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

  • #46
    Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    Except what you're arguing for is the opposite of what you want. Andrew Wiggins is better than a large percentage of NBA players right now. He's being artificially kept out of the NBA even though his being in it would enhance the product.

    Lenny Cooke wasn't drafted, and never played in the NBA. He was never handed a contract.
    You're essentially arguing that an employment policy should be geared toward the exceptional high school player, when the results in the past often were that non-superstar high school players were drafted because you had to take the risk. Would it have hurt Al Harrington to have some more years pre-NBA? Would it have let teams have more info on Jonathan Bender?

    I'd love to see a real development league along the lines of the minor leagues in baseball - I think that completely solves the problem. Go back to 3 rounds, let teams draft the hot guys in the first round and the potential guys in the 3rd round and send the ones who need it to the D-League.
    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


    • #47
      Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Why? Because they don't pay as much?
      Because one is on a different continent and one doesn't pay enough.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        Because one is on a different continent and one doesn't pay enough.
        So the sense of entitlement makes it unsatisfactory.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          You're essentially arguing that an employment policy should be geared toward the exceptional high school player, when the results in the past often were that non-superstar high school players were drafted because you had to take the risk. Would it have hurt Al Harrington to have some more years pre-NBA? Would it have let teams have more info on Jonathan Bender?

          I'd love to see a real development league along the lines of the minor leagues in baseball - I think that completely solves the problem. Go back to 3 rounds, let teams draft the hot guys in the first round and the potential guys in the 3rd round and send the ones who need it to the D-League.
          Not geared toward, just accepting of candidates who are already qualified. Nobody forced NBA teams to take a risk on high school players. If you wanted to you could, plenty chose not to.

          I doubt it it would have altered Al Harrigton's career at all to go to college, but who knows. Maybe he would have fallen down a flight of stairs and broken his neck. Or maybe he would have developed into the next MJ. I still think he'd be the same player.

          I would love love a real developmental league and agree it would solve many problems. Sending gifted players to college who don't want to be there, or making them play in Europe is not the right answer, at least in my opinion.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            So the sense of entitlement makes it unsatisfactory.
            If I was able to a job and they forced me to work a year as an intern in Fort Wayne or go live in Latvia then I would disagree out of principle not entitlement.
            Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 03-12-2014, 11:46 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
              If I was able to a job and they forced me to work a year as an intern in Fort Wayne or go live in Latvia then I would disagree out of principle not entitlement.
              That suggests you already met the job requirements in order to get the job in the first place.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                This is ridiculous. In any other profession, we would say "hey, if they are going to pay you then you might as well go! Their mistake if you aren't ready!" but for the NBA we have to act all high and mighty
                DG for 3

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                  Originally posted by ColeTheMole View Post
                  This is ridiculous. In any other profession, we would say "hey, if they are going to pay you then you might as well go! Their mistake if you aren't ready!" but for the NBA we have to act all high and mighty
                  Sports leagues are not "any other profession". The consumers (that would be us) have an interest in the quality of the league as a whole being the best it can be. Putting the kind of rules in place preventing talent from being diluted due to high school player hype is in the best interest of the consumer.

                  The cry is to let the teams "dumb" enough to draft marginal high schoolers pay the price. That doesn't follow, because the "have" teams can afford to take risks that don't pan out while the "have not" teams need to take the risk because it may be the only way to make the leap. Overall, high schoolers have not been perfectly ready to play the game at the NBA level, in spite of the hugely hyped single examples. That means teams who have to take the risk will mostly get saddled with players who won't be ready to play well until at best the end of their rookie contract - when they will be snatched away by the teams with the most money to spend.

                  It has nothing to do with being "high and mighty".
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                    I'm all for it. The NBA can do whatever the hell they want in a free market.

                    Nobody has an issue with the NFL imposing an age limit. The only reason it's an issue with the NBA is because the NBA hasn't always followed an age limit. If this was the rule from 1976 to present day, nobody would give a damn. People/society are resistant to change. Always have been and always will be.

