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 NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

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

  • #46
    Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    A good GM just sits back and lets the idiots fail miserably in the draft, picks the cheaper (rookie scale) players later on, and then swindles those same GMs in trades (um, Tyrus T for Aldridge) or just outright buys the proven players away from the team that drafted them, especially the "bargain" FAs that are just a tic off the big money level but still strong (see D West, C Billups). Often the best moves come from abusing guys trying to tank or clear cap space due to bad spending.
    I think what you're saying is that you're ok with the current system because we've had good GMs and they get to abuse the bad GMs who buy into the draft lottery as the one true way to build a contender. My thought on that is that for the NBA as a whole, it would be a lot better if ALL the teams had good GMs. Thus, the NBA ought to promote systems that weed out bad GMs. Winning games, of course, is the best measuring stick.

    The problem with the current draft system IMO is that it messes up that measuring stick, since it's generally very hard to tell whether a team is losing due to strategy or due to incompetence. So potentially bad GMs get an extended shelf life while selling their lottery plans to a gullible owner and fanbase. 5 years later, if that GM turns out to suck at drafting, then what? The GM gets fired, but the team has lost 5 years and have to start over again, with possibly yet another GM who is selling salvation coming through the draft.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

      They should just have the draft be an auction. Every team has at least $1m. After that teams can use their open cap space. It rewards teams who make good financial decisions, gives an advantage to teams who can't build through free agency, and it eliminates tanking. The only downside is that rookies would get overpaid, but that's a decision teams make.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

        Originally posted by MUpaceSIC View Post
        My only change would be to re-draw every 5 or 10 years instead of 30. That way you are still guaranteed two top 6 picks every 10 years.
        Why? The way it's drawn up you would get 3 top six picks every 11 years. I like it!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

          Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
          I still think you need some kind of weighted system. I'm open to making it less weighted but how is this any better than just putting all the teams in the lottery with equal odds?

          What if you are a bad team on a really "bad" part of your cycle picking at the end of the first round? Absolutely no hope for improvement. What if you are the best team in the league and just happen to up for the number 1 pick, I don't like it.
          Even if you are a really bad team you still get 3 top 6 picks every 11 years. If you get no improvement it's management.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

            It's one reason why I like Bird more as a GM now - experience. He got burned with JOB, he got burned by Ron and Shawne. I think it impacted how he handled Lance (it would seem based on the success) and probably his support for Vogel. I don't think Bird was a good GM at first, though he probably wasn't terrible either. But he's become good through errors and learning.

            I really enjoyed reading your series of posts in this thread. I'm not a proponent of tanking either and I love how the Pacers have built this team. Take advantage of good picks like 10 and 17 to get some studs (PG and Hibbert), draft "OK" players with other picks (Rush and Hansbrough), trade a pick for a proven player (Hill), gamble on a second rounder with tremendous upside (Born Ready), dump an expiring for a decent young player (Murph for Collison), use FA money for an icing on the cake addition (West), and then trade the following year's first rounder (a guaranteed late pick) for a guy like Scola.

            Sure, tanking works when you get freaking Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook in back to back years, but for every OKC there are two Torontos.

            I do disagree with you that Bird got burned by Artest. He got burned only in the since that he wasn't able to clean up someone else's mess. Walsh was the one who traded for Artest and then signed him to an extension before the 02-03 season when Bird wasn't even yet in the picture. It's true that Bird publicly stuck with Artest after the brawl with the PR SI issue and such, but I seriously doubt that Bird would have done that stuff without the approval of Walsh and Simon. I'm not going to criticize Bird for getting burned by Artest when it was Walsh who started the fire to begin with. I don't judge a GM based off of how they go about immediately cleaning up someone else's mess. I instead judge them by how they do once they've had a few years to implement their own team. I'll give Bird blame for Williams, but definitely not Artest.

