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

Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

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

  • #31
    Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I didn't notice it
    It wasn't so much homerism as much as it was a Bulls-centric broadcast. Every time they went to commercial, every single storyline that was mentioned was Bulls-related. My friend who is a Bulls fan texted me during the game, "Barry isn't giving the Pacers enough credit." It wasn't offensive as much as it was ignorant. There were also about seven instances when Barry mentioned that "maybe this is the sequence that will finally spark the Bulls' comeback." It was not conducive to enjoyment for a Pacers fan.
    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I posted this in another thread, but have re-watched the entire game and Rose was fouled another half-dozen times when fouls were not called.
      So did I, and so was Hansbrough... except Tyler didn't take 21 Free Throws

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

        Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
        It wasn't so much homerism as much as it was a Bulls-centric broadcast. Every time they went to commercial, every single storyline that was mentioned was Bulls-related. My friend who is a Bulls fan texted me during the game, "Barry isn't giving the Pacers enough credit." It wasn't offensive as much as it was ignorant. There were also about seven instances when Barry mentioned that "maybe this is the sequence that will finally spark the Bulls' comeback." It was not conducive to enjoyment for a Pacers fan.
        I'm sure a lot of Pacers fans agreed with Barry and I'm sure most of the non-Pacers fans who were watching agreed with Barry

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

          The commentating was funny..because I swear, as soon as the commentators started almost rooting for the Pacers, the Bulls went on their run.

          Also, I'm sure Rose was technically fouled a half a dozen more times (probably more) than was called. But he wasn't fouled more than the entire Pacers team put together. He also commits a lot more fouls than are ever called on him. (Constantly reaching in and committing charges)

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

            Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post


            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

              Honestly, I didn't think the officiating was that bad. Especially considering who the officials were.

              Though, both of those "blocks" by Noah on McBob at the end were fouls. He never even touched the ball.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                I just can't respect any ref that throws Tim Duncan out of a game for doing absolutely nothing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF-97F00t8E

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                  Repost from another thread...

                  Personally, I don't want to completely blame the refs. I thought the refs made better calls in the 2nd half, then the 1st half. David Stern probably made the call, and let the refs know that we have another potential Bulls vs. Celtics series going WITH a good storyline.

                  # 1 Seed with the presumed MVP
                  # 8 Seed with a young, rookie coach for a team entering the playoffs after 5 years
                  Indiana the only team to have a Game 7 against the Championship Bulls
                  Jordan vs. Miller angle
                  A potential # 8 upset of the # 1
                  Can Rose maintain his performance to take his team past the Pacers?
                  Psycho T arguably being the most decorated college player ever


                  Honestly, I can see the calls getting BETTER in order to extend this series, if the games remain competitive each time. The only questionable calls for me was when Granger was mugged on a drive and the traveling call on Collison. If we get blown out in one those games.....


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I'm sure a lot of Pacers fans agreed with Barry and I'm sure most of the non-Pacers fans who were watching agreed with Barry
                    Nope...Barry REALLY didn't know that much about the Pacers. For a NATIONAL televised game, Barry was CLEARLY in favor of the Bulls. When I watched the Bulls/Pacers games and gotten the Chicago feed, they're commentary wasn't as bad as Barry's was.

                    The way Barry was talking, I would have expected that from a local televised game, and NOT from a national televised game.
                    Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 04-17-2011, 11:33 AM.


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I thought the refs were pretty good.

                      But even if I didn't. I think complaining about the refs is what the losers do
                      Weren't watching the same game I was then.

                      Rose got away with the same nonsense when we won in OT here.

                      Complaining about the refs is legitimate if they're truly bad (or like T Donaghy, crooked)...winning and losing is immaterial to the argument.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                        Originally posted by kellogg View Post
                        Weren't watching the same game I was then.

                        Rose got away with the same nonsense when we won in OT here.

                        Complaining about the refs is legitimate if they're truly bad (or like T Donaghy, crooked)...winning and losing is immaterial to the argument.
                        Rose's 19 made free throws were the most by any player in a playoff game since Allen Iverson made the number back in 2002 while he was still with the Philadelphia 76ers. Voila! A new star is born!

                        I would like to see a video replay of all those fouls that gave rise to his 21 FT attempts. Maybe it's my imagination, but to me Rose almost always goes up right and wards off with his left hand. As someone also pointed out, he gets calls when sliding over to avoid square contact but hitting a positioned defender while sliding sideways -- something that should either be a charge or a non-call under standard rules.

                        For anyone that's interested, here's a pretty good video on the difference between a charge and a blocking foul: http://tinyurl.com/ybbghh4

                        Also, for those interested in Talmudic analysis, here's a summary of the NBA Rules on blocks and charges. As a lawyer, I find their opaqueness and lack of clarity positively breathtaking.

                        Section II-Blocking
                        Blocking is illegal personal contact which impedes the progress of an opponent.

                        A defensive player is permitted to establish a legal guarding position in the path of a dribbler regardless of his speed and distance.

                        A defensive player is not permitted to move into the path of an offensive player once he has started his shooting motion.

                        A defensive player must allow a moving player the distance to stop or change direction when the offensive player receives a pass outside the lower defensive box.

                        A defensive player must allow an alighted player the distance to land and then stop or change direction when the offensive player is outside the lower defensive box.

                        A defensive player is permitted to establish a legal guarding position in the path of an offensive player who receives a pass inside the lower defensive box regardless of his speed and distance.

