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

Need more refs?

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

  • Need more refs?

    It seems that there are some more frequent issues with the refs this year than I can remember. Aside from the Nets game some people are getting really upset with the lack of calls, the inconsistent calls by the same ref and the inconsistent calls between refs. Refs do not seem to want to contradict one another so a bad call is not reversed or if it is then a make up call is made. When you hear a player moan it's one thing but when the entire stadium is booing a call it pretty much means the call was wrong.

    I don't understand why the nba doesn't want to get it right as does the nfl. They have replay, officials in the booths etc. Clearly there could be one more official sitting off court, or a senior official or a small number of dropped flags. Last year one coach likened referring in the nba to wwf. It's one thing to promote players doing the right thing but what about the officiating? I don't buy that this is the way its always been , or this is no different than the college game or whatever. Bad referring hurts the game period. It's also bull that a kid gets the worst calls and a star gets the best. That's integrity?

  • #2
    Re: Need more refs?

    You can't review penalties in the NFL either, so there's no comparison there.

    Bad calls happen. There only difference between now and 50 years ago is the players can cry to a bigger audience.

    And just as many bad calls happen in college too, if not worse. The difference is the only ones that can complain are the coaches.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Need more refs?





      ^NBA REFS

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Need more refs?

        If you'd like to see worse, I could introduce you to FIBA refs.

        Not saying NBA refs don't have their moments, but just as bad are the players and coaches that can't just admit they lost and need to find someone else to put the blame on.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Need more refs?

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          If you'd like to see worse, I could introduce you to FIBA refs.

          Not saying NBA refs don't have their moments, but just as bad are the players and coaches that can't just admit they lost and need to find someone else to put the blame on.
          Oh god...the world championships were god-awful...thanks for bringing that back...man.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Need more refs?

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            You can't review penalties in the NFL either, so there's no comparison there.

            Bad calls happen. There only difference between now and 50 years ago is the players can cry to a bigger audience.

            And just as many bad calls happen in college too, if not worse. The difference is the only ones that can complain are the coaches.
            When Buckner says they are bad calls they must be because he always gives the refs the benefit of the doubt. But hey why change a perfect system? Just require that everyone complains less. Makes sense.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Need more refs?

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              When Buckner says they are bad calls they must be because he always gives the refs the benefit of the doubt. But hey why change a perfect system? Just require that everyone complains less. Makes sense.
              Makes more sense that the changes you suggested.

              You can't have people upstairs in a booth stopping the game after every possible missed or bad call. The games would take 5 hours. EVen the NFL, which you used as an example, does not do that.

              And yes, I believe a lot of so-so calls get blown out of proportion because players and coaches complain excessively about them.

              The reason why so much media attention is put on the refs and not the people acting like babies whining about them, are because the players and coaches have 2,000 microphones in front of them every night, and the refs don't.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Need more refs?

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                You can't review penalties in the NFL either, so there's no comparison there.

                Bad calls happen. There only difference between now and 50 years ago is the players can cry to a bigger audience.

                And just as many bad calls happen in college too, if not worse. The difference is the only ones that can complain are the coaches.
                Now that I agree with

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Need more refs?

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Makes more sense that the changes you suggested.

                  You can't have people upstairs in a booth stopping the game after every possible missed or bad call. The games would take 5 hours. EVen the NFL, which you used as an example, does not do that.

                  ANd yes, I believe a lot of so-so calls get blown out of proportion because players and coaches complain excessively about them.

                  THe reason why so much media attentino is put on the refs and not the people acting like babies, are because the players and coaches have 2,000 microphones in front of them every night, and the refs don't.
                  Yes the nfl stopping action really killed the game. No one watches Sunday football anymore because they have to get it right. Jax is just a miserable malcontent and is never right. You do these changes on a limited basis and see what works and what doesn't. Forget Jax and the Pacers. They had to restrain the Nets coach as the game ended and Kidd had a few choice words. But hey why mess with perfection right? Try to think incrementally.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Need more refs?

                    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                    Yes the nfl stopping action really killed the game. No one watches Sunday football anymore because they have to get it right.
                    For the 287518637th time, the NFL does not review penalties, because THEIR games would be 7-8 hours long if they reviewed every flag thrown. So what you said really makes no sense.

                    Jax is just a miserable malcontent and is never right.
                    That I agree with.

                    You do these changes on a limited basis and see what works and what doesn't.
                    The NBA board of governors would have to approve a rule change that would lengthen their games by 2 hours. I really don't think they'd be stupid enough to do that, not if they want anybody to televise their games...

                    Forget Jax and the Pacers.
                    When was Jax ever a topic?

                    They had to restrain the Nets coach as the game ended and Kidd had a few choice words.
                    Perfect example of people who want to blame everything on the refs. Nevermind the only reason that no-call happened was because one of their players tripped tayshaun prince to free carter. But you'd never know that, because the refs don't have microphones.

                    Yet listening to Kidd and his coach, you would have thought that rasheed wallace pulled out a baseball bat and broke both of carter's kneecaps as he went up for that last shot. In reality it was a little bump that never even affected carter's jumper. In no way was it as bad as it was made out to be.

                    The Nets inability to accept the fact they lost isn't the fault of the refs.

                    But hey why mess with perfection right? Try to think incrementally.
                    People are going to complain no matter what kind of system is in place. That's the reality. We could have robots makng super-accurate calls, and players and coaches would still find a way to be pinning it on them.

                    Look at the new basketball. Players were crying that they missed the old ball, stern gave them what they wanted, and now some players are crying that stern is bringing the old ball back TOO SOON.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Need more refs?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      For the 287518637th time, the NFL does not review penalties, because THEIR games would be 7-8 hours long if they reviewed every flag thrown. So what you said really makes no sense.



