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

NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

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

  • NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

    http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10590134

    This would great IMO, not only for the NBA but for college ball, as well.

  • #2
    Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

    Absolutely hate this. I'm already uncomfortable with making them wait the one year, two would be disgraceful. If you're making players wait until 20 then there has to be some system set up with the D League where they can get paid a considerable amount from 18-20 if they don't want to go to college.

    NBA players are already underpaid compared to other sports, stealing away another year of earning potential just so college basketball can be 10% more exciting is unjustifiable.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

      What would it accomplish? A more mature class of NBA players coming into a draft? Justin Bieber is 21 and look how he acts. Maturity is about the person, not the age of the person.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        Absolutely hate this. I'm already uncomfortable with making them wait the one year, two would be disgraceful. If you're making players wait until 20 then there has to be some system set up with the D League where they can get paid a considerable amount from 18-20 if they don't want to go to college.

        NBA players are already underpaid compared to other sports, stealing away another year of earning potential just so college basketball can be 10% more exciting is unjustifiable.
        Why would it be disgraceful? That makes absolutely no sense. Is it disgraceful that NFL players have to wait 3 years? There is nothing disgraceful about this, if anything it is a good thing for the players. If they don't want to go to college they can go to Europe and get paid. It really isn't any different from most industries that require a college degree, technical training, or previous experience. People getting a skilled job right out of high school is abnormal. So unless you are going to say I should have been given a high paying job right out of high school instead of needing to get a college degree, your opinion is idiotic.

        Bottom tier NBA players are not underpaid compared to other sports. Maybe the top tier is, but not the bottom. Anyways, it isn't about other sports, it is about what makes economical sense for the NBA.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

          I am opposed to this as well. Most NBA careers last 5-7 years at best. If you are making kids wait until they are 20 to be eligible to be in the NBA you are taking a year of potential big time earnings away from them in what could very well be a small window to be a professional athlete. If a team wants to draft any kid out of high school and pay them millions of dollars then let the kids make a decision about what to do with their life IMO.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
            What would it accomplish? A more mature class of NBA players coming into a draft? Justin Bieber is 21 and look how he acts. Maturity is about the person, not the age of the person.
            Maturity is formed through experience. An extra year of humbling experiences on the college court where you aren't making millions could give a lot of players some perspective.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              Maturity is formed through experience. An extra year of humbling experiences on the college court where you aren't making millions could give a lot of players some perspective.
              Perspective don't pay the bills and won't pay the tab for taking the pretty girls out, sucka!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                What, $7.25 per/hr isn't good enough?




                DOH!!!!
                nevermind...


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  What would it accomplish? A more mature class of NBA players coming into a draft? Justin Bieber is 21 and look how he acts. Maturity is about the person, not the age of the person.
                  This isn't about developing players. It's about giving nba scouts two full years of data so they're less likely to waste extremely valuable draft picks on flash in the pan busts.

                  But yes, justin bigger is 21. That is absolutely correct.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 03-11-2014, 07:16 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


                  • #10
                    Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                    I am opposed to this as well. Most NBA careers last 5-7 years at best. If you are making kids wait until they are 20 to be eligible to be in the NBA you are taking a year of potential big time earnings away from them in what could very well be a small window to be a professional athlete. If a team wants to draft any kid out of high school and pay them millions of dollars then let the kids make a decision about what to do with their life IMO.
                    Nba careers that last 5-7 years don't end because of age. A fringe nba player with 4 years of college experience is more likely to extend his career than a college freshman.

                    Tim Duncan declared for the draft at 22 and he's still playing 16 years later.

                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                      I'm not totally against this, but not totally for it either.

                      I'd rather have a set up where if you go to college, you have to stay 2 years. But if you want to go to the D-League or Europe out of high school, you can and you're automatically eligible for the draft the next season. Once each team has a D-League affiliate (and we're very close), this seems plausible to me. It would also be better if you paid all the D-League players a little more as well, plus gave them free tuition if they wanted to take classes. And you don't need to change anything for foreign players. They'd still be eligible at 19.

