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

  • #16
    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
    Also, there was an aspect of protecting the offensive player from injury. The closer to the basket, the more likely the offensive player was to be in a vulnerable position in the air, and an unintentional undercut to occur.

    As to there being way, way too many charges being called, I would argue it's because there are way, way too many charges being committed.

    One area that could cut down on charges is on the pass. Players, by now, should understand that when they go hard to the basket, it's often whether they pass or shoot that determines the call. If they shoot the ball, it's more likely to be a block or no call, but when they get run over a guy on the pass, it's called a charge almost 100% of the time.

    Going back to the old illegal defense rules could also keep big guys from hanging around the lane, making it harder for them to get charges. Officials should also be more sensitive to flopping, but that's a can o' worms. (The only thing that irritates me more than flopping is the constant whining about "floppers and flopping".)

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Rules changes?

      If I were king for a day, a dunk shot would only be worth one point.

      If I got a second day of reshaping the rule book, I would eliminate the stupid half-circle under the rim. If it is a charge somewhere else on the court, it should be called a charge at the most important part of the court.

      Frankly, the court needs to be wider and the three-point line pushed out to 25/26 feet. But I don't think current arenas could handle a 65-foot wide court, so that will never happen.

      I would put the original illegal defense rules back in.

      The other stuff isn't a rules change, per se. But the game of basketball is supposed to be free-flowing. Illegal (moving) screens should be called consistently. I guess if I were to make a rule change, it would be for offensive fouls to count as "2" personal fouls for a player, instead of one.

      In that vain, I'd also eliminate the "bonus" (I guess it is now called the "penalty". All fouls (offensive or defensive) result in two free throws.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Rules changes?

        Oh, another one, No foul outs.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Rules changes?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Oh, another one, No foul outs.
          Then what's to stop me from fouling Duncan or Shaq etc. every time down?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Rules changes?

            Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
            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.
            Well I certainly don't think it's thug-ball anymore.

            Honestly I could answer this question in December when I'm watching games better than I could now.

            I'm of the "call the foul if it's actually a foul" mentality, so I'd only support less fouls on the perimeter if it's calls that were made under the suspicion of contact, and not actually seen contact.

            I don't, however, agree with letting guys make contact other than of course on the ball.

            As for the post, the purist side of me thinks even the idea of posting up and backing people down goes against the original spirit of the game, but I'll accept that as here to stay and simply say this: If the offensive player elbows his man, shoulders his man, pins his man, grabs his man, or he knocks him (legitimately; not a flop) on his ***, there damn well better be a whistle.

            As for the no-charge zone, I'm not a fan. If the defender is under the basket, his failure to keep his man further away is failure enough. No need to compound it by letting the offensive player run him over. He doesn't need the help if he's 1 or 2 feet from the bucket. And if he truly does need help, that's his problem.

            As I understand it, the only thing, generally speaking, that is supposed to matter when it comes to an offensive foul is that the defender is at a spot on the floor before the offensive player.

            He doesn't actually have to be standing still, he just can't be denying the offensive player his own spot on the floor by moving into him or sliding in front of him laterally.

            The defender can actually be moving backwards and still have his opponent called for an offensive foul if he runs him over. He just can't move into him or towards him to deny him position when he's moving.

            I'd prefer the NBA leave it at that and don't worry about a no-charge zone.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Rules changes?

              Originally posted by rexnom View Post
              Then what's to stop me from fouling Duncan or Shaq etc. every time down?
              This gets back to my earlier discussion on the refs. Earl Strom is likely to have gone over to the coach who was instructing his team to fould Shaq or any other player off the ball and on purpose - earl would have told the coach, don't waste your time because I'm not calling it.

              Of course that won't work today, so a new rule is needed - no intentional fouls off the ball at any point of the game - they have that rule in the last 2 minutes, so just extend it to the whole game.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Rules changes?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                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
                I agree. The one rule change I would make is not even really a rule change. I would just say tell refs that there need to be more no calls in questionable charge/block situations. I realize this would favor the defense a bit, but it also might stop some of the ridiculous drives just to draw blocking fouls that we see about 6-8 times a game.
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Rules changes?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Oh, another one, No foul outs.
                  I think I would be forced to seriously consider to stop watching the NBA if this happened.

                  I believe we've had this conversation once before, and I believe we're about to veer of into a discussion of why don't they disqualify NFL linemen for holding, etc.

                  Rather than re-making the previous argument, I'm going to try to find it again.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Rules changes?

