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

OT: Anyone listen to Dan Patrick today between 1:30 and 2?

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

  • #16
    Re: OT: Anyone listen to Dan Patrick today between 1:30 and 2?

    Yeah, let me ask you guys:

    Would you like to see everyone get equal calls?Meaning that there would be NO super-star calls at all or would you just like to see certain guys like JO get more calls?
    Everyone gets equal calls.

    You see a foul, you call it.

    Plain and simple. That's the rules.

    I don't care if the game takes 8 hours to play or if over half the roster fouls out. The players will and should adapt.
    Yep. You'd get games where everyone's in foul trouble at first, but then the players would learn they just can't grab and hold anymore.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: OT: Anyone listen to Dan Patrick today between 1:30 and 2?

      Yeah, let me ask you guys:

      Would you like to see everyone get equal calls?Meaning that there would be NO super-star calls at all or would you just like to see certain guys like JO get more calls?
      Everyone gets equal calls.

      You see a foul, you call it.

      Plain and simple. That's the rules.

      I don't care if the game takes 8 hours to play or if over half the roster fouls out. The players will and should adapt.

      AGREED!!
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: OT: Anyone listen to Dan Patrick today between 1:30 and 2?

        Yeah, let me ask you guys:

        Would you like to see everyone get equal calls?Meaning that there would be NO super-star calls at all or would you just like to see certain guys like JO get more calls?
        I don't think it would be all bad for the refs to call a foul a foul. They don't have to wait to see if the ball goes in the bucket and then make a call. They don't have to ask the scorer's table how many fouls a player has to determine how they should call a game. They don't have to check at halftime to see which team has had the most fouls called against them so they can even things up. They don't have to change the way they call a game from quarter to quarter or half to half. What is the problem with giving EQUAL calls?
        "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
        - Benjamin Franklin

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: OT: Anyone listen to Dan Patrick today between 1:30 and 2?

          Over the last few days I have posted I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Still don't. But even I have to admit this conversation does hurt my theory a bit and helps support the consipiracy people.

          That said if the Pistons make it to the NBA Finals I'm not going to be whining about conspiracy theories if we lose.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: OT: Anyone listen to Dan Patrick today between 1:30 and 2?

            BTW - I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist, but NBA games are the most poorly officiated sporting event on the planet. Between blown calls and preferential treatment ...
            And is probably the hardest game to officiate on the planet.

            But I agree - I can do without the preferential treatment. The whole idea of an "all-star" getting certain calls is just stupid.
            Possibly - maybe not. Hockey's not simple. Lot of speed, players all over the floor and quite a few judgement calls - boarding vs a clean check, hooking vs just having a stick up there, etc.

            What bothers me is the league doesn't seem to feel any urgency to improve it.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: OT: Anyone listen to Dan Patrick today between 1:30 and 2?

              I guess I see it less as conspiracy and more as a human error, or peer pressure thing. Not sure I'm saying it right but they may have been concerned about fouling out the best player in the game (according to many, not my personal feeling) on his home floor in such a big game. Does that make it right, NO! But does it explain it a little bit, maybe. Same reason KG doesn't get suspended for game 7 inround 2 and Peeler gets 2 games! Or Malone only getting fined (that was really bad IMO) It stinks but that is the way it is and the NBA doesn't seeem to mind the critisism of a double standard enough to be fair.

              When JO got his 5th foul the other night, Rick told him try not to foul, I can't take you out now or you won't be able to get warm again (knee). I think Rick and JO knew the ref's wouldn't hesitate to call his 6th foul with 6 minutes to go in the game, esp. seeing how it had gone all night. It killed us because JO couldn't defend like he would have and they took advantage of it. If it was Shaq, they don't make that call (to foul him out)unless it is so blatant, and maybe not even then.

              It stinks when other players are getting star treatment and your players, who are legitamate star's, aren't, but that has been the case all year. Rick spoke about it publicly many times this year and the team filed (I think) 2 complaints to the league and it hasn't made a bit of difference. Don't know what it will take, maybe a year of very good behavoir from JO to get rid of his whining reputation, another year of good behavior from Ron to help overcome last years troubles. Lets hope it gets better cause I really don't think it could get any worse.

              We aren't losing this series because of the refs, but they haven't helped us much either. It is so frustrating to see our post guys hammered when they go to the hoop and Rip have someone barely touch him on a drive and get the call. The touch fouls against us this series have been unbelievable compared to Detroit. I think it must even out somewhere and I'm sure I don't even notice many calls that go against Detroit because I am not focusing on them, but it has been tough to watch. Just call it the same on both ends!! I'm not looking for special treatment, just equal treatment.

              Whew I feel better now.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: OT: Anyone listen to Dan Patrick today between 1:30 and 2?

                A little more background on what was said.

                This all started over Eddie Rush (one of those refs I USED to think was good) asking the scorers bench last night how many fouls Shaq had. Brent Musberger and Tim Legler were doing ESPN radio, and Legler was not happy, and let everyone know it. I haven't seen any TV, so I don't know if it's been discussed or not.

                Anyway, Dan couldn't get anyone from the league office on, so he got Hue Hollins, who retired a couple years back after 27 years officiating. When asked if refs keep track of fouls, Hue said of course they do, they just discuss it amongst themselves, instead of going to the scoring table. He pointed out that Dick Bavetta was the lead offical of last night's game, and it was his job to keep track of such things and let the other two know what the game situation was.

                He said the biggest problem with officiating today is them throwing together these teams who don't ref together in the regular season. They don't know each other's tendancies that officating tandems get by being together over a number of games, and that leads to the unevenness of games (Sunday night, perhaps?)

                So, as for the prefential treatment thing. Hue did say flat out that when a guy gets 5 fouls, the refs absolutely make a point to not foul him out on a "cheap" foul, what other people call "ticky-tack". And with a star player like Shaq, or Kobe, or Garnett, or Sprewell, it's even moreso.

                Dan kept trying to put the words "preferential treatment" in his mouth, and Hue kept fighting against that. So he brought up the argument of an Oliver Miller, which is where Hue really buried himself. He said that the refs "know" that someone like Miller is just in there to foul, so they're treated differently than a marque player like Shaq. I think Hue was going for a hack-a-Shaq, intentional foul thing, but it wasn't coming off like that.

                Hue did try his best to argue against the notion that refs can fix games. "We're not that smart, at least I never was. The game goes to fast to keep track of such things." To which Dan retorted with the whole foul thing they'd started on. And Hue tried to make it like that wasn't "preferential treatment", per se.

                To sum up, Hue tried his best, but he was in over his head. As much as I knock Patrick, he's a very good interviewer, and can very easily lead you to places you don't want to go if you're not careful.

                After the interview, I wasn't terribly surprised by what had been said, but Dan and Dibble sure acted like they were. They acted totally shocked that a ref would actually say that different people are treated different ways, depending on the circumstances. Duke joked that he might lose his pension. Dibble said that it puts the journeymen at a real disadvantage, drawing up a scenario where, "Mark Madsen makes a really great block, but gets called for the foul because that's what the refs are expecting to call before the play happens." He asked Dan if NBA refs are part-timers, to which Dan replied that, no, that's only the NFL. Dibble surmised you should expect a lot more from professionals.

                I was tempted to call in and talk about Game 4 of the 2000 Finals, where Shaq got his 5th early in the 4th, but wasn't fouled out until the OT period, well after Dale and Smits had fouled out and Sam had 5, but I figured I wouldn't get on.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment

                Working...
                X