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

Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

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

  • #91
    Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Its a LOTTERY. By definition, someone is going to get lucky and someone is going to strike out. SOMEONE has to win it and sometimes it's going to be a big market team and sometimes it's going to be a small market team. The luck is just as random as a real lottery.

    If it were really rigged, would Boston have struck out in 1997 for the Tim Duncan sweepstakes? Or would they got the fifth pick in the 2007 draft when they had the second best odds to win it? The Celtics were depressing throughout the entire 1990's, so if there were rigging to be done you would think the league would have rigged it for them to get Duncan. Or they would have thrown them a bone in the Odon/Durant draft as they had had 15 years of futility by then.

    Christ, the Knicks were in the lottery for virtually the entire 00's and never did better than the 6th pick! One would logically think that the league would have thrown them a bone somewhere along the line if there were any rigging to be done.

    Small market teams have fared off well. The Cavs have had 2 number 1 picks in 9 years. The Magic have had three number 1 picks in their short existence.

    Just as big market teams like the Knicks and Celtics strike out, a large market team like Chicago can strike gold and win it. But it's just luck and chance. Sometimes the big market teams win, sometimes they lose. It's ridiculous to say that it's rigged when Chicago gets Rose while ignoring all the bad luck the Celtics and Knicks have had in the lottery in recent years.
    As far as the part that is highlighted goes even though the Knicks were in the lottery didn't a few of those end up going to chicago cause Zeke is an idiot? The knicks could have had Lamarcus Aldridge and Joakim Noah.

    The Celtics on the other hand yeah things really turned out bad for them they only managed to get Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to come play along side Paul Pierce. I'm sure they look back on that draft and think to themselves now. "if only we had got Tim Duncan things sure would be brighter for us now". Also in the 1997 draft the Celtics only managed to draft 3rd overall some loser named Chauncey Billups that guy was terrible!

    Hell even the Knicks who tried their damndest to fail as a franchise and helped restore the bulls to their glory and STILL managed to get Carmello Anthony, Amare Stoudemire and Chauncey Billups.
    Last edited by TheDon; 05-18-2011, 05:32 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

      Logic against the conspiracy is just more evidence of the conspiracy. Brilliant logically fallacy.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Indiana raised Greg Oden goes to who? Portland.
        But Stern doesn't like the Pacers!
        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

          I feel so sorry for Kevin Love and the Timberwolves fans. This is who's running their team.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

            Has anyone but me actually WATCHED the interview with Kahn?

            He was smiling through it, he was completely joking. It's pretty obvious.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

              Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
              Has anyone but me actually WATCHED the interview with Kahn?

              He was smiling through it, he was completely joking. It's pretty obvious.
              It sort of was said in a jest tone, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe it. Even a lot of the sports writers haven't come out and said, "no the draft definetly isn't rigged." Instead they say, "Kahn shouldn't have said that because now he's oing to get fined." PTI's crew even kind of seemed to believe in the plausibility that it is rigged. Kornheiser said he would be fine with it if it was.
              "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                Has anyone but me actually WATCHED the interview with Kahn?

                He was smiling through it, he was completely joking. It's pretty obvious.
                I watched it and didn't think any but him jesturing that basically it was Fate that the 14 yr old boy won... actually being kind to the kid...kinda given the kid props ... a job well done sorta thing. I thought it was a good thing, a good interview.

                Then I started reading this stuff on here and realized how some peoples minds are really warped. Get a grip people.
                Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                  If a lottery system like the NBA's was rigged they'd do it like Nascar is rigged and just do things to give someone a better chance of winning than they otherwise would have. So, probability and luck would still be a factor. Even if Earnhardt Jr gets a bigger restrictor plate that doesn't mean he doesn't cut a tire and end up losing even if he has the fastest car.

                  So, even if you weight the ping pong balls to help get a certain result there's no guarantee an unlucky bounce won't doom that odd ping pong ball from popping up ahead of the others that were weighted differently to decrease their odds of popping up early or late... or in whatever order was desired.

