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

Flopping

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

  • Flopping

    I was hoping there would be more to this but its not more than 2 sentences at the very end of the article.

    It does beg the question thou.... how?

    Would an offensive foul being called on the flopper be enough? or maybe a tech?

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colum...coverage_N.htm

    Billick and networks covering draft score big

    By Michael Hiestand, USA TODAY

    NEW YORK — While NFL teams need years to figure out if they drafted well this weekend, the picks can already celebrate — like Brian Billick.
    Fox will formally announce Monday that the ex-Baltimore Ravens coach, who debuted as a national TV analyst on the NFL Network's draft coverage, and didn't embarrass himself, will be a game analyst this season. He'll work both two and three-man booths, says Fox's Dan Bell, but his on-air partners haven't been set.

    Other draft winners: ESPN and the NFL's network, whose ratings for their simultaneous coverage presumably will rise because of a later draft start time this year and fewer minutes between picks.

    Both networks sometimes missed live coverage, as they aired ads, of Commissioner Roger Goodell announcing picks at the podium. Said NFL Network producer Eric Weinberger, amid the din of his production truck Saturday: "The speed of this has been wild."

    With the first round having shrunk from 6 hours, 8 minutes last year to 3:30, Goodell concluded Sunday on NFL Network it was "entertaining" and had "a great pace." (But in true NFL fashion, he says he couldn't conclude anything until he watched the tapes.)

    Eventually, however, it won't matter if anybody sees Goodell's actual envelope-opening. This year's late start allowed both networks to air four-hour lead-in shows — buttoning down probable picks as if they'd seen exit polls. Said ESPN producer Seth Markman, just before the draft started Saturday: "It's like election coverage. We went on so early, it's like we're projecting states."

    The NFL notifies both network producers of picks about a minute before they're announced so they can cue up their highlight packages — which, oddly, never show guys making bad plays — although the on-air types aren't notified so their responses will seem natural. But with various closeups of players the top picks getting congratulatory phone calls before anything becomes official, sometimes there isn't much suspense.

    ESPN put cameras in about 10 prospects' homes, which at least produced some drama — closeups of quarterbacks Brian Brohm and Chad Henne sweating it out until they went in the second round — after the six players brought to the draft ended up the top six picks. (FYI: No. 2 pick Chris Long, son of Fox's Howie, will be a running subplot on Fox's NFL pregame show next season.)

    But if this year's draft wasn't exceptionally suspenseful, it had its usual idiosyncratic staples. There was ESPN's Mel Kiper showing his steely endurance. Said ESPN research chief Howie Schwab, on the set Saturday: "He's absolutely amazing — he hasn't even (used the bathroom) at these in 20 years."

    And there was the sheer oddity of it all. The NFL Network's Rich Eisen noted, on-air to Goodell, that this is "the only business in America where a complete newcomer becomes the highest-paid (worker) in the history of the business he's joining."

    Said ESPN editor Rico Labbe, a Boston College player who made the Washington Redskins after being picked in the fourth round of the 1990 draft, as he edited tape in a trailer on the sidewalk outside the draft site: "There's a half a billion players on that stage."

    Smart:

    The ratings for golf's U.S. Open this summer will be big — maybe even record-setting. How you know: NBC will formally announce today the first scheduled East Coast primetime weekend U.S. Open action.

    That's possible because play — in La Jolla, Calif. — will be in West Coast time. On Saturday, June 14, coverage is scheduled to go until 10 p.m. ET — and to 9 p.m. ET Sunday.

    Time slots can be critical to how many people watch weekend events. The 2000 Open's fog-delayed Saturday action, sending coverage past 9 p.m. ET, produced the Open's highest-rated third round. The 2002 Open's rain-delayed Sunday action, lasting past 8:30 p.m. ET, drew the Open's highest-rated final-round rating ever.

    And this year's primetime Open might not end up as a one-shot wonder, since the 2010 and 2012 Opens will also be played in West Coast time. Says NBC Sports Chairman Dick Ebersol: "What a great way to spend Father's Day weekend, with the best golfers in the world … in primetime."

    Flop:

    ABC analyst Jeff Van Gundy said Sunday the NBA league office has to stop "ridiculous" flopping: "That's their job, that's why they're paying those guys millions. … ESPN's E:60 show Tuesday examines horse cloning.

