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

The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

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

  • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    I'd be more copacetic with extremely long term consequences if being a GM was a science. It isn't.
    Right. Even good GMs make mistakes. Good ones overcome them. They don't need to be bailed out.

    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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Because being bad for one year is not the indication of the players being an issue, mainly because it can be done via not making use (or being able to make use) of existing resources (see: getting Tim Duncan when DRob was injured).

      Because the point is not to give a franchise coming off a great player the next great player - that's the road to only a couple of franchises continuing to win while all the rest lose. The whole point of a draft is to try to equalize competition.
      So its better to reward bad management than good management? Making it impossible for teams to build through the draft, either through incompetence or being held back because the league is showing the incompetent teams favoritism.

      And the Bulls weren't bad for a year. The Bulls were rebuilding not a guarantee of success. As evidence that even with those top picks they got, it took them what over a decade to be relevant again. Top picks are no guarantee, but you shouldn't punish a team for having been good in the past and trying to rebuild for the future.

      Comment


      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

        Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
        Have you guys seen this yet?

        The NBA Regular Season Championship Belt

        Friggin' awesome! Probably deserves its own thread.
        That is an AWESOME idea. Totally meaningless, but fun nonetheless. Would have made for an awesome forum game.

        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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

          So, how about this. Instead of aiming for the team with the WORST record in a 5 year span, how about the team that has (say) the 5th worst record in that span, by weighting coming in worst - fourth worst at the same negative as coming in (say) 7th worst - 10th worst. Keep the same limitations as to number of #1 picks or top 3 picks in that 5 year span.

          It would be a LOT less intuitive to figure out without crunching numbers, but you'd not reward teams that were the absolute worst every year, you'd be more likely to reward teams trying to rebuild with top-10 picks (at least), and you'd still have the advantages of no tanking, no winner-takes-all, and spreading the wealth.
          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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

            Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
            So its better to reward bad management than good management? Making it impossible for teams to build through the draft, either through incompetence or being held back because the league is showing the incompetent teams favoritism.

            And the Bulls weren't bad for a year. The Bulls were rebuilding not a guarantee of success. As evidence that even with those top picks they got, it took them what over a decade to be relevant again. Top picks are no guarantee, but you shouldn't punish a team for having been good in the past and trying to rebuild for the future.
            And the ONLY reason the Bulls were perceived as getting over the hump was because they got lucky and jumped from 10th to 1st in the DRose draft.

            If you believe that the only reason a team misses the playoffs more than one year is because of bad management, we can't continue from here. If you believe that a team should never have to go through rebuilding, that they should be able to get the #1 draft pick by having a bad season after winning their 6th championship in 10 years, we're done here. The point is not to keep the same team having the best player in the league year after 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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

              I believe teams can miss the playoffs once or twice due to bad luck. 3+ times? That's either bad management or intentional. Making the playoffs is not rocket science. More than half the NBA does it every season.
              Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013, 04:44 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


              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                And thats the problem with your idea. Because other teams with competent management who could actually use those picks well and build a team with them would get screwed over and never able to advance and get the picks they deserve.

                They will just keep losing knowing next year they get yet another shot at the next Lebron or MJ. The only reason we see so much tanking this year is because the class is so deep several teams know they will get a prize. It would be year in and year out with your idea.

                The traditional model where teams eventually do rebuild simply because they don't know where they will land in the draft is much better. I mean the bobcats suck, but its not because they have continually been tanking.
                If the team repeatedly chooses the wrong players, how can they be screwing over the teams behind them? If anything they're helping them because they teams drafting behind them would still get the good picks but would get to pay them a reduced salary.

                In any case, it wouldn't be very difficult to come up with a fair weighted system. Say the current year accounts for twice as much weight as the year before, which counts for twice as much as the year before. So roughly your record for the current year would be worth ~57%, the year before that ~29%, and the year before that ~14%. So a team that finished with the worst record twice and then the best record (of the lottery) would have a weighted position of .14 + .29 + 14(.57) = 8.4, whereas a team that finished with the best record twice, then the worst record would have a weighted position of .14(14) + .29(14) + .57 = 6.59. Both teams get good picks, but the second team finished best twice and worst once and still gets a better draft position.

