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:
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

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

Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

    I know tanking was a big topic in the Random Thoughts thread recently. This article was featured on the front page of the Purdue Student Newspaper this morning. I found it interesting but don't see this going through without a lot of adjustment. Apologies if posted elsewhere.

    Purdue professor has plan for fixing NBA draft

    By COLIN MAIRET Assistant Sports Editor | Posted: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 10:00 am

    Suck for Luck. Riggin’ for Wiggins. Tank for Teddy.

    All of these terms reference the goals of underperforming teams in professional sports and a Purdue professor has a plan to correct the problem in the NBA.

    Tim Bond, an assistant professor in the Department of Economics, and former colleague Arup Sen have developed an idea to discourage tanking.

    Currently in the NBA, draft picks are awarded based on a lottery and the worse a team finishes, the bigger chance the team will win the No. 1 pick.

    In order to prevent purposefully losing to improve lottery percentages, Bond and Sen’s system proposes eliminating the lottery and implementing an auction based off of credits.

    “You’re never going to be able to remove the incentive to lose,” Bond said. “But what you want to do is try to make the incentive to intentionally lose as low as possible.”

    In Bond and Sen’s system, credits would be awarded to teams based off of their record at the end of the season, with the worst teams receiving the most credits. The credits would be storable and could be used in any draft in the future, with credits being spent not only on the top pick, but every lottery pick.

    While the worst team would still receive the most amount of credits, Bond said the “flexibility in the form of rewarding credits (would) try and discourage teams from tanking.”

    In addition to the credits awarded based on record, Bond and Sen’s system would add or subtract credits from teams based on an objective formula. The formula would factor in various statistics that could show whether or not a team was actively tanking during a season.

    “Our goal with this formula is to use more advanced statistics than just rank order, to smooth out this formula,” Bond said. “Inside the formula would be things like (awarding) less credits if your performance in the second half of the season is worse than your first half. Basically smoothing out the payoff structure of these credits so that you didn’t have much of a benefit from losing one additional game.”

    One of the worst instances of tanking in recent years that Bond and Sen cite in their article on was the 2011 Golden State Warriors.

    “One example of what we are trying to fix is the Golden State Warriors when they magically lost just enough to keep their draft pick,” Bond said. “It didn’t look very good at the time, it sort of looked like they were intentionally trying to get out of obligations.”

    The Warriors’ draft pick was top-7 protected, meaning they needed to finish as one of the worst seven teams in the league or they would lose their pick to the Utah Jazz. They proceeded to trade their leading scorer Monta Ellis for an injured Andrew Bogut and sat starters Stephen Curry and David Lee with vague injuries in the late portion of the year.

    The Warriors finished the season 5-22, received their top 7 pick, drafted Harrison Barnes and made the Western Conference Semifinals the next season.

    In Bond and Sen’s system, the Golden State issue would have been resolved with the new system of trading credits.

    “Trading credits instead of draft picks, that is something that would have addressed the Golden State problem,” Bond said. “You can’t escape that credit obligation. So that eliminates all that tanking to avoid your obligation of a protected draft pick, so that’s one thing we are able to eliminate without tweaking the formula.”

    Going forward, the duo plans to continue to work on their formula and hopefully present their system to NBA representatives in the upcoming months.

    “We are working to come up with a more formal proposal. I think we will know in about a month whether they are interested in getting a larger proposal from us,” Sen said. “It’s a fairly competitive process. If they are (interested), we will work on a proposal, if not we will continue to try and work on it.”
    Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

  • #2
    Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

    Interesting. Though you could do the same thing with using the advanced statistics to modify draft order rather than adding the whole "auction" thing in.

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...


    • #3
      Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

      Hold on. I'm funding re-purposed fantasy auction drafts?


      • #4
        Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

        Having the lottery helps, but maybe it shouldn't be weighted so heavily for the poorest records. You now tank to improve your odds a lot. Would you do that if the gain in odds was small?

        Maybe everybody should have ping pong balls in the lottery:

        NBA champion gets 1 ping pong ball in the hopper
        runner-up gets 2 ping pong balls
        conference finalist losers get 3
        conference second round losers get 4
        first round losers get 5

        14 non-playoff teams in order of record, best to worst
        6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 balls

        Then there is no huge penalty, lottery chance-wise, for being the worst team to make the playoffs. That's just 6 balls vs. 5. Big whoop.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 11-06-2013, 06:19 PM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).


        • #5
          Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

          So this will just result in poorly managed teams just misusing their credits as well as their money.


          • #6
            Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

            They just need to hammer out in writing specific algorithms to define as much 'dubious' behavior as possible, and then use that to measure the behavior of losing teams, and establish a penalty system for teams when they cross one or more objective thresholds. That could be as simple as shifting their post-draft-lottery draft spots down X spots based on how 'dubious' they behaved during the season based on said algorithms.

            I'm not saying putting those algorithms into writing would necessarily be easy, but I think the very least they could do is a assemble an NBA council comprised of owners, presidents, and GMs to hammer it out as much as possible to determine if there's enough tangible pieces of evidence they can work with to possibly make this reality.


            • #7
              Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

              damn, i didn't know that about GSW. So they never had to give up that pick, or they just had to give it up in a later draft? still dirty.


              • #8
                Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                Having the lottery helps, but maybe it shouldn't be weighted so heavily for the poorest records. You now tank to improve your odds a lot. Would you do that if the gain in odds was small?

                Maybe everybody should have ping pong balls in the lottery:

                NBA champion gets 1 ping pong ball in the hopper
                runner-up gets 2 ping pong balls
                conference finalist losers get 3
                conference second round losers get 4
                first round losers get 5

                14 non-playoff teams in order of record, best to worst
                6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 balls

                Then there is no huge penalty, lottery chance-wise, for being the worst team to make the playoffs. That's just 6 balls vs. 5. Big whoop.
                I kinda liked where you were going with this except after the playoff teams just make everyone equal.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.


                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden


                • #9
                  Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

                  I kinda like the idea. In this case, a team could wind up with 3 solid rookies.

                  But why not just go back to the old lottery where every non-playoff team has the same odds of landing the top pick and the same odds of being 14th? That would stop in-season tanking, at least.
                  Ending a sentence with a preposition is something I will not put up with.


                  • #10
                    Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

                    This complicates an already complicated system, because now not only are GM's worrying about next season's draft in this scenario, but you're looking at future drafts as well. Using the 2013 Draft and 2014 Drafts as examples, teams would've spent as little credits as they could for the 13 draft to save them all for 2014. That forces teams to be really bad for multiple seasons to look for the future but hide it well.

                    Pretty much you could have the Bobcats skip all their obligation for 2013 if possible, then they'd bid for every spot they can get in the 2014 lottery in a loaded draft.
                    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                    ----------------- Reggie Miller


                    • #11
                      Re: Purdue Professor Has NBA Draft Anti-Tanking Plan

                      Simple solution for that Golden State scenario is for the NBA to fine the Warriors a substantial amount of money and automatically forfeit the pick to Utah.
                      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                      ----------------- Reggie Miller