                      I think players like Jabari Parker and Joel Embiid would have went to college under this scenario. Someone like Andrew Wiggins may have played in the D-League.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        Why would it be disgraceful? That makes absolutely no sense. Is it disgraceful that NFL players have to wait 3 years? There is nothing disgraceful about this, if anything it is a good thing for the players. If they don't want to go to college they can go to Europe and get paid. It really isn't any different from most industries that require a college degree, technical training, or previous experience. People getting a skilled job right out of high school is abnormal. So unless you are going to say I should have been given a high paying job right out of high school instead of needing to get a college degree, your opinion is idiotic.

                        Bottom tier NBA players are not underpaid compared to other sports. Maybe the top tier is, but not the bottom. Anyways, it isn't about other sports, it is about what makes economical sense for the NBA.
                        The NBA wants the NCAA to do all their marketing and scouting for them for two years. That might be good for the NBA and the NCAA but it's just not fair to force people to work for free while you make millions of dollars off them. It's disgusting and it's not right. Plenty of jobs require a college degree, but not many require HALF of a college degree. Especially in the entertainment business, which is what the NBA is, it's ridiculous to put these restrictions on adults who are good enough to work in this field.

                        The NFL at least makes sense because high school players just don't have the strength or body development to compete as a teenager. The NBA has no excuse other than they just don't want to.

                        This especially stood out:

                        So unless you are going to say I should have been given a high paying job right out of high school instead of needing to get a college degree, your opinion is idiotic
                        You shouldn't have been given a high paying job out of high school because you didn't deserve one. You didn't have the elite skills in a desirable marketplace. LeBron James did. Your lack of marketable skills has nothing to do with the NBA.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                          The age limit isn't the issue. AAU basketball is...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                            You are right the NBA wants these players to develop their skills before they actually enter into the NBA, just like most industries. The way they view it, it takes about two years to earn the basketball equivalent of a degree. Now if these players are not willing to accept college or, if you will, an unpaid internship to develop those skills they do have other options. They can go over to Europe. The truth is saying they are unpaid is naive. If they have any chance at the NBA they are there on scholarship. They may not be getting paid in money, but they are being provided for and are getting a free education. They are getting well compensated.

                            By the way, Lebron's body was mature enough out of high school to go straight to the NFL. These rules aren't designed with the Lebron Jameses of the world in mind. As well, it is a bit presumptuous to assume that I didn't have marketable skills out of high school. Did I need to refine and develop my skills further, maybe even broaden my skill set? Most certainly, but so did most of the players who declared for the NBA straight out of high school.

                            The facts are just about every job has a certain amount of requirements in order to be considered. Many of them can seem to be quite arbitrary, especially when you are not aware of the reasons for the requirement. These requirements are almost always in place in order to try to find the right person with the most skills. This is no different. The NBA sees a need for these players to wait until they mature as players, and probably people too, before they decide to hire them as employees. Unlike most industries you don't have the option to go back to college to improve your skills and prove yourself after you have declared for the NBA.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                              All this would be fine if the NBA wasn't a legal monopoly. If I'm a programmer and Google doesn't want to hire me cause I don't have a college degree, I can apply to Apple, or Microsoft, or any other company I want. Your solution for basketball players is to force them to leave the continent, or be paid peanuts in the CBA. There's a difference between an industry PREFERRING that you polish your skills, and one that FORCES you to.

                              You may have had marketable skills, but it's not presumptuous to expect they weren't as marketable as LeBron James. In fact, I'm sure of it.

                              One year of thirty games of college basketball, half the schedule against far lesser talent, is not gonna help you refine your skills more than practicing with and learning from NBA players. You may think emotionally that players aren't ready for the NBA, but that's not our choice to make.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X