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

Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

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

  • #16
    Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

    Originally posted by grace View Post
    Is there anything you and Kegboy agree on?
    The Wire, that's about it.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
      The Wire, that's about it.
      Best. Show. Ever!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

        Lovers don't call each other that much...

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

          Originally posted by iPACER View Post
          Lovers don't call each other that much...
          They do when they're going through a psycho breakup.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

            I would say that Foster did not get involved until closer to the end. I would bet that Timmy D was paying Foster for info and that Foster didn't actually bet on games.
            "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
            Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

              http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsm2hSKkH7E

              [yt]tsm2hSKkH7E[/yt]

              My final reaction to this. I knew something like this HAD to be happening.
              Last edited by idioteque; 07-14-2008, 08:26 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Scott Foster is one of the best refs in the NBA - I would put him probably somehwre between 6 and about 12.

                Phone calls don't really prove anything - we'll see what comes out .

                Good to see so many are willing to always believe the worst

                Phone calls really don't prove anything, but calling before and after games for short periods of times certainly looks pretty suspicious. Unless these guys are lovers, this looks incredibly suspicious. This isn't the end of it either I would suspect. I want the officials to be clean just like everyone else, but it's continuing to spiral.


                Did anyone else see George Karl's interview on Outside the Lines about all this?
                "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                  No, what did Karl say?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                    Here is a good summary of it really. It's mainly about how the players and coaches are a little to "cozy" with officials. Karl has made comments on his suspicions with the NBA before. I beleive it was during a Milwaukee/Sixers playoff series.
                    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3483237

                    Asked if he believes Donaghy is the only referee guilty of manipulating games, Karl squirms before he answers. He leans forward, then back. He sighs. He shakes his head and finally offers, "I don't know how to answer that question without getting fined."



                    "Just because [Donaghy] is a criminal doesn't mean he's a liar," says a former NBA head coach who asked that his name not be used. "If a federal investigation hadn't turned him up, he'd still be refereeing in the NBA. And the league would still be telling us not to question his integrity."



                    For the good of the game, Karl says he hopes Donaghy is not telling the truth. Yet, he's not entirely convinced that everything out of Donaghy's mouth is a lie.



                    "Donaghy's cloud has got us nervous. Nervous as hell," he says.



                    Why?



                    "Because we all have thought it," Karl replies
                    Last edited by rock747; 07-14-2008, 10:55 PM.
                    "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                      Originally posted by grace View Post
                      Is there anything you and Kegboy agree on? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything.

                      Interesting - I think we used to agree on many things, but in the past 2-4 years we haven't - Not sure when kegboy took a wrong turn, because as I remember back when we were both on RATS, we agreed often.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                        Now that this is out in the open, what is Donaghy saying? Has he accused Foster? The deal Donaghy had was snitch everyone out for a lighter sentence. It would seem that these phone calls raise more questions then they answer, yet we hear nothing more. Donaghy Lawyer was accusing other refs of being involved and then we get this phone call log and then silence from his Lawyer, doesn't make sense.
                        "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                        Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                          I need to apologize to all, (mainly to Kegboy) I had Scot Foster confused with someone else - Greg Williard. Sorry.

                          No, I have never thought Scott Foster was a good ref, Greg Williard is a good ref.

                          here is the latest

                          http://www.printthis.clickability.co...rtnerID=167786


                          Feds, sources downplay calls between Donaghy, colleague Foster
                          By WILLIAM BENDER & JOSEPH SANTOLIQUITO
                          Philadelphia Daily News

                          benderw@phillynews.com

                          For a "rogue, isolated criminal,'' as NBA commissioner David Stern once described Tim Donaghy, the former referee sure placed a lot of suspiciously timed phone calls to colleague Scott Foster.
                          Fox News reported yesterday that Donaghy called Foster 134 times between October 2006 and April 2007 - the period during which Donaghy has admitted to betting on basketball games or providing confidential NBA information to two gambling associates from the Philadelphia suburbs.

                          Calls between Foster and Donaghy, who is awaiting sentencing on interstate gambling and wire-fraud charges, occurred immediately before and after 54 of the 57 games Donaghy officiated from the beginning of the 2006-07 season to mid-March, according to Fox.

                          The majority of the conversations lasted less than 2 minutes and took place hours before or after games one of the men officiated, the network reported, citing court documents and phone records.

                          But does it mean that Foster, a 14-year veteran referee, had anything to do with Donaghy's gambling scheme?

                          When reached by Fox and asked whether he is being investigated by the NBA, the government or anyone else, he answered, "Not that I know of,'' and declined to comment on the nature of the calls.

                          The NBA said in a statement last night that the disclosure of Donaghy's phone calls is old news to prosecutors.

