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

Rules changes?

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

  • Rules changes?

    Do you have any suggestions for rules changes that would make NBA basketball better? Here's a few specific questions:


    1. Is NBA basketball a contact sport or a collision sport? What should it be?

    Basketball was conceived as a strict non-contact sport. Over time it changed to allow some touching and leverage -- making it a contact sport. But today the NBA allows so much contact that it is almost a collision sport. If you think it is currently on the wrong side of that divide, what rules changes could help?


    2. What rules changes would make NBA basktball easier to officiate?

    This question relates to the Doneghy scandal. Some people believe that, though it cannot be proven, the NBA is clean except for one or a few rogue refs who get caught. Others believe that, though it cannot be proven, the NBA is rotten.

    The problem is not just Donaghy, but the fact that good officiating "cannot be proven." No doubt a lot of fans are ignorant, and some of us (me, particularly) can't see the quick action clearly enough to second guess the refs. But even a very thorough and expert assessment like that presented by 82games.com (link below) finds a significant number of "bad" calls, leaving fans to dispute whether they were deliberate cheats or just mistakes because the ref saw the action from a bad angle.

    http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm


    The way to break this knot is to make the game more black and white. For the sake of its reputation, the NBA needs to allow fewer situations where the right call is unclear. How can this be done without harming the game?


    3. How about raising the rim to 12 feet?

    I'm just asking!

    Raising the rim might shift the game from pure athleticism, back to skill and
    team play. Would you welcome that? Rick Carlisle has suggested raising the rim, so it isn't a totally loopy idea.

    This thread, as ChicagoJ would say, "is built for the off-season." This is the lowest time of year, so it is an opportunity to think outside the box. Many people hate the idea of any change. But the game we enjoy has changed a lot from Dr. Naismith's peach basket game, and there's no saying that the time for changes has ceased.

    Final word: We've discussed many ideas affecting the fan experience (parking, food, sound effects, etc.) in other threads. For this thread, please stick to the game itself as it happens on the floor.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: Rules changes?

    I guess I have some radical ideas.

    1) Over the past 5 or 6 seasons restrictions have been placed on contact and the game isn't nearly as phyical as it was during the 90's. I wish the refs would use better judgment in making the calls, knock off the ticky tak calls on the
    perimeter

    2) OK, here is the radical part and I fully am aware that it will never happen, in fact things are moving in the exact opposite direction. It is the refs job to make the correct call given the situation. Yes I'm taking about situational officiating.

    The best ref in my lifetime was Earl Strom and he certainly didn't work a game by the book. He was good enough, talented enough to know how to work the game - and every game is different, every team is different and Earl knew how to make it a good game. (know hold on a minute, he never favored one team over another, he never favored the home team, he never helped the team that was down by 20 points get back in --- but he knew how to keep control of the game and yet let the teams play - and if that meant calling a game involving two very physuical teams differently than a game between two finnese teams, - then dso be it.

    Today refs are taught to make calls, 20-30 years ago refs were taught to work a game. I know no one will agree with me - but I think that is the biggest problem with the refs today.

    3. I don't see the point in raising the rim. Rick suggested making the rim larger, so shooting % would go up

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rules changes?

      Hand Checking either needs to go or be called.

      I would like to see the key enlarged. That would create spacing would it not.

      Watching the Colts game I feel that over officiating detracts from the experience for the casual fan. Avid fans want the sanctity of the game preserved, but that will slow things down.

      The rim should never exceed the size it is right now. Leave the 3pt line the same.

      Like UB I think that the refs should do their jobs and things should improve.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rules changes?

        All I have to say is basketball needs to be more of a contact sport. Like UB said, there have been rule changes during this decade that have made large facets of the more physical play of the 1990's illegal. Look at the guys on the court. They're big guys that can take a little contact. Ticky tack calls on the perimeter need to be stopped. In sum, that's bull****.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rules changes?

          UB, how did he control a game with one physical team and one finesse team? Did he also control the game by not calling fouls on the best players?

