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

NBA Pre-Playoff Conference Transcript

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

  • NBA Pre-Playoff Conference Transcript

    NBA Pre-Playoff Conference Transcript
    April 7, 2004
    David Stern, NBA Commissioner
    Russ Granik, NBA Deputy Commissioner
    Stu Jackson, NBA Senior Vice President of Basketball Operations

    Opening Statement: Thanks for joining us. This is our annual pre-playoff press conference. We are feeling pretty good about the state of the league today. As we speak there are lots of playoff positions that have not been decided. My statisticians haven’t given me the rundown, but I think it’s as many as we’ve had in a lot of years. At our board meeting next week, which happens to be on the last day of the season, a dinner meeting – we have assured the owners that we will eat dinner very early and it will be a working dinner. Then we will have something in the neighborhood of 14 television sets set up in another room bringing the feeds in because we expect ties and actual playoff positions to be decided on the last evening. It has been rewarding for us to see teams like the Cavaliers, the Heat and the Nuggets, who haven’t even contended for the playoffs of late either be in the playoffs or still contending for them, and to see the impact that player movement, rookies, trades have had. We think that the increased ratings on TNT and ESPN and our increased attendance are a reflection of that. We expect that although our ratings on ABC are down about 10 percent, we are anticipating a very nice bump in the playoffs and Finals based upon the competitive nature of the season.

    Q: Do you have any concern that part of the reason that the ABC ratings last year were off compared to the previous ratings on NBC was due to fewer games and the early rounds not on broadcast TV and that the league migrating more of the earlier postseason games to cable has limited the audience interest leading to the final round?

    Stern: I don’t think so. Our ratings on ABC for the playoffs were up last year. I think that in fairness to our fans and viewers they didn’t find that particular competition at that time as inspiring as we had hoped they would. We actually think that if it happened again today it would get higher ratings. But we have to do a better job generally of promoting the Finals, and we are working on that together with ABC, ESPN and TNT and the other assets we have at our disposal.

    Q: Was there anything that was lost by the league in your view migrating more of the playoff games from broadcast to cable?

    Stern: No, we don’t think so. I would say that in the first year, it might be a little bit harder for people who didn’t exactly understand our configuration. But actually we are up 17 percent this year on ESPN and 15 percent on TNT. The networks continue the erosion that prompted us to forecast that that erosion would continue. The future of most regular season sports is increasingly mid-week on and given the economic model that cable has, you are going to increasingly see it winning more events. With respect to other aspects, obviously the Internet has become a much bigger factor in recent years. Our visitation continues to improve. As a result we think that although networks will continue to garner important groupings of fans, the inexorable march to cable is underway.

    Q: People who know these things say that a dozen or more high school kids are going to turn pro, and that maybe seven of them are first round picks. What does that say?

    Stern: It says that about a dozen kids are going to be turning pro, and about seven of them are first round picks.

    Q: What does it say about where the league is going?

    Stern: I guess it says if it happens our teams’ view that there is more talent on a long-range basis among 18 year-olds who are going to make themselves available than amongst other people. I don’t mean to be sparring with you. I just don’t understand what philosophical conclusion you want me to draw.

    Granik: I think it also depends on where these individuals end up getting drafted and how well they perform once they do get drafted. It’s a little early to project what is going to happen long-term.

    Stern: And there will be more international players as well. I mean, that is the reality of the current system. But I am holding out against 14 year-olds.

    Q: Do you still hold any hope of installing a 20 year-old age limit?

    Stern: I certainly will say that it is an item for negotiation with the Players Association. Whether it emerges from the Collective Bargaining negotiations, I cannot say. I have been heard in recent days to talk more about the development league because my broader concern is that to get kids coming in younger and younger in normal course of events, we will have the usual percentage of players who don’t make it and that we’d like to have a developed philosophy for what to do with them and how they can deal with the rest of their careers. So we’d like to make sure that the development league is there to serve them.

    Q: I know you touched on the 20 year-old age limit a minute ago, but some people think that argument has been weakened a bit with the play this year of LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony as 19 year-olds. Could you please talk about that in light of how James and Anthony have played?

    Stern: I have never said that the 18 year-olds can’t play in the league. I just said that I don’t think it’s a good idea for us to have them in the league. And I never said that they shouldn’t come into the league because they should go to college. Because I am not sure that college is necessarily for everyone. What I have said is that I don’t think that we should be setting an example for kids to be planning the rest of their lives around basketball, because it’s not a very good thing to do. You stopped at Carmelo and LeBron, but one could talk about the long list of Jermaine O’Neal, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and Tracy McGrady – a veritable All-Star team.

    Q: It seems like those guys took longer to make an impact in the league than Carmelo and LeBron. Any reason why they are making a quicker impact at this younger age?

    Stern: I don’t have a basketball opinion.

    Jackson: I think every so often you get special talents that come along and it just so happened that the two of them this year happened to be 19 years of age. Typically it has not been the norm that players that young have been so productive in their first year. Even in the case of other players that have come into the league out of high school or one year out of college, they normally or typically haven’t been as productive. But I think the message is don’t be fooled, this doesn’t happen very often. Fortunately for us and all of the fans, we have two players this age that perform wonderfully.

    Q: ESPN and TNT have aired a lot of Cavaliers and Nuggets games because of LeBron and Carmelo. What do you think of the impact of LeBron and Carmelo as players, and how they’ve carried themselves this season? What impact do you think they’ve had on the league in general?

