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

Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

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

  • #16
    Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Originally posted by idioteque View Post
    You've got to be kidding me.

    When it comes to big markets, you don't have to be incredibly well-run, you just have to have the will and desire to spend a lot of money. That's the difference between the Lakers and the Clippers. The Clippers could be nearly as good as the Lakers, but they refuse to spend the money. Their owner would rather have them be incredibly profitable on their balance sheet, which they are, as opposed being successful on the court, which they aren't and likely never will be, regardless of what certain Clippers fans say on this board.
    The Knicks have spent more money than anyone in the last decade, in the biggest media market in the world. According to the logic of this board they should have won 10 championships.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

      I'm curious, what are these small market teams that are suffering from being in small markets? Looking at the standings the bad teams are at the bottom because they're poorly run, not because they're suffering from losing players to big market teams.
      Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-09-2011, 05:09 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

        I hate when David Aldridge (who I actually think very highly of) uses the Thunder as a model franchise for small markets.

        Sure we could all be succesfull if we were able to draft the leading scorer in the NBA and then turn around and draft one of the top p.g. in the NBA while still having several other good draft picks from sucking for a good while.

        Would David's view of OKC be the same had Portland decided to draft Durrant instead of Oden?

        They just traded for Perkins, which I believe was smart, but he is going to want to get paid so let's see what he goes for.

        It's never just about getting a high draft pick (see Wizards) it's about getting franchise changing players with the high draft pick.


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
          I'm curious, what are these small market teams that are suffering from being in small markets? Looking at the standings the bad teams are at the bottom because they're poorly run, not because they're suffering from losing players to big market teams.
          You mean other than Cleveland?


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

            Nothing intelligent to add here, just my opinion on this whole debate:

            I personally don't want to be on level with the Lakers or the Knicks. I like the small market disadvantage - it's part of what attracted me to this team in the first place as an 8 year old kid sitting in the nosebleeds at MSG. Sure, the big markets have a competitive edge, but it's not impossible to overcome, as we've seen in the past with the Spurs and the Pistons. It just makes the journey to the championship that much more rewarding. I'd much rather embrace it than complain about it. I'd rather be the team that builds from the ground-up with scrappy, high-character, quality players rather than throwing millions around for free agents every year like the Dallas Mavericks do.

            Roy wants to win. Danny wants to win. Darren wants to win. So does Tyler, Josh, Jeff. And they all want to do it here, as Pacers. And that's what I'm looking forward to as a fan. Next week, we play the big market Chicago Bulls - the team everyone's talking about, with the media-annointed MVP Derrick Rose and his free agent sidekick Carlos Boozer. I personally can't wait.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              I hate when David Aldridge (who I actually think very highly of) uses the Thunder as a model franchise for small markets.

              Sure we could all be succesfull if we were able to draft the leading scorer in the NBA and then turn around and draft one of the top p.g. in the NBA while still having several other good draft picks from sucking for a good while.

              Would David's view of OKC be the same had Portland decided to draft Durrant instead of Oden?

              They just traded for Perkins, which I believe was smart, but he is going to want to get paid so let's see what he goes for.

              It's never just about getting a high draft pick (see Wizards) it's about getting franchise changing players with the high draft pick.
              "News comes from The Oklahoman that the Thunder have signed Perkins to an extension. The deal is reportedly a four-year extension for $34 million. The Celtics, under salary cap restrictions, were only able to offer a four-year, $21.5 million deal. The Thunder could offer more because they were under the NBA cap."
              http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sp...-with-thunder/

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                "News comes from The Oklahoman that the Thunder have signed Perkins to an extension. The deal is reportedly a four-year extension for $34 million. The Celtics, under salary cap restrictions, were only able to offer a four-year, $21.5 million deal. The Thunder could offer more because they were under the NBA cap."
                http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sp...-with-thunder/
                D'oh that totally slipped my mind & I even knew that. Old age is a B!tch


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  You mean other than Cleveland?
                  LeBron left Cleveland because it was poorly run, not because it was a small market. They wasted draft picks, wasted money and surrounded him with average players. If LeBron was drafted by Miami and that team was as poorly run as the Cavs do you think he would have stayed there?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    LeBron left Cleveland because it was poorly run, not because it was a small market. They wasted draft picks, wasted money and surrounded him with average players. If LeBron was drafted by Miami and that team was as poorly run as the Cavs do you think he would have stayed there?
                    Yes.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Yes.
                      Fair enough. To me it's a pretty obvious no but you're entitled to your opinion.

