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

Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...plate=printart


    Stern: Commish or tyrant?


    AUBURN HILLS -- David Stern is either out of control or too much in control. It's not good, either way.

    He might be the most effective and successful commissioner in all of professional sports, but I am starting to suspect he's gotten drunk on his own power. His need for utter and absolute control is bordering on the maniacal.

    It's one thing for the commissioner to have firm control on the business side of the game, but Stern has crossed over and is now lording over the competition side, as well. And that is a real problem.

    This notion hit home as I was watching 106 free throws shot in one 40-minute summer league game in Las Vegas. Actually, it first struck me, like a hammer, during the NBA Finals.

    To me, the 2006 NBA Finals were contaminated by the league. How could anybody watch those games and think otherwise? The referees directly impacted the results of at least three of those games. The star treatment of Dwyane Wade was sickening.

    Stern made it clear that the league needs superstars to sell and he got tired of waiting for them to ascend on their own. So, what did he do? He decided to tweak the rules and browbeat his officials.

    Wade and LeBron James are brilliant players with big personalities who would have become superstars without the league's help. But after two years of seeing defensive-oriented teams like the Pistons and Spurs in the Finals, Stern couldn't wait any longer.

    If the Wade rules weren't enough to warrant an asterisk on the 2006 Finals, then the after-the-fact suspension of Mavericks Jerry Stackhouse should be. To make a postgame ruling as drastic as that, on a play that was governed correctly by the game officials without any real debate or controversy on the court, is incomprehensible.

    What kind of precedent did that set? Is the league going to analyze film from every game and make after-the-fact judgments to fit whatever storyline Stern is trumpeting? Who is going to stop them?

    There are no checks and balances on this. Mavericks owner Mark Cuban complains and he gets slapped with a six-figure fine. Now imagine a system where a commissioner, who is hired and put into office by the owners, has the power to fine the owners he serves.

    That's how smart Stern is. He has manipulated the system to a point where he has more power than those who hired him.

    So Stern says the league needs more offense, and demands that league referees change the way they call games. Which brings me back to the summer league game in Vegas. There were 96 fouls called in one 40-minute game. There were close to 60 calls on average throughout the two weeks, Granted, the 96-foul game was officiated by two NBDL refs and one young NBA ref. But on every timeout, the officials would huddle with two veteran refs who were there to monitor and mentor the young guys. And at almost every timeout, those young refs were told they were doing a great job.

    They sucked the absolute life and flow out of the game -- which is what Stern's changes were designed to facilitate.

    If that's the mind-set of the summer instructional league, you can only imagine what's in store for next season.

    The public face of the NBA might be shiny and bright with its new constellation of stars, its sold-out arenas and rising television ratings, but the game is a mess.

    The veteran officials have complained and Stern has told them, in so many words, "If you don't like it, you can go ref some other league."

    Coaches have complained bitterly about the changes, and been told, "If you don't like it, you can coach in another league."

    The players have complained bitterly and been told, "If you don't like it, try making as much money in some other league."

    This is the arrogance with which Stern is operating.

    The owners are the only ones who could band together and subdue the monster, but as long as the monster keeps raising their profit line, they will feed the beast.

    What of the media, you say? Isn't it the media's job to serve as a check and balance? Yep, but even a large portion of the media is under Stern's control.

    ESPN, TNT and ABC all have lucrative contracts with the NBA and thus serve the master. Most radio networks that carry NBA games are bought and paid for by NBA teams. The one unfiltered media outlet left is us -- the print media. And Stern is doing all he can to push us out of the way. Since the proliferation of cable and the Internet, we have been the low man on the media totem pole. Our access to players has shrunk continuously over the years. With so many cameras in the locker rooms now, especially during the playoffs, postgame access is basically limited to the one or two players and a coach.

    Meanwhile, networks get one-on-one interviews on the court, have microphones in huddles during timeouts, etc.

    There is a growing sentiment among players, coaches and officials that Stern's power has run amok. There is concern that, more than manipulating the business and image of the league, he is manipulating the game.

    Sports are real human drama. That's what makes them entertaining. It's not a reality show created for television. It's not "Survivor" or "American Idol".

    You cannot create heroes and manipulate storylines and expect to be taken seriously.

    There is a concern that if left unchecked, the NBA will eventually have about as much integrity as the XFL or the WWE.

    Is that what you really want?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

    Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhh

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

      You can call sour grapes by a Detriot writer, but do we really want games decided by free throws? I know that I don't.
      Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        To me, the 2006 NBA Finals were contaminated by the league. How could anybody watch those games and think otherwise? The referees directly impacted the results of at least three of those games. The star treatment of Dwyane Wade was sickening.

        Stern made it clear that the league needs superstars to sell and he got tired of waiting for them to ascend on their own. So, what did he do? He decided to tweak the rules and browbeat his officials.
        This goes back to the debate we had recently about whether the NBA is fixed or not. As I said then, I don't think it is overtly "fixed." But I do believe the league can influence officiating to stack the deck in favor of certain teams and players so they get the results (read: ratings) they desire.


