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

Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

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

  • Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

    Donaghy guilty just posted at Star:



    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...SECTION=SPORTS




    My first question is even if he did plead guilty, how on earth did they get this case rammed
    through the system so quickly?

  • #2
    Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

    I heard on the radio that he said under oath that no other officials knew what he was up to........
    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

      well at least he aint a rat...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

        Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
        I heard on the radio that he said under oath that no other officials knew what he was up to........
        But to me he has indicted the refs in a differnet manner, he has basically admitted that some refs have such strong tendancies in how they interact with certain players that you could actually make a smart bet on the outcome of a game that featured said refs/players.


        That's not intentionally dirty, but it's just as bad. If Ref A works game with Player B then Player B's team is more likely to lose. Who wants to hear that crap, how is that good for the league?


        Also I think the NBA would let money do the talking in relation to any other names popping up. I'm sure they had people and money in place to contain this as much as possible.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

          Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
          well at least he aint a rat...
          Don't be so sure.

          http://withleather.com/post.phtml?pk=3636
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

            "I got an away game in Detroit"

            and the Goodyear blimp as the police copter

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              But to me he has indicted the refs in a differnet manner, he has basically admitted that some refs have such strong tendancies...

              If Ref A works game with Player B then Player B's team is more likely to lose. .
              The gamblers already know that certain refs have certain clear tendencies, some call games tighter and some looser, particularly affecting the pace of the game and thus the over/under (total score). The NBA won't announce officiating crews in advance because of that. I would expect that the extra betting based on officiating information was placed more on over/under bets than on winning/losing teams.

              So this slimeball Donaghy was just releasing the schedule of who would be reffing what games, far enough in advance to allow betting based upon that information. I don't think that this means the other refs were also tainted.

              However...I don't quite understand the part about him talking about what refs were cozy with what players. That could be fishy.

              I think that Donaghy had a gambling problem, got into deep debt, was told the only way to make it up was to give this information (or else we come after you and your wife and your kids!), and that he probably did as little as he thought that he could to make up the money he owed and to keep the bookies away.

              Of course he should not have gotten in that situation, but I can see how it might spiral out of control even if he were acting alone and even if he wasn't blatantly fixing games but was instead passing along priviledged info (reffing schedules, observations of unreported injuries, etc.) a little at a time.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-16-2007, 04:28 PM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

                What happened to all of you who were sure that this was widespread and that Donaghy was only the beginning

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

                  more from mike mathis... take it however you wish

                  FORMER NBA REF BLASTS OFFICIATING

                  By FRED KERBER


                  August 17, 2007 -- The former head of the NBA referees union and a league official for 26 years yesterday said rogue referee Tim Donaghy was able to slip through the cracks because refereeing has gotten worse and cited the final shot of Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls career as an example where a player's reputation prevented a proper call.

                  Mike Mathis, who retired in 2001, said Donaghy's guilty plea in federal court to betting on games he officiated and supplying inside information to mob affiliates, came as "a stick of dynamite" to the league. But Mathis said, "another stick of dynamite should be utilized (to) clean the entire officiating office and start from scratch."

                  Mathis, who had been snared in the NBA officials' airline ticket scandal in the late 1990's, has been loudly critical of NBA officiating. Mathis charged too many supervisors are unqualified and that referees are hired based on who, not what, they know.

                  Though angrily denouncing Donaghy's actions, Mathis referenced the pivotal shot in Game 6 of the 1998 Finals by Jordan against the Utah Jazz that gave the Bulls their sixth and final championship in the Jordan era. Many observers maintain Jordan committed an offensive foul, but it was not called because of Jordan's stature and reputation.

                  "Refereeing has gone downhill," said Mathis, who runs the Mathis Foundation that works with and supplies scholarships for foster kids in Cincinnati. "Remember when Jordan hit that winning shot? I'm going to give you exactly what the commentators said: 'What a great move by Michael.' Was that a great move or was that an offensive foul? There was no question it was a push-off. No buts about it. The only buts you can have is, 'Well, it was Michael Jordan.' That was a defining moment.
                  "The video tape would never lie," Mathis said. "Here's what could have happened. The referee makes the call and it's, 'No, no. How could he do that? It was Michael Jordan.' "

                  If what Mathis called "funny stuff" went on in games Donaghy worked, it likely went unnoticed because of the level officiating has hit.
                  "(We) accept unbelievable, mediocre and bad officiating," Mathis said. "The commentator says, 'He must have seen something we didn't.' No, he didn't. It's either he's guessing, he's incompetent or there's some funny stuff going on."

