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

Ref'ing thread

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

  • Re: Ref'ing thread

    I keep hearing from people saying that we will be upset when the real refs blow calls too.

    Yes, that's true. But blowing 2-3 calls per game vs. blowing 15-20 calls per game is a huge difference.

    Also, blowing calls was to me anyway not even the main problem with the replacement refs that was making games unwatchable. The replacement officials simply could not administer the game, meaning:
    1) they often did not know the rules
    2) they often did not communicate the calls to coaches, players, fans, or anybody
    3) they often did not even spot the ball correctly-- uummm knowing down and distance is not a "nice to have" option!
    4) they did not keep random skirmishes from breaking out all over the field 10X a game due to missed cheap shots
    5) they could not keep the game moving, with all of the random extended moments of indecision

    To me, the season starts now.
    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!).

    Comment


    • Re: Ref'ing thread

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      I keep hearing from people saying that we will be upset when the real refs blow calls too.

      Yes, that's true. But blowing 2-3 calls per game vs. blowing 15-20 calls per game is a huge difference.

      Also, blowing calls was to me anyway not even the main problem with the replacement refs that was making games unwatchable. The replacement officials simply could not administer the game, meaning:
      1) they often did not know the rules
      2) they often did not communicate the calls to coaches, players, fans, or anybody
      3) they often did not even spot the ball correctly-- uummm knowing down and distance is not a "nice to have" option!
      4) they did not keep random skirmishes from breaking out all over the field 10X a game due to missed cheap shots
      5) they could not keep the game moving, with all of the random extended moments of indecision

      To me, the season starts now.
      This sums it up pretty nicely. I especially agree with #1 and #3 on your list. Those are the ones I thought were the biggest problems.

      Comment


      • Re: Ref'ing thread

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        I keep hearing from people saying that we will be upset when the real refs blow calls too.

        Yes, that's true. But blowing 2-3 calls per game vs. blowing 15-20 calls per game is a huge difference.

        Also, blowing calls was to me anyway not even the main problem with the replacement refs that was making games unwatchable. The replacement officials simply could not administer the game, meaning:
        1) they often did not know the rules
        2) they often did not communicate the calls to coaches, players, fans, or anybody
        3) they often did not even spot the ball correctly-- uummm knowing down and distance is not a "nice to have" option!
        4) they did not keep random skirmishes from breaking out all over the field 10X a game due to missed cheap shots
        5) they could not keep the game moving, with all of the random extended moments of indecision

        To me, the season starts now.
        Yeah, it wasn't just the blown calls that were irritating. The pace of the game was just ridiculously slow with these inept scabs. Wasn't Belichick complaining about this the other night during the game? The delay benefited the Ravens in whatever the situation was, IIRC. That Falcons-Broncos MNF game was just brutally slow.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-27-2012, 06:05 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Ref'ing thread

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          Wasn't Belichick complaining about this the other night during the game? The delay benefited the Ravens in whatever the situation was, IIRC.
          The ball was spotted more than a full yard short of the first down and it was going to be 4th and over a yard. Now, mind you, the spot was BAD. But where they had spotted it was far, far away from the 1st down marker. Yet they stopped play for a LONG measurement to show that they were way, way short, as everyone knew. In the meantime, the Ravens had seen replays from every angle and wisely decided to challenge the spot, and won.

          No big deal, really, since they corrected the awful spot, but it made the Ravens decision to challenge easy, and those challenges are a precious asset. Also not a big deal because is wasn't even one of the top 10 low points of the game in terms of officiating.

          A non-New England sportswriter broke down the Ravens-Pats game, analyzing the 24 penalties called (but not any obvious penalties that were NOT called, including a headbutt, slaps to the face, and some obvious tackle-by-the-neck holds on the Ravens). Anyway, 14 penalties were called in the game on the Ravens, with 2 being clearly bogus, 3 being inconclusive on replay, and nine being clearly correct. 10 penalties were called against the Patriots, with 5 being clearly bogus, 1 being inconclusive on replay, and 4 being clearly correct.

          So... bad calls both ways, for sure. But... the kicker was that 4 of the 5 obviously bogus penalties on the Patriots either stalled a possible NE scoring drive or extended a Baltimore scoring drive that eventually produced a TD (2 of them coming on 3rd and long). Neither of the two bogus penalties on the Ravens D affected scoring (i.e., the Patriots didn't score anyway). bottom line: bogus calls in the judgment of the writer affected the score, and perhaps by double digits for the Ravens.
          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!).

          Comment


          • Re: Ref'ing thread

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            The ball was spotted more than a full yard short of the first down and it was going to be 4th and over a yard. Now, mind you, the spot was BAD. But where they had spotted it was far, far away from the 1st down marker. Yet they stopped play for a LONG measurement to show that they were way, way short, as everyone knew. In the meantime, the Ravens had seen replays from every angle and wisely decided to challenge the spot, and won.

            No big deal, really, since they corrected the awful spot, but it made the Ravens decision to challenge easy, and those challenges are a precious asset. Also not a big deal because is wasn't even one of the top 10 low points of the game in terms of officiating.