                    The game is mostly fine.

                    I'm not a big fan of the generaly p*ssyification on contact allowed. I do like to see more scoring just like the next guy, but I've always believed that contact should be allowed up to the point that it significantly affects a players ability to score. Obviously, it's a lot easier to score when no one can touch you and it's impossible to score when someone is maiming you...but there is a line in the middle, and that's where fair competition lives.

                    My biggest beef is that there are waaaay too many charge calls. When a guy is 250 lbs and falls down from petty contact, he's a liar. This isn't Cameron Indoor and they shouldn't be bailing out crappy defense. Belly up like a man and try to deter the guy from scoring...don't tumble to the ground with an ouchie like a five-year-old.

                    Moving screens are annoying, but calling them extensively would only slow down the game. Maybe they should do a "no tolerance" policy for like two months like they did with technicals a few years ago and it would help cut it down for the long-term.

                    Traveling is getting a little excessive too. The three-step, double-jump stop stuff that LeBron does and the drag-my-pivot-foot-half-way-down-the-lane spin move of Flash are a little absurd. The only reason that I don't really have a problem with it is that everyone in the League is allowed to get away with it if they're just athletic, coordinated and graceful enough that it doesn't look awkward in real-time. So it's not really like they're given more leeway than, say, Matt Harpring...it's just that bumble-foots like Matt Harpring look awkward enough taking two steps to fool anyone into thinking an extra step is a natural part of their move.

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ
                    If I were king for a day, a dunk shot would only be worth one point.
                    There's no way a 38-year-old just used that word.
                    Last edited by JayRedd; 08-04-2008, 12:44 PM.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Rules changes?

                      The one thing I would like to see them do is change up to a single elimination, all in playoff to rival the NCAA tournament. Then maybe the 2 finalists play a best of three to decide the champ.

                      I think the current format is bad for the league. The series are too long, and most are boring. Over half the teams are left out, and their fans become uninterested. The most exciting sports competition is the NCAA tourney, and it's because of the format.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Rules changes?

                        There are some rule changes related to the CBA that I'd love to see, but I'm not sure that this is where to have that discussion.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Rules changes?

                          I think the biggest problem is that they don't treat all players equally. A foul is a foul is a foul whether it's committed by Travis Deiner or Kobe Bryant, but that's not the way it works out.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Rules changes?

                            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                            The one thing I would like to see them do is change up to a single elimination, all in playoff to rival the NCAA tournament. Then maybe the 2 finalists play a best of three to decide the champ.

                            I think the current format is bad for the league. The series are too long, and most are boring. Over half the teams are left out, and their fans become uninterested. The most exciting sports competition is the NCAA tourney, and it's because of the format.
                            I could not disagree anymore than I do. Seeing teams play again and again is the true test to see who is the better team, often the best games aren't until game 5-7 in any given series, so making it best of three or single elim would destroy the playoffs for me.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Rules changes?

                              On a completely unrelated note, I hate how guys like Pierce can get to the foul line just by throwing themselves in a crowd and flopping their arms. I like guys who draw fouls by putting the defender in a position where he has to foul to stop the basket. But not the other guys who just put their head down and draw contact and get a foul call because they probably got fouled.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Rules changes?

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                Moving screens are annoying, but calling them extensively would only slow down the game. Maybe they should do a "no tolerance" policy for like two months like they did with technicals a few years ago and it would help cut it down for the long-term.
                                Maybe that would help, but your first line "scares" me when I hear it applied to anything of the sort. The whole point of the rules is that moving screens are NEVER legal. The rule breakers are the reason there's a problem. Slowing down the game if they are called for what they are is THEIR fault.

                                Just as it's their fault if they foul a lot to slow down the game.

                                Originally posted by JayRed

                                Traveling is getting a little excessive too. The three-step, double-jump stop stuff that LeBron does and the drag-my-pivot-foot-half-way-down-the-lane spin move of Flash are a little absurd. The only reason that I don't really have a problem with it is that everyone in the League is allowed to get away with it if they're just athletic, coordinated and graceful enough that it doesn't look awkward in real-time. So it's not really like they're given more leeway than, say, Matt Harpring...it's just that bumble-foots like Matt Harpring look awkward enough taking two steps to fool anyone into thinking an extra step is a natural part of their move.
                                Um, that's exactly what it is. It IS giving leeway over the Matt Harprings of the NBA just because they make it look "pretty."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X