            Bird started his GM tenure here behind the 8 ball because Walsh's early 2000's moves before Bird came were a foundation built on sand. After the brawl (a little over a year into Bird's tenure), our front office's sole task was to dig themselves out of a massive hole. JO, Artest, Tinsley....all Walsh guys who were brought in before Bird arrived on the scene. Jackson was signed by the two headed monster. Then we panicked and made the hideous GS trade, and Chris Mullin said he only talked with Walsh. From 03-08, it was just impossible to know how good of a GM Bird was because there was just too much of Walsh's crappy moves clouding the picture. Walsh leaving in 2008 and Bird getting the team to himself really did save the franchise. What we have seen from 08-present from Bird is pure GM wizardry, which makes me think that the franchise ultimately would have been way better off if Walsh had left in 2003 instead of 2008.

            Bird's willingness to stay with JOB for as long as he did was certainly indefensible, no doubt about that.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-23-2013, 04:19 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              You're a Colts fan saying this?
              The exception that proves the rule.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

                Originally posted by MUpaceSIC View Post
                Honestly, I don't think there is a single scenario that will make everyone happy. The ultimate goal should be parity. I think in order to do so you have to first install a hard cap. There is no paying extra to go over it, you have to stay within the cap... no and, ifs, or buts. I like the idea of no guaranteed contracts like the NFL too. If a team wants to cut a player they can do so to wipe them off the salary cap; however, they must pay the final year of their contract. This would give teams a chance to get out from under bad contracts if the player doesn’t live up to their paycheck. If I was performing badly I would be fired, why is that not the case in professional sports?
                If the ultimate goal is parity, then the NBA needs to make LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, and Paul George rotate teams every year.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

                  Originally posted by MUpaceSIC View Post
                  Honestly, I don't think there is a single scenario that will make everyone happy. The ultimate goal should be parity. I think in order to do so you have to first install a hard cap. There is no paying extra to go over it, you have to stay within the cap... no and, ifs, or buts. I like the idea of no guaranteed contracts like the NFL too. If a team wants to cut a player they can do so to wipe them off the salary cap; however, they must pay the final year of their contract. This would give teams a chance to get out from under bad contracts if the player doesn’t live up to their paycheck. If I was performing badly I would be fired, why is that not the case in professional sports?
                  Because you aren't as valuable at your job as nba players are at theirs. If you were, you'd get a better contract.

                  This may come as a total shock, but there are other professionals out there that get guaranteed contracts outside of sports.

                  BTW, most nfl contracts are partially guaranteed. They just get all of that money up front as a signing bonus.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 12-23-2013, 06:17 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


                  • #54
                    Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                    Originally posted by Powww View Post
                    Whats the Harrison Barnes to Warriors situation?
                    Golden State's pick that year was top 7 protected or was going to go to Utah, Golden State lost a ton of games in a row to end the season, and managed to get pick 7 to keep it.
                    "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


                    • #55
                      Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                      Simmons had the idea where lottery teams play each other to decide the draft order. Would never happen, but it could be interesting
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

                        I do blame the NBA for it getting this far. They market stars, not teams. There are also too many teams, and its impossible for all to compete
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                          http://www.businessinsider.com/golde...tanking-2013-5

                          The Harrison Barnes tank in details
                          "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


                          • #58
                            Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                            To the people complaining about the champion having the #1 pick, that means they are being rewarded for building a championship level team without having the #1 pick in 29 years.

                            This is just like money. If you give everybody 1 million dollars and wait three years, the previously poor people will be poor again and the previously rich people will be even richer. The good teams are going to be good no matter what picks they get.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The NBA's Possible Solution for Tanking: Good-bye to the Lottery, Hello to the Wheel

                              Originally posted by shags View Post
                              The exception that proves the rule.
                              Exceptions don't prove a rule.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Does this new proposal solve tanking for draft picks???

                                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                                I do blame the NBA for it getting this far. They market stars, not teams. There are also too many teams, and its impossible for all to compete
                                Do you volunteer to contract the pacers? Or does contraction apply only to other teams?

                                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