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

Is the NBA rigged???

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

  • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

    Originally posted by rock747 View Post
    The fact is, he didn't want to play for the Hornets though. You are going to tell me Bryant didn't understand the benefits of forcing his way to the Lakers? That's where he wanted to go.
    John Calipari wanted to draft Kobe but was told that Kobe wanted to play in LA and would make that happen. I'll post the link in a second.

    EDIT:Then the Lakers stepped in and requested a workout. L.A. was picking 24th, but Tellem was interested – better franchise, bigger market, more Adidas flying off the shelves. The Lakers set it up at the old Fabulous Forum in Inglewood, Kobe matching up with Dontae Jones, a big, physical, 6-foot-8 senior who had just led Mississippi State to the Final Four. It was no contest; Kobe destroyed Jones from the word “go.”

    “I remember [Lakers general manager] Jerry West coming down from the stands after just a little while and saying, ‘Shut down the workout,’ ” Vaccaro said. “He didn’t need to see any more. That was it. Game over.”

    There was no way to get Bryant to drop all the way to the Lakers, so West began working potential trades. If Kobe could get to Charlotte at 13, he said, the Lakers could trade Vlade Divac for the young phenom. Team Bryant wanted it to happen.

    Only Calipari still was enthralled. Tellem spun a 180 and now began claiming Bryant wouldn’t show up in Jersey, began saying they’d send the kid to play pro ball in Italy, where he’d spent much of his youth. Everyone now admits it was an idle threat.

    “Arn [wanted the Nets to draft him] until he knew he could get him to the Lakers,” Calipari said. “Then he was against it. Arn was all over me, and then all of a sudden [I] get the call the day before the draft.”
    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketb...ecision_032411
    Last edited by Since86; 04-05-2013, 04:45 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      John Calipari wanted to draft Kobe but was told that Kobe wanted to play in LA and would make that happen. I'll post the link in a second.
      Yes...that's not at all self-serving in hindsight...

      Hey, I take no blame for us drafting Kerry Kittles over Kobe Bryant- I knew Bryant was a franchise-changing superstar, but he just didn't want to be a New Jersey Net, and we just had to let another team draft him. What can I say, once he said he'd rather not play in New Jersey, my hands were tied!
      Last edited by Kstat; 04-05-2013, 04:48 PM.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
        And I'm sure Kobe's agent had nothing to say except, "kobe, you make the decision that's best for you."
        As we all know, GMs do whatever agents tell them.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          As we all know, GMs do whatever agents tell them.
          I was incorrect, it seems Kobe didn't even have an agent, which still made him NCAA eligible. So it seemed to be trade me to LA or I'm playing college ball. Of course, this also coming from a conspiracy theorist.

          Comment


          • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Yes...that's not at all self-serving in hindsight...
            Or it could actually be the truth.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Or it could actually be the truth.
              ...do you think if LeBron said he wanted to be a Laker in 2003, that the first 23 teams would have passed on him?

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                As we all know, GMs do whatever agents tell them.
                At one point they did, which is why S&Ts are more restrictive.

                Comment


                • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                  I do not think the NBA tells officials to make sure this team or that team wins, ever. Maybe individual refs do their best to make sure a team wins for the own personal gain, but not because of the league. What I do think, and what should be obvious to anyone who doesn't just blindly trust the NBA, is that different players get treated differently by refs depending on many factors, most of all their marketability. That is where the manipulation comes into play. It isn't the team, but the players.

                  The reason some teams seem to get players while others don't has more to do with the salary cap structure than because the NBA purposefully rigs it for certain teams to get certain players.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                    Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                    I was incorrect, it seems Kobe didn't even have an agent, which still made him NCAA eligible. So it seemed to be trade me to LA or I'm playing college ball. Of course, this also coming from a conspiracy theorist.
                    ...as well as someone that has no clue of what the rules are.

                    There is a deadline to pull out of the draft, even without an agent. You can't attend the draft and then decide you want to go back into the draft next season.

                    He could have refused to play, and then he would be broke and the Hornets would have held his rights for the rest of eternity.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      Yes...that's not at all self-serving in hindsight...

                      Hey, I take no blame for us drafting Kerry Kittles over Kobe Bryant- I knew Bryant was a franchise-changing superstar, but he just didn't want to be a New Jersey Net, and we just had to let another team draft him. What can I say, once he said he'd rather not play in New Jersey, my hands were tied!
                      I guess you are a conspiracy theorist too then?
                      "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


                      • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                        Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                        I guess you are a conspiracy theorist too then?
                        Yes. John Calapari making a completely self-serving an totally unverifiable statement makes me a conspiracy theorist.

                        Do you know what a conspiracy is? What is the conspiracy in that scenario?

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          I've pointed that out myself. Jerry west was the only GM that thought highly enough of Kobe to trade for him on draft day. And he got him 13th.

                          Kobe wasn't seen by everyone as a can't-miss superstar. Only Jerry west saw that in him. I guess that was rigged, too.
                          No. No. No no no no no.

                          Why do people keep rewriting history about this?

                          Charlotte was the only team willing to TAKE A RISK THAT ONE OF THE MARKETS KOBE WAS WILLING TO PLAY FOR WOULD TRADE FOR HIM.