                        Note: The Lower Defensive Box (LDB) is the area from the bottom tip of the free throw circle to the endline between the two 3’ posted-up marks),

                        A defensive player must allow an alighted player who receives a pass the space to land when the offensive player is inside the lower defensive box.

                        A defensive player must allow a moving offensive player without the ball the distance to stop or change direction.

                        The speed of the offensive player will determine the amount of distance a defensive player must allow.

                        If an offensive player causes contact with a defensive player who has established a legal position, an offensive foul shall be called and no points may be scored.

                        A defensive player may turn slightly to protect himself, but is never allowed to bend over and submarine an opponent.

                        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.

                        EXCEPTION: Any player may be legally positioned within the "restricted area" if the offensive player receives the ball within the Lower Defensive Box.

                        The mere fact that contact occurs on these type of plays, or any other similar play, does not necessarily mean that a personal foul has been committed. The offocials must decide whether the contact is negligible and/or incidental, judging each situation separately.

                        Blocks/Charge: A block/charge foul occurs when a defender tries to get in front of his man to stop him from going in that direction. If he does not get into a legal defensive position and contact occurs, it is a blocking foul. If he gets to a legal position and the offensive player runs into him it is an offensive foul. In both situations, if the contact is minimal, no foul may be called. To get into a legal position defending against the dribbler, the defender just needs to get in front of him. On a drive to the basket, the defender must get to his position before the shooter starts his upward shooting motion. For most other cases, the defender must get into position and allow enough distance for the offensive player to stop and/or change direction.
                        Last edited by IndyHoya; 04-17-2011, 03:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I posted this in another thread, but have re-watched the entire game and Rose was fouled another half-dozen times when fouls were not called.
                          But to be perfectly fair, Buck, how many times did our players stand or jump perfectly verticle, where Rose jumped into them... and the foul WAS called?

                          At some point in time, I'd say that refs will get altered instructions on how to make these calls. They will probably then be forced to make judgement calls on the "intent" of the offensive player. If the player attacks the rim and is relying more on creating contact and getting the foul by putting up a "wing and a prayer" shot, then no foul?

                          IMO, there is a huge difference in drawing contact and creating contact. But no matter what the rules or the instructions to the officials, it all comes down to judgement calls made in fractions of a second.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                            Palmer and Salvatore have been MUCH worse in the past than they were yesterday. I thought the officiating wasn't horrible but there were at least 4-5 questionable calls. The best was at the very end of the game when Joakim Noah "blocked" McRoberts 3 straight times by slapping his arm. It is obvious that Rose is getting the same calls that Wade did a few years ago when the Heat won a championship. It's going to be hard for any team to beat the Bulls when Rose gets over 20 free throws a game similar to how Wade did back then.
                            Last edited by Moses; 04-17-2011, 12:07 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                              As I said in another thread, the call I have the most problem with is when Rose initiates contact on a set defender who is not moving and is standing straight up, but because he can bring his body around at an angle before the contact he gets the call.

                              I just don't see how this is a defensive foul. I can see the no-call for the charge, as the offensive player is (usually) avoiding direct contact, but if the defender's space is now being narrowed not just to where his body remains still but also only the front part of that body, there's a huge problem.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Re: Refs for Today's Game - The Pits

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                As I said in another thread, the call I have the most problem with is when Rose initiates contact on a set defender who is not moving and is standing straight up, but because he can bring his body around at an angle before the contact he gets the call.

                                I just don't see how this is a defensive foul. I can see the no-call for the charge, as the offensive player is (usually) avoiding direct contact, but if the defender's space is now being narrowed not just to where his body remains still but also only the front part of that body, there's a huge problem.
                                As I read the rules (quoted below), you are absolutely right. It should not be a foul.

                                A good example of this was a Rose take to the bucket in either the late 1st or early part of the 2nd Quarter. It was replayed so I had an opportunity to get a good look at it. Dunleavy seemed to be properly positioned, stationary and unmoving, in "legal guarding position" outside the "restricted area" before Rose leaves his feet to go up for the shot. Rose, then goes airborne and moving (as always) to his right, avoids full contact and slides to Dunleavy's left brushing Dunleavy's side as he elevates. Tweet! Foul on Dunleavy! Why? No apparent reason under the rules. If Dunleavy's stationary and in "legal guarding position" then if Rose bumps him as he takes his shot, the contact is either a "charge" under the rules or a "no-call" if the sainted triumvirate of Palmer, Crawford, or Salvatore elect to swallow their whistles. See, de minimis or "incidental" contact can be ignored under the NBA Rules at the discretion of the officials.

                                In practical terms though, usually one of the troika can be reliably counted on to blow his or her whistle in the above situation. It takes 3 people to make the no-call. It only takes one to call a charge or a block. Yesterday, the crew only seemed uniformly decided on swallowing their whistles when Collison had the ball. (The non-call on Collison under the bucket, when he was clearly and obviously hacked, was probably their worst blunder of the day -- Sookie alluded to its importance in one of her posts). None of the troika were shy about calling blocks whenever Rose was making his move to the hoop; they called some charges against the Bulls (but I honestly can't recall even one against Rose).

                                Anyway, I'd love to see the fouls on Rose that gave rise to his 21 FTs replayed on video.
                                Last edited by IndyHoya; 04-17-2011, 02:54 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X