            A non-New England sportswriter broke down the Ravens-Pats game, analyzing the 24 penalties called (but not any obvious penalties that were NOT called, including a headbutt, slaps to the face, and some obvious tackle-by-the-neck holds on the Ravens). Anyway, 14 penalties were called in the game on the Ravens, with 2 being clearly bogus, 3 being inconclusive on replay, and nine being clearly correct. 10 penalties were called against the Patriots, with 5 being clearly bogus, 1 being inconclusive on replay, and 4 being clearly correct.

            So... bad calls both ways, for sure. But... the kicker was that 4 of the 5 obviously bogus penalties on the Patriots either stalled a possible NE scoring drive or extended a Baltimore scoring drive that eventually produced a TD (2 of them coming on 3rd and long). Neither of the two bogus penalties on the Ravens D affected scoring (i.e., the Patriots didn't score anyway). bottom line: bogus calls in the judgment of the writer affected the score, and perhaps by double digits for the Ravens.

            Coincidence that it always seemed to be the road team getting screwed? I think not.

            In fact, did any of the more egregious examples in recent weeks concern the home team getting screwed?

            No doubt that New England got the short end of the straw the other night.

            Comment


            • Re: Ref'ing thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Coincidence that it always seemed to be the road team getting screwed? I think not.

              In fact, did any of the more egregious examples in recent weeks concern the home team getting screwed?

              No doubt that New England got the short end of the straw the other night.
              Not many. The pass intereference call on Ike Taylor vs. Santonio Holmes was laughably bad, against the home team, and had no ability whatsoever to jumpstart the Jets offense. But that was a textbook example of a call by these replacement refs that every single Jets fan was laughing at too, knowing they got the benefit of incompetence on that one. They seemed to favor the home team but made enough mistakes in the other way to balance it out somewhat.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • Re: Ref'ing thread

                I hope NBA fans remember this next time the NBA and their refs have a dispute. The real refs are really pretty good and for sure they are the best available

                Comment


                • Re: Ref'ing thread

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I hope NBA fans remember this next time the NBA and their refs have a dispute. The real refs are really pretty good and for sure they are the best available
                  NBA refs are way worse then NFL refs.

                  That said, I think we would have a similar situation should the NBA refs get locked out.

                  Control of the game, in any league IMO, is half the battle. Clearly the replacement refs failed.....and failed hard

                  Comment


                  • Re: Ref'ing thread

                    You would have a similar situation with an NBA ref lockout especially if the NBA couldn't sign D1 college refs, mid-major college refs, Euroleague refs, FIBA refs, etc. as replacements, and had to pick up guys reffing the high school AAU circuit.

                    There will always be a big change when you drop off about 5 levels in skill and aptitude. It's like inviting someone from a YMCA league to try out for the Pacers and expecting them to succeed.
                    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!).

                    Comment


                    • Re: Ref'ing thread

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      You would have a similar situation with an NBA ref lockout especially if the NBA couldn't sign D1 college refs, mid-major college refs, Euroleague refs, FIBA refs, etc. as replacements, and had to pick up guys reffing the high school AAU circuit.

                      There will always be a big change when you drop off about 5 levels in skill and aptitude. It's like inviting someone from a YMCA league to try out for the Pacers and expecting them to succeed.
                      Hey! My YMCA league is pretty good.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Ref'ing thread

                        Interview with ref who blew the GB-Sea game:
                        http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/84...-wayne-elliott

                        $ quote:
                        Originally posted by espn
                        The league issued a statement after the game saying that Tate should have been called for offensive pass interference.

                        Elliott said that during training he remembered being told that "you don't really call interference on a Hail Mary. ... You just let it go."

                        Comment


                        • Re: Ref'ing thread

                          Eh... not sure about that. I think in the instance where a horde of players all go up at once and collide mid-air, then ya, I can see them not calling interference. But if a guy shoves a guy to the ground while the ball is still on the way and before everyone jumps up, that to me is a blatant and penalizable act of misconduct.

                          If what they say is true, then basically every Hail Mary is an absolute, barnyard, every-man-for-himself free for all in which all rules are ignored. I don't buy that.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Ref'ing thread

                            Pass Intereference gets called on Hail Marys. Not often, but I have seen it. One was a Drew Bledsoe Hail Mary in 1999 I think.

                            Also from that ESPN interview the ref now agrees he should have called it an interception, after insisting otherwise before.

                            Asked if he would stick by his call after seeing the replay, Elliott said: "I'd probably call interception. I learned a rule by screwing up the rule."
                            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!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: Ref'ing thread

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I hope NBA fans remember this next time the NBA and their refs have a dispute. The real refs are really pretty good and for sure they are the best available
                              I thought refs didn't impact the game?
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Ref'ing thread

                                What's the rule on this:

                                During the last two minutes of the half/ game, a complete pass for a first down and the receiver (let's just call him Antonio Brown, for the fun of it.) is tackled in bounds. Then let's say the defender, and let's just call him Kurt Coleman for the fun of it, pulls Brown's shoe off his foot after the tackle and then throws it to the sideline.

                                Since this "hypothetical" tackle was in-bounds, the clock was runnings, so let's also say the QB, and let's just call him Big Dumb Ben, hypothetically of course, feels the need to spike the ball and waste the first down while Brown searches for the missing shoe.

                                It might look like this:



                                Is there a penalty to be called here? Should there be? Or should this become the next big defensive gimmick against a hurry-up/ two minute drill?

                                I can laugh since my team still kicked the GW FG a few plays later.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X