        The public face of the NBA might be shiny and bright with its new constellation of stars, its sold-out arenas and rising television ratings, but the game is a mess.
        And yes, it always comes back to the ratings (read: ad revenue/money).

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

          Well, he might be a tyrant but the question is: is he vicious?
          "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

            Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
            Well, he might be a tyrant but the question is: is he vicious?
            Which tyrant isn't?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

              Well I don't like Stern, I think he is a jackass.

              - The rule changes, I like how hopefully it will continue to speed up the game, I don't like how he didn't let it happen naturally.
              - The refs gave Wade this special star treatment in the Finals and I believe that is how Stern wanted it.

              Stern is the best commishioner in all of sports, but look at his competition, there isn't much.

              Stern is looking for the quick fix to increase league sales and $ coming home with him, however this might hurt the NBA in the long run. I don't know if he is out of control, but he defiantly is to much in control, that's for sure.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

                Why is Stern the best commissioner? He's basically presided over the decline of NBA basketball from being one of the big three pro leagues to what is more and more becoming a niche attraction for die hard fans. Contrast this with the NFL, which has grown and grown in general popularity and is now truly "America's passtime" and it is hard to see why you'd say Stern's doing the best job.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

                  Originally posted by arenn
                  Why is Stern the best commissioner? He's basically presided over the decline of NBA basketball from being one of the big three pro leagues to what is more and more becoming a niche attraction for die hard fans. Contrast this with the NFL, which has grown and grown in general popularity and is now truly "America's passtime" and it is hard to see why you'd say Stern's doing the best job.
                  Ok of the 3 current pro sports commishioners, why don't you tell me why Stern is not as good as them? What have they done?

                  Can you blame Stern for the decline in basketball popularity? No, because players are not as good as they were in the 80s, they play a different style that a lot of people don't like.

                  As much as I don't like Stern, a lot of the NBA's decline in popularity is not his fault. And while the NBA is not as popular in the US now as it was in the 80s it is still pretty big overseas I believe.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

                    Stern is the best commish of any of the major sports.He is extremely smart.
                    LoneGranger33 said
                    Agreed. As the members of Guns and Roses once said, "every rose has its thorn".

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

                      Originally posted by rommie
                      Ok of the 3 current pro sports commishioners, why don't you tell me why Stern is not as good as them? What have they done?

                      Can you blame Stern for the decline in basketball popularity? No, because players are not as good as they were in the 80s, they play a different style that a lot of people don't like.

                      As much as I don't like Stern, a lot of the NBA's decline in popularity is not his fault. And while the NBA is not as popular in the US now as it was in the 80s it is still pretty big overseas I believe.
                      I would argue that NASCAR has surpassed both baseball and the NBA on the pro sports scene in the US. That is a big reason for the big push to gain ground overseas, to make up for the loss at home.

                      As for the "massaging" of the rules, it happened first in the Mavs series against the Spurs where Dirk went to the line almost as much as Wade did against Dallas. I guess that is just part of the NBA game, always has been always will be. That is why the NBA will never be as big as the NFL. NBA officials may be better overall, but as long as they call the game different for different players, the league will never look as legit as the NFL where calls are made evenly.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

                        Originally posted by FrenchConnection
                        You can call sour grapes by a Detriot writer, but do we really want games decided by free throws? I know that I don't.
                        I have no problem with it. Just as long as the FTs were LEGIT earned.

                        I think this is just crying by a DET writer looking at the Pistons 2 main competitors. But that doesn't mean he's totally wrong either.


                        Remember the Wade "over and back" non-call. Over at RATS a Heat poster defended this as per the rules, blah blah blah. But of course it wasn't. The proof? Oh, just me watching ESPN Classic and seeing Levingston (Bulls) do the EXACT same thing (leap from front court, catch inbounds in air, land in backcourt) and get whistle for a back court violation during an NBA Finals game.


                        So that stuff does bother me. Seeing Wade shoot FTs where he got touched insanely less than AJ did when he went past Kidd late in game 6 (and got no call) also bugs me.

                        Wade is quick enough that he is going to draw fouls, and some of those will be late in games. But there are other quick guys out there and some can avoid fouling him at times...it was just that the refs kept "accidentally" missing this.

                        I don't buy the conspiracy theory, but I don't think that there isn't a problem of some sort.


                        Stern is the best commish of any of the major sports.He is extremely smart.
                        You say this because the NFL gets a lot better ratings or because the NBA has by far the strongest players union of the big 3?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

                          How ironic, a Detroit writer *****ing about favoritism: guess it was all good when the Pistons were beating people to death (with their famed defense) and not getting called for it.


                          On the other hand, STERN is a WORM. A BIGTIME PRICK. And a ***, to boot.

                          And, as fate will have it, he's getting on in years.

                          Age and, with it, infirmity will wipe that look of superiority off his face.

                          And put a smile on mine.

                          Die *****

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

                            McCosky is such a whiny little girl.

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

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

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Stern: Commish or tyrant? - good article

                              Whether or not some people want to admit it, I think Chris McCosky is more right than wrong on this.

                              Funny how the best defense I've seen against him is "waaah" and "whiney little girl". That's real substance.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X