                It's not a perfect system, but it would definitely eliminate short term tanking. It would not, however, stop teams from stripping their team to the bone and making a concerted effort to rebuild through the draft while holding on to talented players. But I don't see anything wrong with that kind of strategy.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


                • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                  I'm thinking if owners held their GMs more accountable for losing seasons and poor draft choices, this wouldn't be an issue.

                  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: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                    If the team repeatedly chooses the wrong players, how can they be screwing over the teams behind them? If anything they're helping them because they teams drafting behind them would still get the good picks but would get to pay them a reduced salary.

                    In any case, it wouldn't be very difficult to come up with a fair weighted system. Say the current year accounts for twice as much weight as the year before, which counts for twice as much as the year before. So roughly your record for the current year would be worth ~57%, the year before that ~29%, and the year before that ~14%. So a team that finished with the worst record twice and then the best record (of the lottery) would have a weighted position of .14 + .29 + 14(.57) = 8.4, whereas a team that finished with the best record twice, then the worst record would have a weighted position of .14(14) + .29(14) + .57 = 6.59. Both teams get good picks, but the second team finished best twice and worst once and still gets a better draft position.

                    It's not a perfect system, but it would definitely eliminate short term tanking. It would not, however, stop teams from stripping their team to the bone and making a concerted effort to rebuild through the draft while holding on to talented players. But I don't see anything wrong with that kind of strategy.
                    Building a winning team is about more than the draft. Teams often are able to draft the right players in the draft then just not surround them with the pieces to have success. Look at Lebron in Cleveland for example. Where as Miami took Wade later and put a team behind him. Which is why they won it all in 2006. THat and some help from the refs.

                    Putting a winning team is a two part, good drafting and good management. The perennially bad teams have neither and thus will waste the draft picks.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown


                      "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


                      • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        I'm thinking if owners held their GMs more accountable for losing seasons and poor draft choices, this wouldn't be an issue.
                        Revenue sharing I suppose softens the blow significantly for them.

                        A revenue hit for being perennially bad might make them take things more serious.

                        Perhaps a penalty for 3 seasons in a row without the playoffs. Unless improvement in the second and third year showing its a rebuilding effort.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                          I don't think they need a revenue hit. I think they need a pride hit. IF there isn't a significant reward for losing, then they don't have any more empty excuses to sell their fanbase, they're just a bad owner of a bad team.

                          The bigger issue is that fans don't demand success anymore, because they're buying in to the same fantasy.

                          I can't help but notice once GSW's owner started getting booed in his own arena....the warriors stopped being a crappy team.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 11-01-2013, 05:10 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


                          • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                            Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                            Revenue sharing I suppose softens the blow significantly for them.

                            A revenue hit for being perennially bad might make them take things more serious.

                            Perhaps a penalty for 3 seasons in a row without the playoffs. Unless improvement in the second and third year showing its a rebuilding effort.
                            I fail to see how penalizing a team that can't figure out is supposed to make them better. These teams aren't purposefully staying bad for half of a decade or more. You can't just fire your clearly bad GM and hire a GM who is clearly good. Even individual GMs have their good years and bad years. Exhibit A: Donnie Walsh.

                            Plus, it will never happen. You can't financially penalize them because no owner would ever agree to a provision that takes away money from the owners because players don't produce. Secondly, you can't impose a competitive penalty because...well, why would you need to impose a competitive penalty on a bad team?
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              I don't think they need a revenue hit. I think they need a pride hit. IF there isn't a significant reward for losing, then they don't have any more empty excuses to sell their fanbase, they're just a bad owner of a bad team.

                              The bigger issue is that fans don't demand success anymore, because they're buying in to the same fantasy.
                              If owners are okay with it, the players are okay with it, and fans are okay with it....what's the problem?
                              Time for a new sig.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The 10th NBA Random Thoughts thread 2013-2014: Coveting Miami's Crown

                                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                                If owners are okay with it, the players are okay with it, and fans are okay with it....what's the problem?
                                Because it's bad basketball. It's bad for fans everywhere else that want to see a competitive game. Given how much the NBA is pushing out-of-market games on league PASS, that's a bigger concern now than ever.

                                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