                          "The government had complete access to Tim Donaghy's phone records and thoroughly investigated this matter, including conducting an interview of referee Scott Foster,'' the statement said. "The government has said that they have found no evidence of criminal conduct aside from that of Mr. Donaghy. Once again, the only criminal conduct is that of Mr. Donaghy.''

                          League sources who know Donaghy and Foster - who were close friends - strongly doubted yesterday that Foster would be involved with illegal gambling.

                          "Scott is a good guy, and it bothers me to think his name should even come up in any of this. This is another case of the media trying to stir something from nothing,'' one source said. "There's no way Scott Foster had anything to do with Donaghy's gambling.''

                          Vicki Herr, the attorney for Marcus Hook's Thomas Martino, who has admitted to delivering cash payments to Donaghy in exchange for betting tips, said Foster was not involved in the three-man gambling ring.

                          "He was not a member of that group,'' Herr said yesterday.

                          Jack McMahon Jr., the lawyer for the third member of that group, James "Baba'' Battista, was unavailable yesterday. Battista, of Phoenixville, has pleaded guilty to interstate gambling and, like Martino, is to be sentenced next week. Donaghy's sentencing is set for July 29.

                          While the phone calls between Donaghy and Foster are suspicious because of their timing and short duration, federal prosecutors' actions in recent months suggest there isn't any evidence Foster was involved in illegal activity.

                          Court filings by Donaghy's attorney, John Lauro, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Goldberg, the lead prosecutor on the case, indicate that Donaghy not only dimed out Battista and Martino, but also leveled allegations against NBA executives and other referees. There is no mention of Foster in any of those filings.

                          Federal cooperation agreements typically require a defendant or witness to reveal everything the person knows about activity related to the charged crimes or other crimes of which they have knowledge.

                          If Foster was involved with the gambling and Donaghy withheld such information from investigators, the ex-ref would have violated that agreement and prosecutors in Brooklyn would likely have revoked their letter asking U.S. District Judge Carol Amon for leniency at his sentencing. Goldberg, who declined to comment yesterday, has not done that.

                          "We've never taken the position that Mr. Donaghy has lied to us,'' Goldberg told Amon last week at a restitution hearing.

                          Lauro could not be reached yesterday.

                          Foster, 41, a native of Silver Spring, Md. , who currently lives in Woodbine, Md., was one of Donaghy's last few friends in the league, according to two of Donaghy's former golf buddies at the Radley Run Country Club in West Chester. But that wouldn't have stopped the hot-tempered referee from handing Foster over to the FBI to earn a lighter sentence, the sources said.

                          "This guy is a rat of the highest order,'' one of the sources said of Donaghy, 41. "If Scott had anything to do with this, Donaghy would have dimed him out, like he has everyone else associated with this. Tim would work every possible angle to get out of this, and if Foster was involved, he would have tried to do something there, too.''

                          One of the NBA sources who knows both men said it is common for referees to communicate frequently.

                          "Guys in this league grow close, sometimes closer than their families and wives, because they're on the road and they do everything together,'' the source said. "These guys know intimate things about each other. There are some things you talk about after a game with another ref that you wouldn't talk about with your wife. You do that because other guys in the league understand what you're talking about and what you're going through. I think that's all that may have been involved.'' *

                          Daily News sports writer Phil Jasner contributed to this report.
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-15-2008, 09:34 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                            Anyone have any more YouTube videos to post?
                            Last edited by JayRedd; 07-15-2008, 05:03 PM.
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              Anyone have anymore YouTube videos to post?
                              So one article comes out calling for his head and everyone is "overreacting"

                              Then another article comes out saying "All is well NOTHING is wrong at all" and we get "sarcastic" comments like that.........nothing personal, but thats lame.

                              As I said before this may turn out to be a bunch of nothing, but as I said in my last post more times then not "where there is smoke there is fire". And I am not the only one who feels this way (George is previous article and JVG in that one playoffs series)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Scott Foster is one of the best refs in the NBA - I would put him probably somehwre between 6 and about 12.

                                Phone calls don't really prove anything - we'll see what comes out .

                                Good to see so many are willing to always believe the worst
                                (...cough...) Denial (...cough...)

                                EDIT: Ah...a case of mistaken identity. Alright, you're forgiven.

                                Originally posted by aceace View Post
                                Now that this is out in the open, what is Donaghy saying? Has he accused Foster? The deal Donaghy had was snitch everyone out for a lighter sentence. It would seem that these phone calls raise more questions then they answer, yet we hear nothing more. Donaghy Lawyer was accusing other refs of being involved and then we get this phone call log and then silence from his Lawyer, doesn't make sense.
                                Reports were that Donaghy was cooperating w/the league and law enforcement. So, who's to say that said "cooperation" doesn't include turning stooly?
                                Last edited by NuffSaid; 07-15-2008, 04:51 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X