                      That I agree with.



                      The NBA board of governors would have to approve a rule change that would lengthen their games by 2 hours. I really don't think they'd be stupid enough to do that, not if they want anybody to televise their games...



                      When was Jax ever a topic?



                      Perfect example of people who want to blame everything on the refs. Nevermind the only reason that no-call happened was because one of their players tripped tayshaun prince to free carter. But you'd never know that, because the refs don't have microphones.

                      The Nets inability to accept the fact they lost isn't the fault of the refs.



                      People are going to complain no matter what kind of system is in place. That's the reality. We could have robots makng super-accurate calls, and players and coaches would still find a way to be pinning it on them.

                      Look at the new basketball. Players were crying that they missed the old ball, stern gave them what they wanted, and now some players are crying that stern is bringing the old ball back TOO SOON.
                      There doesn't have to be an unlimited number of opportunities to question a call and not every call is a penalty. It could be who touched the ball last as it went out of bounds. It could be whether a player actually commmitted a foul as he blocked a shot. Did he get all ball or not? It isn't always complaining but it's the integrity of the game. It's who lost the game for the losing team , the palyers or the refs.

                      Yes I am advocating games that take 5-7 hours so I can bring a sleeping bag to the game. No one in his rght mind would advocate a game that took 5 hours so that isn't an issue. If the call is not reversed a time out is lost. Maybe that would work. Maybe it would be just simply to ask the refs to confer. Would that be too much for you? Not everyone sees every complaint of a call as the result of spoiled mindless children. If Stern thinks that players and coaches complain too much he should provide better officiating. Stern: you get the same officiating but you now get penalized for doing so. Great, that is get a call against you and a technical to boot. Yeah you say the Nets lost but they think it was the refs. So that ends the argument. The refs are always right. For the 287518637th time try to see a positive in change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Need more refs?

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        It seems that there are some more frequent issues with the refs this year than I can remember. Aside from the Nets game some people are getting really upset with the lack of calls, the inconsistent calls by the same ref and the inconsistent calls between refs. Refs do not seem to want to contradict one another so a bad call is not reversed or if it is then a make up call is made. When you hear a player moan it's one thing but when the entire stadium is booing a call it pretty much means the call was wrong.

                        I don't understand why the nba doesn't want to get it right as does the nfl. They have replay, officials in the booths etc. Clearly there could be one more official sitting off court, or a senior official or a small number of dropped flags. Last year one coach likened referring in the nba to wwf. It's one thing to promote players doing the right thing but what about the officiating? I don't buy that this is the way its always been , or this is no different than the college game or whatever. Bad referring hurts the game period. It's also bull that a kid gets the worst calls and a star gets the best. That's integrity?
                        I will start this off by saying I think NBA refs are by far the worst refs out of any of the major sports, but I still think things get blown way out of perpotion. Kstat and I probably agree on one thing per year, but this would be one thing we agree on.

                        I will not be redundant to what he has already said, but I do have to comment on the parts I highlighted above.

                        It irks the hell out of me, doesnt matter if it is here in Washington or at the Pacers game I was at, is when the ref makes a call that is blatently obvious (say a player hacks the hell out of the oposition) and the whoel stadium boo's. That just drives me nuts.

                        As for your last point, I would have no problem with the NBA bringing in new blood. Just dont assume that will mean there will be less complaining, it would just be one more topic for coaches and players to ***** and moan about.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Need more refs?

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          There doesn't have to be an unlimited number of opportunities to question a call and not every call is a penalty. It could be who touched the ball last as it went out of bounds. It could be whether a player actually commmitted a foul as he blocked a shot. Did he get all ball or not? It isn't always complaining but it's the integrity of the game. It's who lost the game for the losing team , the palyers or the refs.

                          Yes I am advocating games that take 5-7 hours so I can bring a sleeping bag to the game. No one in his rght mind would advocate a game that took 5 hours so that isn't an issue. If the call is not reversed a time out is lost. Maybe that would work. Maybe it would be just simply to ask the refs to confer. Would that be too much for you? Not everyone sees every complaint of a call as the result of spoiled mindless children. If Stern thinks that players and coaches complain too much he should provide better officiating. Stern: you get the same officiating but you now get penalized for doing so. Great, that is get a call against you and a technical to boot. Yeah you say the Nets lost but they think it was the refs. So that ends the argument. The refs are always right. For the 287518637th time try to see a positive in change.
                          I didnt see the play, but everone who I have talked to today (even Nets fans) have said the play was called properly, and if anything the Nets should have lost the possesion due to Carters offensive foul.

                          You can cry all you want about bad officiating, and I dont think Stern is ignorant enough to think the officials are perfect (god I hope he isnt that stupid) but his point is we have all grown sick and tired of players complaining after every call.

                          Sure the refs make mistakes. Guess what, so do players and coaches.

                          I am trying to think of the last time a call mattered enough to where the NBA could bring back a challenge system, and I just cant think of any applciable times.

                          One time I can think of would be Reggie's 3 that counted when it should not have (that was against the Nets I beleive) but the NBA instituted Instant replays on shots that comes at the end of quarters as a result of that....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Need more refs?

                            I've been to my fair share of college and pro games, and the NBA is worse. Yes, the argument can be made that the game is faster and it's harder to officiate, but it's a multi-billion dollar business, more effort should be made to at least give the impression an effort is being made.

                            That said, for what it's worth, the worst officiated game I've ever seen was a women's NCAA tournament game. The worst ref I've ever seen was in the WNBA, but of course he got promoted to the NBA.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Need more refs?

                              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                              I am trying to think of the last time a call mattered enough to where the NBA could bring back a challenge system, and I just cant think of any applciable times.
                              Calling Btown...
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X