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

The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

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

  • The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

    This new article from Deadspin proposes a unique system for future NBA drafts. What do you think, good or bad? There are always pros and cons of any system, and this is a unique take that I would have never thought of. I personally like the idea. Opinions?


    http://deadspin.com/proposed-overhau...ank-1488525333

  • #2
    The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

    Good proposal, seriously the NBA needs to do something about tanking because is getting ridiculous, here is the article:

    http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...o-to-the-wheel

    The Proposal

    Grantland obtained a copy of the proposal, which would eliminate the draft lottery entirely and replace it with a system in which each of the 30 teams would pick in a specific first-round draft slot once — and exactly once — every 30 years. Each team would simply cycle through the 30 draft slots, year by year, in a predetermined order designed so that teams pick in different areas of the draft each year. Teams would know with 100 percent certainty in which draft slots they would pick every year, up to 30 years out from the start of every 30-year cycle. The practice of protecting picks would disappear; there would never be a Harrison Barnes–Golden State situation again, and it wouldn’t require a law degree to track ownership of every traded pick leaguewide.

    The system is simpler to understand in pictorial form. Below is the wheel that outlines the order in which each team would cycle through the draft slots; the graphic highlights the top six slots in red to show that every team would be guaranteed one top-six pick every five seasons, and at least one top-12 pick in every four-year span:

    Mathis2

    Put another way: The team that gets the no. 1 pick in the very first year of this proposed system would draft in the following slots over the system's first six seasons: 1st, 30th, 19th, 18th, 7th, 6th. Just follow the wheel around clockwise to see the entire 30-year pick cycle of each team, depending on their starting spoke in Year 1.

    The system is designed to eliminate the link between being very bad and getting a high draft pick. There is no benefit at all to being bad under a wheel system like this. If you believe tanking is morally wrong, or that it hurts business by alienating fans and cutting into attendance, this is a system you could get behind.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

      it's hard not to endorse a draft system that would allow the Knicks to start trading draft picks 30 years in advance.
      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

        My only change would be to re-draw every 5 or 10 years instead of 30. That way you are still guaranteed two top 6 picks every 10 years.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

          Player from college: See's the Bucks have the 1st pick in 2022, see's the Knicks have the 1st pick in 2023...opts to stay in school an extra year.


          @Pacers24Colts12

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

            I posted this at the exact same time as you. I like the idea, but would only want it to go for 10 years instead of 30. Just re-draw every 10 years to change things up, but everyone would still get two top 6 picks in that time span.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                I propose the other thread to be merged with this one.

                As to the idea - obviously, it would be attractive to Pacer fans, since historically we have rarely picked from the top draft positions. Making it guaranteed seems like the best of both worlds.

                Is it unfair though to the bad teams? The ones who annually get lotto picks but somehow are still stuck in rebuilding mode? My view on it is that those teams remain bad precisely because they're counting on salvation from the draft, that the draft has basically become a crutch for bad GMs. So from my point of view, this kind of change seems like the tough love necessary to weed out bad GMs.

                Of course, it's easy to say this when we're enjoying good management ourselves. On a team like say Orlando or Philly, switching to smart new management under the current system seems like it will get them through an accelerated rebuild much faster than in the proposed new system, by tanking for high draft picks. But then there's no guarantee that the smart young GMs in Orl or Phi are actually good at drafting - all we know for sure so far is that they're good at tanking. And then there are the teams like Brooklyn or New York, which prove that you can **** things up pretty bad in the current system as well.

                So, I like the proposed new system, but I'm aware that my biases might be coloring my opinion.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                  I still think you need some kind of weighted system. I'm open to making it less weighted but how is this any better than just putting all the teams in the lottery with equal odds?

                  What if you are a bad team on a really "bad" part of your cycle picking at the end of the first round? Absolutely no hope for improvement. What if you are the best team in the league and just happen to up for the number 1 pick, I don't like it.
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

                    Why not just give the first pick to the team with the best record in the lottery? This way teams will not want to rest players or come up with "injuries" to sideline their best players because they know every win gets them closer to that first overall pick.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                      My proposal would be to give draft picks to everybody but NY and Brooklyn is not like they are going to keep them anyways
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

                        Originally posted by thewholefnshow31 View Post
                        Why not just give the first pick to the team with the best record in the lottery? This way teams will not want to rest players or come up with "injuries" to sideline their best players because they know every win gets them closer to that first overall pick.
                        Finally a half reasonable idea for something that isn't even a fraction of a problem that people make it out to be.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                          I don't like it. You'd have teams like the Knicks trading their pick in 2024 this season because that's the year they know they got the first pick. I do like the fact that people have ideas to change the system, but I'm not sure this is the change it needs.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

                            This is the worst idea ever. Might as well contract to 8 teams because this will only help big markets.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                              Originally posted by PacersCenter View Post
                              Player from college: See's the Bucks have the 1st pick in 2022, see's the Knicks have the 1st pick in 2023...opts to stay in school an extra year.
                              That's a very good point. I guess a possible solution would be to add some sort of randomization into the fixed slots. So maybe divide the draft into 5 groups (picks 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-24, 25-30) with each team rotating through those 5 groups in some fashion. Actual draft order is determined by lottery within those groups. It's still gameable to some extent, but I'd argue that the current system is too.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X