                          Quite aside from any discussion of "rigging", Kobe is a HORRIBLE example to use for ANYONE about taking a risk in the draft, because the question was whether he would carry out his threat to sit out rather than play for a non-major-market team. There could be arguments made about whether he would have done so, or whether it would have done him any good, or whatever, but the complexities of the Kobe situation do NOT lend it to be used in any sort of "see, anyone could have drafted him" discussion.

                          As for Larry, how many teams other than Boston could afford to use a draft pick on a player they would be waiting at least a year to get? Again, aside from any discussion of "rigging", the Pacers have said (and said in that very year) that they could not afford to go a year without a young player. Once more, not a good example because there were more complexities than the ones on the surface.

                          In both cases, it was a case of "them that has gets". Some people might see it as unfair, I see it as just the way things are.
                          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: Is the NBA rigged???

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            Oh, just the draft? You mean, the thing that's more important than everything else combined?

                            I just named you the five winningest centerpieces behind the two greatest teams you think won so many championships behind rigged circumstances (six if you want to include Mikan).

                            All five were draft picks. Only one of them (Magic) was the #1 overall pick. Guess what that means? Other teams had the opportunity to acquire those players, and passed on them.

                            Five teams passed on Larry Bird in 1978. Guess who one of those teams was....the PACERS!

                            Twelve teams passed on Kobe Bryant in 1996. Guess who was one of those 12....the PACERS! Sensing a theme here?

                            The Indiana Pacers could have had Bird. They could have had Jordan. They could have had Kobe freaking Byrant. You cant bury that away in denial.

                            Want to know another secret? Russell, Hondo and Bird were acquired by the SAME GM. Same with Magic and Kobe.

                            It took the Celtics over 20 years to get back to the finals without Red Auerbach. They didn't even make the playoffs half of those years.

                            Did Auerbach take the "rigging" with him when he left?
                            I agree with your overall points Kstat but I will add that in the modern era, free agency is quite a bit more important than you are giving credit for. Draft is definitely the most important factor, but let's look at the major contributors to championship teams going back to 2000:

                            2012 Heat - Wade (drafted), Lebron (FA), Bosh (FA)
                            2011 Mavs - Dirk (trade); Chandler (trade), Terry (trade), Kidd (trade)
                            2010 Lakers - Kobe (draft), MWP (FA?), Gasol (trade), Odom (trade), Fisher (FA), Bynum (draft)
                            2009 Lakers - Kobe (draft), Gasol (trade), Odom (trade), Fisher (FA), Bynum (draft)
                            2008 Celtics - Pierce (draft), Garnett (trade), Rondo (draft), Allen (trade)
                            2007 Spurs - Duncan (draft), Ginobili (draft or FA? can't remember), Parker (draft)
                            2006 Heat - Wade (draft), Shaq (trade), Payton (FA?), Mourning (FA?)
                            2005 Spurs - Duncan (draft), Ginobili (draft or FA? can't remember), Parker (draft)
                            2004 Pistons - R. Wallace (trade?), B. Wallace (trade), Prince (draft), Billups (FA), Hamilton (trade)
                            2003 Spurs - Duncan (draft), Robinson (draft), S. Jackson (FA?), Kerr (trade), Parker (draft)
                            2002 Lakers - Kobe (draft), Shaq (FA), Fisher (draft), Horry (trade)
                            2001 Lakers - Kobe (draft), Shaq (FA), Fisher (draft), Horry (trade)
                            2000 Lakers - Kobe (draft), Shaq (FA), Fisher (draft), Horry (trade)

                            Kobe, Duncan and Wade were drafted and became Finals MVPs. Most of the rest acquired by trade or free agency.

                            And clearly some franchises have an advantage getting free agents and top players often have a lot of say in where they get traded to. Doesn't make it a conspiracy obviously, but it's certainly a factor. Quality of the front office matter a LOT but also things like how desirable the market is for players, how much $ the team can spend (size of market), etc. are factors.

                            Let's not pretend that every franchise/market has an exact equal fair shake at a championship.

                            EDIT: I'm sure there are a few errors in my list, it's not scientific, but I think the overall point stands

                            Comment


                            • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              ...as well as someone that has no clue of what the rules are.

                              There is a deadline to pull out of the draft, even without an agent. You can't attend the draft and then decide you want to go back into the draft next season.

                              He could have refused to play, and then he would be broke and the Hornets would have held his rights for the rest of eternity.
                              Like I said man, you blindly follow while I only watch the Pacers (and the team they are playing ). There is a reason I don't post on other teams message boards... I could care less about the NBA. It's 100% true there is a bias in the NBA towards superstars and large-market teams. It would be irresponsible of the NBA not do this for monetary reasons. I call this a form of rigging, even if that is too strong of a word for some.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post

                                As for Larry, how many teams other than Boston could afford to use a draft pick on a player they would be waiting at least a year to get? Again, aside from any discussion of "rigging", the Pacers have said (and said in that very year) that they could not afford to go a year without a young player. Once more, not a good example because there were more complexities than the ones on the surface.
                                Yes, the Pacers would have folded without that one year from Rick Robey in 1979....

                                ...please tell me that's not really the excuse they've been selling for the last 35 years...

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X