cap room in hope of that one super special free agent being there. It’s about being in the position to improve every year and possibly add some significant, younger players next year and in future years.

    What I don’t think people understand is that once a team hits the tax level the ability to improve our team is reduced dramatically. In addition, your ability to make trades is reduced. So basically, if we made the move to keep everyone together with five-year deals, the team we have today is going to be the team we have for the next five years. If we were a young team it would be one thing. But we are not a young team.

    In the past, it was different. If we had a problem, I could fix any mistake by having Donnie find a trade and just taking on more money. That is how we got Jet, the Matrix, JKidd, Tyson. It was always about taking on more money. That trick doesn’t work any more for teams over the tax. So we have to change our approach. By getting back under the cap, we have a ton of flexibility not only for free agent signings but also trades. If we can get the right guy(s) via free agency, great. if we do it via trade, great. We have that much more flexibility to make moves.

    Again, I know this is tough for all of us after winning a championship. But we still believe as much as last year we are in a position to compete for a championship.

    The difference is that with this approach, we can be in a position to compete for a championship this year and to reload and continue to compete in future years.

    By just signing everyone to long-term deals, there is no chance of that happening.

    We won last year because we put ourselves in a position to create opportunities that brought us the right players at the right time.

    We structured contracts in ways that gave us upside. The rules are different now, and while it makes it tougher this year because of the affection we have for many of the guys that are leaving, if we want the Mavs to be able to compete for championships in future years as well, it’s a hard decision, but I believe the right decision.
    So take heart fellow small market fans. If Cuban is right, then the only reason we're seeing crazy money being thrown around in FA yet again is because the implications of the new rules haven't sunk in yet with other FO's. When even Mark Cuban thinks it's better to stay under the luxury tax line (for basketball and not financial reasons, take note), it must be pretty effective.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

    I'm happy we have cap space when even Cuban wants it.
    "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

      What are the rules making the difference? He isn't talking about the new MLE, that isn't relevant for trades. Teams out of tax have added flexibility with the 150% rule (and teams below cap have even more), but teams over the tax didn't lose any, did they? There are the new sign/extend-and-trade rules, but those are more or less irrelevant for non-star players and they wouldn't affect a team contending and willing to pay salaries.

      I'd like this guy to e-mail Cuban again and ask him what are the exact changes he's talking about.
      Last edited by cordobes; 12-09-2011, 11:48 AM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

        Originally posted by cordobes View Post
        What are the rules making the difference? He isn't talking about the new MLE, that isn't relevant for trades. Teams out of tax have added flexibility with the 150% rule (and teams below cap have even more), but teams over the tax didn't lose any, did they? There are the new sign/extend-and-trade rules, but those are more or less irrelevant for non-star players and they wouldn't affect a team contending and willing to pay salaries.

        I'd like this guy to e-mail Cuban again and ask him what are the exact changes he's talking about.
        Good question. The major new restrictions on taxpaying teams are:

        Originally posted by Larry Coon
        2011 CBA: Taxpaying teams have a smaller midlevel exception, can acquire less salary in trade, and cannot use the biannual exception. Starting in 2013-14, teams more than $4 million above the tax level cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction.
        So they lose the biannual exception, get the mini MLE instead of the full one, and can't receive a player in S&T above the apron ($4m above tex line). In general, there are less ways to add a rotation player.

        Of the examples Cuban cited though (Jet, Matrix, JKidd, Tyson), only two would have been disallowed - both Marion and Kidd came to Dallas on S&Ts. Terry and Chandler were obtained by trading an expiring and an unguaranteed contract respectively. Nothing in the new CBA would prevent this form of adding money, I think.

        So strictly speaking, Cuban wasn't right - he can still improve the team by trading expiring and unguaranteed contracts to teams looking for cap relief. But I suppose he figures that cutting off those other avenues of improvement makes staying under the cap more desirable. Perhaps the restriction on cash ($3m max per year) also factors in.

        Or maybe he's just tired of paying luxury tax and this is all an enormous rationalization to sell to fans I guess that's possible too.
        Last edited by wintermute; 12-09-2011, 12:05 PM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

          It's too bad the new CBA didn't change anything...

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

            We need to keep this thread around for everytime someone in the forum says the new CBA didn't change anything.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

              There were some good changes

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Mark Cuban on the Mavs' new approach under the new CBA

                Just a note in light of the Lakers-Mavs trade involving Odom for a trade exception and pick.

                Dallas adds salary here but Odom only has 2 years remaining, so this still fits Cuban's stated philosophy.

                What's remarkable is that the Lakers just engaged in a salary dump. The Lakers! In a salary dump! Not your everyday occurrence.

                Some people would say that this deal is only a means to an end of eventually acquiring Dwight Howard. True, but the Lakers could always dump Odom as part of a 3 way trade nabbing them Howard, sending Odom to a third team, and cap relief to Orlando. To dump Odom first puts them in danger of ending up with nothing.

                One data point does not a trend make, but this early we're getting hints that it won't be business as usual for the big spenders.

                Comment

                Previous template Next
                Working...
                X