                  Donaghy admitted to federal officials that he often supplied inside information to gamblers, alerting them to what referees were working particular games. He said he was aware how some referees interacted with certain players.
                  "The first thing I went through was shock," Mathis said when he learned of Donaghy's transgressions. "Then I got angry. Then I said, 'What caused this?' I'm not talking about the gambling, I'm talking about the deterioration of the refereeing that has allowed this to go undetected. . . . If he was doing the funny stuff, I'm not saying he would have been caught but we might have had a chance, because all of a sudden he's standing out by calling all these calls."

                  LINK
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

                    Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                    The gamblers already know that certain refs have certain clear tendencies, some call games tighter and some looser, particularly affecting the pace of the game and thus the over/under (total score). The NBA won't announce officiating crews in advance because of that. I would expect that the extra betting based on officiating information was placed more on over/under bets than on winning/losing teams.

                    So this slimeball Donaghy was just releasing the schedule of who would be reffing what games, far enough in advance to allow betting based upon that information. I don't think that this means the other refs were also tainted.

                    However...I don't quite understand the part about him talking about what refs were cozy with what players. That could be fishy.

                    I think that Donaghy had a gambling problem, got into deep debt, was told the only way to make it up was to give this information (or else we come after you and your wife and your kids!), and that he probably did as little as he thought that he could to make up the money he owed and to keep the bookies away.

                    Of course he should not have gotten in that situation, but I can see how it might spiral out of control even if he were acting alone and even if he wasn't blatantly fixing games but was instead passing along priviledged info (reffing schedules, observations of unreported injuries, etc.) a little at a time.
                    But Tom, that still substantiates my point, it OPENLY ADMITS that the game is biased by WHICH ref is working that night. Okay, so you say all the gamblers knew and TD just needed to get them the schedule. How is this better than if he was the one telling them which refs affected which players?

                    The point is that refs so clearly affect the games of some players that you could MAKE A SMART BET ON IT. Doesn't matter who is guilty of what, who in the gambling chain knew what, it means the PRODUCT IS F'D UP!

                    Unless I missed the part where the gamblers weren't interested in TDs knowledge and/or were losing money like crazy using his information.

                    If there was a way to use TD's info, not just his own altering of games, in order to have a better idea of who would win based on what ref worked the game, then that's essentially a "fix", meaning that the rules and regulations of the game (which includes refs) alters the outcome based on which player or team is playing.

                    Ref A and Lebron, Cleveland wins.
                    Ref B and Lebron, everything else the same, Cleveland loses.


                    That sounds pretty widespread and damning to me. It also provides a very clear "how could he do it" to the question of Stern fixing games. Motivation has never been an issue with that conspiracy, it had more to do with how could he pull it off even if he wanted to. Now we know, just like the gamblers he needed only to know the dynamics between certain refs and certain players, then schedule assignments that were "favorable" (but not certain) for the outcome he most wanted.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      But Tom, that still substantiates my point, it OPENLY ADMITS that the game is biased by WHICH ref is working that night.
                      I'm not saying that any of the refs other than Donaghy were biased in any underhanded way at all.

                      The simplest way to use the refs schedule information is to know what refs just naturally have a "quick whistle" and which ones do not. Just because a ref has a tendency to call the game closely or call it loosely doesn't mean he is biased toward favoring one team. But a gambler can use the scheduling information to determine whether, based on the composition of the teams playing, an abnormally high scoring or a low scoring game would be expected.

                      If the Rockets are playing the Suns last year, and I know that the ref crew "calls it tight" then I would think that Houston's tendency to want to slow down Phoenix by playing physical D won't be likely to work. I'd expect more high scoring than if the crew "lets them play" and has a slow whistle.

                      In my example, there was nothing crooked about the officiating. What was crooked was knowing in advance who was doing the officiating and then using information about their natural tendencies to make a buck.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        What happened to all of you who were sure that this was widespread and that Donaghy was only the beginning
                        ESPN just reported Donaghy as part of his plea is going to provide the names of up to 20 other referees who are involved in gambling.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          What happened to all of you who were sure that this was widespread and that Donaghy was only the beginning
                          Haha, yeah, what Big S. said. I think what happened to all of them was that they were right...

                          http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2979605
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

                            Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                            Haha, yeah, what Big S. said. I think what happened to all of them was that they were right...

                            http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2979605
                            Wow, he's actually going to say that a ref actually went to a casino. That will end the NBA as we know it. That article says nothing

                            I'll re-state what I said a few weeks back when this thing broke - There will not be any other refs implicated as far as gambling on NBA games in which they worked. I guarantee it

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Star: Ex-Ref Donaghy Guilty

                              Anybody else think Donaghy was up late last night, bummed about how his life had gone, and started surfing. Then he came across what UB wrote, and said, "I'll show him. I'll show 'em all!"

                              Nice job Buck.
                              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X