          As for the question at hand, I think I can sum my feelings up by saying I don't believe in throwing mud on the game's intentions just because it makes someone or something look "cooler".

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rules changes?

            I don't see value in rule changes. You cannot legislate quality of play. The rules should be enforced, as they exist, and the players and coaches should learn to play within them. That, to me, is the best way for the game to improve.

            I don't agree with "situational officiating" from three different perspectives:

            1. If it's a foul with 5 minutes left in the second quarter, then it damn well better be a foul with 5 seconds left in the fourth. This, to me, is the exact opposite of "letting the players decide the game."

            2. To this day, I believe one of the contributing factors to the brawl that has never, ever been pointed out properly was the way this variable officiating created such a toxic atmosphere. The Pacers-Pistons ECF in 2004 was one of the most brutal displays I've ever seen. The two teams were in a constant rugby scrum and it created tension (and outright hatred) amongst the players, but more importantly between the teams and the fanbase. Am I mitigating Artest or anyone else's responsibility here? No, absolutely not. I'm just saying that this was never, IMO, properly explored.

            3. "Situational officiating" invariably ends up favoring one team or another. What happens when a finesse team plays a physical team. How do you decide which team you're going to allow to play "their game"? The gold standard for officiating should be consistency. As much as humanly possible, officials should strive to make the same call every time. The players and coaches should adapt to the rules. They are good enough to do well within their framework. (Note: this doesn't mean that the game should be called like a junior high dance...just that part of each game shouldn't be trying to figure out what's a foul and what's not.)

            However, there is one rule that I'd like to see either enforced the way it's written or removed entirely: the restricted area.

            An offensive foul should never be called if the contact is with a secondary defensive player who has established a defensive position within a designated "restricted area" near the basket for the purpose of drawing an offensive foul.

            The "restricted area" for this purpose is the area bounded by an arc with a 4-foot radius measured from the middle of the basket.
            This circle under the basket was meant to clearly delineate a common practice rule: that charges were never called when the defensive player was "too far under the basket". I thought it was a great idea, because it would (largely) remove question about why the charge wasn't called. The problem is that now, instead a making a no-call when a defender gets good position, but has his heels on or inside the arc, the officials are calling blocking fouls. If the guy has position, then he should not be called for a foul. He can't draw the charge, but he shouldn't be penalized further with a defensive foul. A lot of wasted fouls here.

            Also, I've always preferred the old illegal defense rules to the new zone/defensive 3-second rules, and I'd love to see the bonus free throws go back to 1+1, but I'm not pushing horribly hard for an actual rule change.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rules changes?

              Help me out here, please. When I posed the question in the OP, I tried to distinguish between "contact" and collision" according to the definitions below:


              Current medical terminology in the United States uses the term collision sport rather than contact sport to refer to Rugby, American football, lacrosse, and ice hockey. The term contact sport is used to refer to sports, such as basketball and association football that allow limited contact. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2001 entitled "Medical Conditions Affecting Sports Participation" that included the following definitions:
              In "collision" sports (eg, boxing, ice hockey, football, and rodeo), athletes purposely hit or collide with each other or inanimate objects, including the ground, with great force. In "contact" sports (eg, basketball and soccer), athletes routinely make contact with each other or inanimate objects but usually with less force than in collision sports.

              —Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of Pediatrics,
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_sport


              The question is, where should basketball be on the continuum from non-contact sport (tennis) to collision sport (football), and how can possible rules changes get it to and keep it in the right place?
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rules changes?

                It's closer to non-contact than it is to collision, as it should be. Make a new game if Joe Fan wants more contact, but don't *******ize basketball.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rules changes?

                  The blocking foul is ridiculous. If you have position, who gives a crap where you are. They need to get rid of the restricted area and make blocking/charging foul more subjective.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rules changes?

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    However, there is one rule that I'd like to see either enforced the way it's written or removed entirely: the restricted area.