                  IOW... cheating/rigging wouldn't have to be blatantly obvious even to casual observers.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                    http://www.nba.com/2011/news/05/18/k...s=iref:nbahpt2

                    Wolves' Kahn says he was joking about draft lottery

                    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Timberwolves president David Kahn says his comments about the NBA draft lottery were intended as a joke, simply a tongue-in-cheek resignation that fate gave Cleveland the first pick ahead of luck-lacking Minnesota.

                    After the Cavaliers beat out the Wolves for the top spot Tuesday, Kahn said with a smirk to a group of reporters, "This league has a habit - and I am just going to say habit - of producing some pretty incredible story lines."

                    Comment


                    • Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                      Billups was never any good until he left Boston, which is their fault.

                      Cleveland is going to be right in the same spot as this year, next year.
                      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                      ----------------- Reggie Miller

                      Comment


                      • Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                        Originally posted by Anthem
                        I cannot believe you people vote.
                        I just noticed you have "Thanks" zero people lol.
                        Follow me at @Bluejbgold

                        Comment


                        • Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          I can see where people say the Ewing one is rigged because there are some things that look screwy in the video.

                          But the ONLY REASON that people complain about the DRose one being rigged is because he went to Chicago, which IMO, is pretty laughable. You're telling me that they didn't fix it where at least one of Lebron/Wade/Melo would end up Chicago or New York, or they didn't ever give the Celtics a break, but out of nowhere they decided to fix it for Chicago in 2008?

                          Sooner or later a large market is going to win and that's what happened in 08. Look at all the small markets that have won lotteries over the years. You can't just scream conspiracy when a major market wins one every once in a while, especially when really the only "evidence" you have is that Rose is from Chicago and the league "wants" him to be a Bull.
                          Which is ridiculous because nobody else in the entire world likes Rose more as a Bull because he's from Chicago. He went to Memphis for cripe's sake.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                            Also, I like how the team with the second worst record in the entire NBA winning the lottery (even though it was with the Clips pick which makes it even less likely to be rigged) spawns an accusation of it being rigged. They were 19-63 for crying out loud!


                            Comment


                            • Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Also, I like how the team with the second worst record in the entire NBA winning the lottery (even though it was with the Clips pick which makes it even less likely to be rigged) spawns an accusation of it being rigged. They were 19-63 for crying out loud!
                              It may not be rigged, but in my mind it is a failure in terms of properly distributing the best draft position.

                              Taking Hicks' data at face value (which I'd prefer not to do but no math whiz has stepped up for a better analysis), why is the THIRD worst record most likely to get the FIRST pick? Why is it just as likely to win the lottery being the SIXTH worst team as it is to be the worst?

                              Sorry, but something is wrong here. Either it is a legitimate way to try to improve bad teams by giving them a shot at great players, or it is an entertainment opportunity masquerading as a game of chance, where the league doesn't give a crap who gets the pick as long as they generate lots of buzz and excitement over it.

                              If the former case, it isn't working and something should be repaired. If the latter case, it isn't too far fetched to believe that there is something behind the scenes going on because it would enhance the actual purpose (to get people "excited" based on a story from this year) without having to meet some people's idea of "conspiracy" (always favoring certain teams year after year).
                              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


                              • Re: Wolves GM David Kahn Implies the Draft Lottery is Rigged

                                What's wrong with my data? Are you assuming I read it wrong or wrote it wrong? I got all of my data from draftexpress.com. I organized (to a point) their data.

                                *edit*

                                Upon review, my numbers are not accurate. I had falsely assumed the odds remain the same each year (at least starting with 1994), I inadvertently produced the wrong odds in my thread.

                                I had assumed that team records and tie breakers first determined the order of the draft, and then once the order was established, I assumed that the number of lottery balls was always the same for each slot. I was wrong. They are NOT the same. Turns out, if teams tie in record, FIRST they SPLIT the AVERAGE of the number of balls between both of their slots, and THEN there's a tie breaker to determine who gets the extra ball (if applicable). Looking again at draft express, the ball count for teams changes every year. Even the #1 slot may not receive the usual 250 balls. If that team ties with another team, they SPLIT the number of balls the 1st and 2nd slot usually receive.

                                So if you are the #1 slot in the lottery, you MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE 250 balls!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X