                    I do believe the increase in age limit should coincide with an expanded draft and/or D-League as well. If high school kids don't want to go to college for two years, then let them test out the D-League until they're old enough for the big boys. They're taking a big chance with their future going that route. Make $50k/year for two years and fail... now you're wishing there was some college education to fall back on.

                    I think it needs to be 21, but I'll take what I can get.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Sports leagues are not "any other profession". The consumers (that would be us) have an interest in the quality of the league as a whole being the best it can be. Putting the kind of rules in place preventing talent from being diluted due to high school player hype is in the best interest of the consumer.
                      ...what you described IS every other profession. I want my burritos to be the best but I'm all for taco bell hiring whoever the hell they want and figuring it out from there
                      DG for 3

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                        They can't do anything without the players agreeing to it. This is Silver setting up the next round of CBA negotiations.
                        This was one of the items on the B list of the past negotiations. As soon as the players get a new president and their act together this topic will be voted on.

                        Like everyone has said if I am Roger Mason Jr. I am voting yes less competition for me. It is kind of a joke. I wish they would move to a model that has more player freedom, but whatever.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                          Originally posted by ColeTheMole View Post
                          ...what you described IS every other profession. I want my burritos to be the best but I'm all for taco bell hiring whoever the hell they want and figuring it out from there
                          I have no doubt that Taco Bell hires some chefs who went to culinary school to come up with their new foods and make them taste good. The workers you see at your local taco bell are not chefs with talent. They simply follow a highly regulated formula that a professional created. They use machines to make sure things are done exactly how they are supposed to every time. They do not rely on the skills of the teenagers they hire to make sure your burrito is good. Those teenagers simply assemble the burrito. They don't develop the recipes or cook the meat or anything. They simply take pre-cook foods and combine them in a pre-described way.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                            Originally posted by ColeTheMole View Post
                            ...what you described IS every other profession. I want my burritos to be the best but I'm all for taco bell hiring whoever the hell they want and figuring it out from there
                            And if part of that decision is to hire only employees aged 20 and older to make your burritos, that would be alright with you I am sure. Sure, they'll hire people under 20, but the only positions are 6-8 hour a week positions where their only responsibility is to make sure the dining facilities are clean. If you're graduating from high school and you want to play in the NBA at all costs without going to college, welcome to the D-League.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              And you know this because you've seen Wiggins play in the NBA? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, we don't know that right now so there's really no need to argue opinion as fact. But if Wiggins is worried about money, he could have always went the NBDL or Europe route. He doesn't have the right to play in the NBA, when he or anyone else thinks he should.




                              My bad. Swap him out with any of the other uncountable kids that got a contract based on potential and then never panned out.
                              You can't be serious. Maybe better than the likes of Roger Mason Jr and a bunch of other? Wiggins would be starting on 50% of the teams and that is rather conservative. He could go to the Dleague and make 18k this year or some BS. Lets be honest the NBA and the NCAA has monopolized basketball for all intensive purposes.


                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              Except what you're arguing for is the opposite of what you want. Andrew Wiggins is better than a large percentage of NBA players right now. He's being artificially kept out of the NBA even though his being in it would enhance the product.

                              Lenny Cooke wasn't drafted, and never played in the NBA. He was never handed a contract.
                              No he was told by a bunch of agents he would be a 1st rd draft pick and to "**** school" by everyone around him. That is just what he did. Number #1 player in the nation to 0 hope because of the broken AAU circuit IMO. and of course him just being a crazy party kid.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                                You can't be serious. Maybe better than the likes of Roger Mason Jr and a bunch of other? Wiggins would be starting on 50% of the teams and that is rather conservative. He could go to the Dleague and make 18k this year or some BS. Lets be honest the NBA and the NCAA has monopolized basketball for all intensive purposes.
                                I am serious. I've heard/seen a lot of "can't miss prospects" that were big misses. Not saying Wiggins is one of them, but you never know. No reason to act like it's 100% confirmed either way.

                                They've monopolized basketball in America. If money is such a big thing, then go to Europe. There are always solutions to people's problems, instead of whining for one single solution.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X