                      Small market teams like the Spurs, Blazers and Pacers are continually good because they don't waste money or draft picks. Big market teams like the Clippers, Wizards and Warriors are continually bad because they waste money and draft picks.

                      Being in a small market puts a team at a slight disadvantage. That disadvantage can be easily overcome by a smart front office. It turns into a major disadvantage when you add dumb owners like Dan Gilbert and Glen Taylor.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                        It's a good overall article after you get past the opening. The NBA has never really had parity but's it's been far worse for the past few years then it ever has been. The issue of parity needs to be addressed and should be a top priority in the next cba. My biggest gripe remains seeing all star players dictating where they go so they can pile up on a few select teams. Leave free agency just make it so financially unattractive for a top free agent to join forces with another star that they'd rather go to Indiana or the Bucks then to sign with LA or NY.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                          Suppose team payrolls were required to be tiered, meaning you have 15 salary slots from (say) Vet Max to Rookie Minimum (with some leeways since not every one has rookies, &c). Meaning you could not pay 2 guys max money and if you had 3 top guys one of them would be making well below the max money.

                          That third guy could get the max somewhere else, so it isn't impacting his earning potential. It just stops a team from stockpiling max (or even "within 10% of max") guys because they are willing to pay the luxury tax. It would mean that 2 guys getting together would make sense but that third guy would likely be taking a major pay cut.

                          Ideas on how this could be made to work?
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Suppose team payrolls were required to be tiered, meaning you have 15 salary slots from (say) Vet Max to Rookie Minimum (with some leeways since not every one has rookies, &c). Meaning you could not pay 2 guys max money and if you had 3 top guys one of them would be making well below the max money.

                            That third guy could get the max somewhere else, so it isn't impacting his earning potential. It just stops a team from stockpiling max (or even "within 10% of max") guys because they are willing to pay the luxury tax. It would mean that 2 guys getting together would make sense but that third guy would likely be taking a major pay cut.

                            Ideas on how this could be made to work?

                            I brought something like this up on PD several months ago. Set a max salary for players 1 through 3 with making it a 50% pay cut for a free agent to join any team that already has a max contract player and a 75% pay cut to join a team that has the top 2 spots filled. Melo would've preferred the Nets over the Knicks if he wanted to leave the Nuggets in that scenario. Make an exception to this based off the # of years played for the team you sign with giving the home team an advantage to keep their players. All this could work within a hard cap but it might not be needed.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                              i dont like all of this small market talk. I only has really been a problem because thats what everyone thinks that is why lebron left cleveland. which isnt even close to the reason. if you have a good team, players are gonna want to go there, for example OKC they could get a big FA.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                                Originally posted by tfarks View Post
                                He oversimplified this obviously( I can't keep up with all the compensation rules in baseball), but I like the idea. You wanna sign a type A free agent? You lose your 1st rd pick. Give some teams incentive to keep a player throughout his contract. Rather than forcing that team to make a trade before the player may or may not leave out of fear of ending up with nothing. Now they can evaluate whether or not its a better move to trade their player away or taking a pick. Not to mention that the player might actually choose to re-sign.
                                Yeah the not sure how it is determined but you can either get 1st round picks or second round picks for a type b player(not as good) or non for a average player, like Danny probably would be a Type b fringe A type player so if he signed with Clips we would get the clips second round pick.

                                I think that might be kind of weird in the NBA, I mean if this was the case when type A free agents hit the market I'm it still puts low lottery teams at a disadvantage, they get a Star Player and lose their first pick, I guess I would trade my first overall pick for Kevin Durant but it might hurt the team in the long haul in acquiring the building pieces to build around that player.

                                Also the talent in the NBA really drops off... I would feel sorry for a team like Cleveland that losses Lebron in free agency and he signs with at top 5 team and they only get a late 1st round pick... I guess it is more than what they would have got but still kind of depressing.



                                Originally posted by itzryan07 View Post
                                i dont like all of this small market talk. I only has really been a problem because thats what everyone thinks that is why lebron left cleveland. which isnt even close to the reason. if you have a good team, players are gonna want to go there, for example OKC they could get a big FA.
                                No it hasn't, he was just one of the Big Free agents, but looking at smaller name free agents you have seen this for a while


                                In addition I liked the article but I am not sure about his ideas for a solution, but I really enjoyed it though.
                                Why so SERIOUS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X