                    This circle under the basket was meant to clearly delineate a common practice rule: that charges were never called when the defensive player was "too far under the basket". I thought it was a great idea, because it would (largely) remove question about why the charge wasn't called. The problem is that now, instead a making a no-call when a defender gets good position, but has his heels on or inside the arc, the officials are calling blocking fouls. If the guy has position, then he should not be called for a foul. He can't draw the charge, but he shouldn't be penalized further with a defensive foul. A lot of wasted fouls here.

                    I could not agree with you more. I thought when the rule went into effect that if the defensive player was set and ready to take a charge, but was within in the restricted area - then a no call was made. Sure a collision resulted - but no call - in fact that is the way it was usually called prior to the restricted area being put in officially. And it seemed like the first year or two of the rule it was a no call, but no more, now it is a blocking call everytime. It bugs me, not sure if the rule was changed or if the interpretation was.

                    Overall though there are way, way, way too many charges called. it used to be that players wouldn't try to try charges, a big guy would try to block shots and others would player position defense. Jeff van Gundy whose teams often draw more charges than anyone, because he teaches it, - he said on the telecasts that he thinks it hurts the game, but it is the way you have to play defense these days

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rules changes?

                      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                      The blocking foul is ridiculous. If you have position, who gives a crap where you are. They need to get rid of the restricted area and make blocking/charging foul more subjective.
                      I've always believed this - not sure about more subjective but getting rid of the restricted area.

                      Also, get rid of defensive 3-seconds. If you're going to allow a zone, allow a friggin' zone and if that means double teaming Tim Duncan off the ball, so be it.

                      The biggest thing they could do though to improve the purity of the game is enforce palming. I know that's not a rule change but allowing a player to carry the ball while he takes 2 steps makes him close to impossible to defend individually.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rules changes?

                        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                        The blocking foul is ridiculous. If you have position, who gives a crap where you are. They need to get rid of the restricted area and make blocking/charging foul more subjective.
                        Standing right under the basket is horrible defense, so why reward horrible defense by calling a charging foul. that is the thoery behind the restricted area and I agree with the rule by the way. Refs have never allowed charging when the defender was under the basket even prior to the line actually being there

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rules changes?

                          I'll tell you my biggest gripe. Over everything else.

                          Moving picks.

                          I know some of you may laugh, but I think it's part of the foundation of so much bad play. Used to be you had to set your feet for a screen/pick. You couldn't initiate the contact.

                          It seems thse days that screens are set the same way as a tight end in football. You see the screener put his arms up, run up and push/lean/shove on the defender. WTH is that??

                          Because it never gets called anymore, it gives a huge advantage to the offensive player with the ball.

                          And I think it was a conscious effort by the league to boost scoring.

                          I also thjink it was part of what UB and count55 are talking about with the restricted area. I think an effort was made to speed up the game and boost scoring. Part of the effort was by giving offesive players less impedimint in getting to the basket (allowing screeners to throw "blocks") and I think they felt their counterbalance was teh restricted area and charging calls.
                          Last edited by Skaut_Ech; 08-04-2008, 11:35 AM.
                          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rules changes?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            It's closer to non-contact than it is to collision, as it should be. Make a new game if Joe Fan wants more contact, but don't *******ize basketball.
                            I think I agree with this post. Do you think there is too much, not enough, or the right amount of contact allowed in basketball right now?

                            I think calls both inside and on the perimeter need to be reduced. The perimeter of obvious reasons, and waaay too many times you see guys get fouls called on them when they get "all ball" inside. No, I don't think you should be able to hack someone when they go inside, but I don't think it should be a call if you push the ball back in the guy's face, either.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rules changes?

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Standing right under the basket is horrible defense, so why reward horrible defense by calling a charging foul. that is the thoery behind the restricted area and I agree with the rule by the way. Refs have never allowed charging when the defender was under the basket even prior to the line actually being there
                              That is what I meant by more subjective. Although this won't make the game easier to officiate, a ref should be able to tell when it's a charging foul, a blocking foul or a no-call.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X