    Stern: Well, I would just say that they have been positive across the board. I think the important thing from our perspective was that they had great success. They carried themselves wonderfully and seem to be generally nice young men. And most importantly, really, they and Dwyane Wade have kept their teams in the playoff hunt. That is important because they have meant an enormous amount to their cities. But we have lots of stories – when you focus on Hubie Brown and the Memphis Grizzlies … there are a lot of teams that have been doing quite well both in their cities and on national ratings. But clearly Carmelo and LeBron are a great story, and especially by their teams competing for the playoffs.

    Q: What about the image that they seem to project? Over the years there has been some negative publicity projected by some players and now you have two players who seem like they are going to be around for a while.

    Stern: I never took the negative too seriously, so I don’t want to gloat in the positive. They appear to be very well grounded, sophisticated beyond their years in recognizing the responsibility of the fame that they’ve gotten and are handling it quite well. But you don’t actually expect a 19 year-old to do as well as they’re doing, so it has been a very pleasant surprise in terms of how they are handling the pressure.

    Q: It is quite possible that you will have four or five sub-.500 teams making the playoffs in the East. Is the preponderance of these kinds of teams in the playoff hunt a concern? Is the competitive imbalance between the conferences a concern?

    Stern: I have no problem. Russ, do you have any problem?

    Granik: I don’t have any problems. I think based on the number of teams that make the playoffs you are going to have one or two that are below .500. I think the good news for us is that we have had a very competitive season in each conference. Based on the fights that have gone down to the wire here on both sides. I think in terms of the imbalance East and West, there have been some strides made this year. I think I just read that Indiana has the best record against Western Conference teams – including other Western Conference teams. So they’ve had a great season, and Detroit had come on very, very strong here. So I think that most people would say that both of those teams have a real shot here. It’s not just going through the preliminary rounds, but that either one of those two teams could conceivably win the Finals. So we are feeling a lot better about that situation than perhaps the earlier part of the season.

    Q: There is a young man, a 17 year-old Russian, whose attorney/agent has said that if you install a minimum age requirement they are going to sue. If you reset the age requirement to 20 years-old, is this still worth your while?

    Stern: If we can get such an age limit with the players, we would go ahead and agree to it. We would expect that Clarett not withstanding, it would stand legally. As you have heard me say before, I think that Clarett was wrongly decided. Right now all it is is a lower court decision, which I think is sort of an island in a sea of other cases which go the other way.

    Q: Do you believe the line between winning and losing teams is any finer these days with the reactions you have seen as far as coaches getting fired and the trades like the Knicks-Suns deal?

    Stern: I could tell you only as a fan that there are a lot of GMs and owners who are much quicker to make a change based upon the belief that what we tell every new owner is true, “that they are only one player away”. The problem is that player is Shaq and he is playing in L.A. You see the continued upheaval with trades, coaches, draft picks, international signings always in search of that one player. I think it indicates that the line has gotten a little thinner or the patience level has gotten thinner based upon what’s at stake. My guess is it’s a combination of the two.

    Q: Why has the league not made the unprotected list (for the expansion draft) public in the past?

    Granik: The sense has always been that teams put players on the unprotected list for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because they want to get rid of them. The feeling is that in the end if the player is not going to be moved, then what is the benefit to the player or the game to have his name thrown out there. In terms of a team that is going to keep that player, if it’s not out there publicly that’s probably a good thing. In the end, of course, it does tend to leak, but the sense has always been that we should not be the source putting it out there.

    Q: If this information is going to come out anyway wouldn’t it just be easier to come out and say it?

    Granik: It’s the same thing with player salaries, we don’t publicize those because we don’t think that is the right thing we should be doing. In the end somebody always gets the reports and you all have it, but it doesn’t seem like the appropriate thing for us to do. If it happens, it happens.

    Q: Would you predict that in the next few years Michael Jordan will own an NBA team and is this something you want to happen? Also why is Michael Jordan good to have as an owner specifically?

    Stern: Yes, I would predict that in the next few years Michael Jordan will own an NBA team. Sure, it is something I want to happen. Whenever I see former players who contributed so much to our game get a chance to participate in ownership like a Magic, a Larry, a Michael, that’s great. As Isiah did in Toronto, I just think those are wonderful for us, both at an executive level and at the ownership level. I think that nothing is as good and as an advertisement for the openness of the sport at an ownership level than having its most recognized figure be an owner. I think that sets an extraordinary example for kids and to other players. It also indicates that there is an opportunity for players to participate across a broader area than just playing such as coaching and front office. There has always been a sense that ownership was illusive. But to me to make ownership not illusive and to have it in the hands of perhaps the most well-known player to ever have played our game is just an exclamation point on that and very good for business.

    ***I copied this from a post on SpursReport.com Forum.***
    http://www.spursreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4498

  • #2
    Re: NBA Pre-Playoff Conference Transcript

    NBA Pre-Playoff Conference Transcript
    Stern: I have never said that the 18 year-olds can’t play in the league. I just said that I don’t think it’s a good idea for us to have them in the league.
    WHAT Is he contradicting himself or what?

    Translation: "I never said it I just thought it"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA Pre-Playoff Conference Transcript

      Wow . . . interesting playoff stuff huh?
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment

      Working...
      X