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

  • #76
    Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

    This comparison to the music industry is absurd. The number of players in the NBA is a finite number. The music industry has no limitations on how many people can sing a song. If a youngster puts out a song at age 18, he or she isn't taking a "spot" away from another performer. It's an open ended system, unlike the NBA.

    Please stop comparing apples to oranges.

    If a brilliant high school student looks to be a "can't miss prospect" to become a heart surgeon one day, do we pay him $500,000/year, hand him a scalpel, and let him begin performing open heart surgeries based on his potential? Or, do we require him to spend an appropriate amount of time learning his craft (on scholarship, most likely) in order to prove his ability first?

    Why is it okay to treat our future surgeons that way, but not untested, unproven basketball players? (who will make WAY more money than a surgeon)

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

      While I think an 18 year old should be able to do anything he pleases as long as it's legal...I think the same thing about the NBA. The NBA is a business and can set its own rules. It does not owe anyone anything. It could shut down its business tomorrow and it would be entirely within their rights to do so.

      Comment


      • #78
        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.



        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.

        agree with you on the substance, but i've got to point out, "intents and purposes"...

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Wow. Uh, no. That is not even close to being true.

          For every Kobe Bryant there were a dozen korleone youngs either wasting a roster spot or going undrafted and therefore not being college eligible or draft eligible ever again.
          That is so incredibly wrong I have to call it out.

          Since 1995, when Kevin Garnett came out and started the trend of having a HS player declare for every draft until they weren't allowed to, here's the list of players who declared for the draft out of high school and didn't get a second contract (or, in some cases, a first).

          Taj McDavid, Korleone Young, Ellis Richardson, Leon Smith, Ousmane Cisse, Tony Key, DeAngelo Collins, Lenny Cooke, Ndudi Ebi, James Lang, Robert Swift, Jackie Butler, Ricky Sanchez. That's 13 players.

          Meanwhile, here are the players who have made an All-Star team during their career after declaring for the draft out of high school.

          Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Rashard Lewis, Tyson Chandler, Amare Stoudemire, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Andrew Bynum.

          And that's not including Al Harrington, DeShawn Stevenson, Stephen Jackson, Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, DeSagana Diop, Travis Outlaw, Kendrick Perkins, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, J.R. Smith, Dorell Wright, Martell Webster, Louis Williams, Andray Blatche, and Amir Johnson. All of those players have played or will eventually play at least 10 seasons in the NBA.

          That's 26 total players. It's a 2 to 1 success ratio in favor of the high school kids.

          Now, even with that data, I'm vehemently against allowing players to go straight from high school to the NBA. But people need to stop making the argument that there's "a dozen HS failures for every one who succeeded." It's just wrong, as the numbers point out.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

            Originally posted by A-Train View Post
            This comparison to the music industry is absurd. The number of players in the NBA is a finite number. The music industry has no limitations on how many people can sing a song. If a youngster puts out a song at age 18, he or she isn't taking a "spot" away from another performer. It's an open ended system, unlike the NBA.

            Please stop comparing apples to oranges.

            If a brilliant high school student looks to be a "can't miss prospect" to become a heart surgeon one day, do we pay him $500,000/year, hand him a scalpel, and let him begin performing open heart surgeries based on his potential? Or, do we require him to spend an appropriate amount of time learning his craft (on scholarship, most likely) in order to prove his ability first?

            Why is it okay to treat our future surgeons that way, but not untested, unproven basketball players? (who will make WAY more money than a surgeon)
            You just said comparing it to the music industry is absurd, then immediately compared it to another equally absurd industry.

            Surgeons are forced to complete a rigorous preparatory course and then on completion become a surgeon, not just wait two years then become a surgeon. And you have to COMPLETE medical school to do it. You can't quit halfway and decide you're already good enough to become a surgeon. That's because medical school is necessary to becoming a qualified surgeon, college basketball is not required to become good at basketball.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              While I think an 18 year old should be able to do anything he pleases as long as it's legal...I think the same thing about the NBA. The NBA is a business and can set its own rules. It does not owe anyone anything. It could shut down its business tomorrow and it would be entirely within their rights to do so.
              The NBA is a business and can set its own rules. But those rules are subject to the labor laws of the US. The NBA, on its own, cannot discriminate against adults by denying them the opportunity to make the teams. That is black letter law, I believe. The NBA and its players can negotiate the rules of the workplace to have an age limit. That is also black letter law, I believe. This whole thing is a labor relations issue that has to be negotiated.

              Interesting, this is one of the few work rules that the players have an informed opinion on. All of the players have been the 18 yr old wunderkind growing up. They've been there and done that. It is my understanding that they have a strong feeling that the younger guys should have a chance to try to make the league.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                You just said comparing it to the music industry is absurd, then immediately compared it to another equally absurd industry.