  • #2
    Re: Flopping

    Lol, at first I thought you said flopping just to get ppl to come here.. But then I saw what you were talking about.

    Flopping isn't a big deal.. Refs just have to decide what is the best call.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Flopping

      This should be in the Colts/NFL forum.

      Well, everything up to the last two sentences...lol

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Flopping

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        This should be in the Colts/NFL forum.

        Well, everything up to the last two sentences...lol
        Lol, that's what I was thinking.. I was like, why is this posted here and under flopping..?? Then I saw the last two sentences.. But still.. lol

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Flopping

          The only way would be to ban all the Europeans...

          Unfortunately, flopping is advantageous to the defensive player and the referees and league office have set the precedent that in some cases flopping is acceptable. It has also led to other trends in defensive strategy - how often do you see an adequately skilled defensive player try to take a charge rather than actually contesting the shot if contact might be made?

          It's going to take a concerted effort to get rid of flopping, just like their recent emphasis on traveling and palming.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Flopping

            Its gettin ridiculous, you see it on almost every play nowadays.

            I liek the idea of a Tech being called, but then it could become just anpther bad call.

            So how about they do it like delays of games.

            A warning, and then a tech?>
            STARBURY

            08 and Beyond

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Flopping

              I say whoever flops gets to have a flagrant from the opposing team. Make the sport an actual contact sport and not some prissy league.

              Or God forbid I use soccer for anything, slap them with the NBA version of a yellow card.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Flopping

                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                The only way would be to ban all the Europeans...

                Unfortunately, flopping is advantageous to the defensive player and the referees and league office have set the precedent that in some cases flopping is acceptable. It has also led to other trends in defensive strategy - how often do you see an adequately skilled defensive player try to take a charge rather than actually contesting the shot if contact might be made?

                It's going to take a concerted effort to get rid of flopping, just like their recent emphasis on traveling and palming.
                ajbry, I would say that offensive players flop just like defensive players do. I really don't understand your point of taking a charge as a flop. Charges are not flops unless your talking about when someone is posted up and they "act" like they got pushed out of postion from the opposing player. Then I could see your point.

                This is one of the reason I like college. Its alot more physical with less talented players.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Flopping

                  I agree that it's become MUCH too rampant. I don't know about making it a technical. Maybe just treat it as a normal personal foul, but use the same type of rule they do with techs. Fined for every one (I think it's $1k?), then when you reach a certain amount, we'll say 10 in this case, you get suspended a game.

                  Of course this is another "open to referee discretion" type call, opening the door to even more favoritism arguments.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Flopping

                    I don't mind a timely flop at in the closing minutes of a close game if it works.

                    What I would like to see is an intentional foul called. 1 foul shot + the ball out of bounds.

                    Same would apply for the PJ Brown special. Grabbing a guy around the waist and dragging him to the floor looking for a charge.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Flopping

                      Originally posted by tdubb03 View Post
                      I agree that it's become MUCH too rampant. I don't know about making it a technical. Maybe just treat it as a normal personal foul, but use the same type of rule they do with techs. Fined for every one (I think it's $1k?), then when you reach a certain amount, we'll say 10 in this case, you get suspended a game.

                      Of course this is another "open to referee discretion" type call, opening the door to even more favoritism arguments.
                      That's how I would do it. It'd be very difficult to distinguish during the game. But I think you could have someone watch every game afterwards and determine all the flops throughout a game, and fine for each flop (going up incrementally, similar to the way they do for technicals). Then once they reached a certain number (I'd put it at much higher than 10), suspend them. That would definitely help eliminate it in my mind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Flopping

                        I like the idea of treating it "somewhat" like delay of game: Give a warning call with no penalty, then the next one carries a penalty.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Flopping

                          Once again, if the refs were smart enough to be able to distinguish an obvious flop from a standard foul, there would be no problem.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Flopping

                            thats a noteworthy clarification, shade. Thanks.
                            "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Flopping

                              I think a 'play on' with the defender's butt still on the floor is about all we can hope for....not talking about the pull-down flops of course.

                              Let it go for what it is...a failed defensive move. Any fouls, flagrants, etc, and you break the tempo of the game even more, and the calls would be at least as subjective as a charge call, without the half-circle to offer any guidance.
                              Last edited by kester99; 04-28-2008, 11:47 PM.


                              [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X