                Surgeons are forced to complete a rigorous preparatory course and then on completion become a surgeon, not just wait two years then become a surgeon. And you have to COMPLETE medical school to do it. You can't quit halfway and decide you're already good enough to become a surgeon. That's because medical school is necessary to becoming a qualified surgeon, college basketball is not required to become good at basketball.
                Thank you. You've helped to prove my point that comparing the NBA to any other "regular" profession is silly.

                P.S. I never made the argument that basketball players had to complete ANY length of college. Just that they prove their readiness before joining the NBA. You seem hung up on the college angle, which doesn't have to be their path to the NBA.
                Last edited by A-Train; 03-12-2014, 10:16 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                  Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                  Thank you. You've helped to prove my point that comparing the NBA to any other "regular" profession is silly.

                  P.S. I never made the argument that basketball players had to complete ANY length of college. Just that they prove their readiness before joining the NBA. You seem hung up on the college angle, which doesn't have to be their path to the NBA.
                  If it's silly to compare basketball to other professions, let's compare it to other sports. In Europe, 18 year olds can play basketball and soccer professionally. Why can't they in America? Tennis, golf, baseball, hockey, etc all allow teenagers to play. Why are American basketball players the only athletes unready to be professionals?

                  Dominating in high school/AAU/summer camps is proof enough that a player is ready for the NBA.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    If it's silly to compare basketball to other professions, let's compare it to other sports. In Europe, 18 year olds can play basketball and soccer professionally. Why can't they in America? Tennis, golf, baseball, hockey, etc all allow teenagers to play. Why are American basketball players the only athletes unready to be professionals?

                    Dominating in high school/AAU/summer camps is proof enough that a player is ready for the NBA.
                    It's pretty obvious this rule is to protect the NBA, not the players. But while the players themselves have a right to begin playing professional basketball out of high school, the NBA also has the right to not accept them. The NBA wants to make sure its scouts have at minimum two years watching these players in professional or semi-professional competition before they agree to pay them potentially tens of millions of dollars.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                      The problem with the age rule is the fact that it is based on AGE. Which in America is always a hypocritical topic. "You mean I can go die for my country but I can't have a drink of beer?" Limiting something based on age is typically only a good idea when its referring to safety.

                      The NBA needs to change it to a credential based requirement. 2 years of college, 2 years of D-League, or 2 years in any other pro league.
                      So after high school you can enter the D-League Draft, and if you don' get picked you could still have a chance to go to College or some other league.
                      This also allows competition to get the best players. Maybe the European leagues offer better pay and assurances, maybe the D-League pays more that does currently? Maybe this forces the NCAA to re-address its policy about student athletes.

                      Enhancing the D-league would be in the NBA's best interests. It would ensure only the best players make it into the league. Teams could field an entire D-League roster for the same as one first round draft pick's salary. Pay these guys 50-100K a year to work on their game and prove they are NBA caliber, maybe the D-League should have a 3 year max tenure. If a guy fails to make the league, then he should have made enough to buy a college education or use that money for what ever investment purpose.

                      Also give the guys the opportunity to buy an insurance policy on their career in case of injury. I'd even offer this for college players.

                      Plus this just gives guys greater pathways to success. College in general is not for everyone.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        It's pretty obvious this rule is to protect the NBA, not the players. But while the players themselves have a right to begin playing professional basketball out of high school, the NBA also has the right to not accept them. The NBA wants to make sure its scouts have at minimum two years watching these players in professional or semi-professional competition before they agree to pay them potentially tens of millions of dollars.
                        As has been said multiple times in this thread, the NBA unilaterally can't do anything, that would be illegal. The players union has to agree. KStat and others think the current players don't mind a 20 year old age limit. I think they're probably far more opposed to it, but they'll give it up eventually as a trade chip.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                          The problem with the age rule is the fact that it is based on AGE. Which in America is always a hypocritical topic. "You mean I can go die for my country but I can't have a drink of beer?" Limiting something based on age is typically only a good idea when its referring to safety.

                          The NBA needs to change it to a credential based requirement. 2 years of college, 2 years of D-League, or 2 years in any other pro league.
                          So after high school you can enter the D-League Draft, and if you don' get picked you could still have a chance to go to College or some other league.
                          This also allows competition to get the best players. Maybe the European leagues offer better pay and assurances, maybe the D-League pays more that does currently? Maybe this forces the NCAA to re-address its policy about student athletes.

                          Enhancing the D-league would be in the NBA's best interests. It would ensure only the best players make it into the league. Teams could field an entire D-League roster for the same as one first round draft pick's salary. Pay these guys 50-100K a year to work on their game and prove they are NBA caliber, maybe the D-League should have a 3 year max tenure. If a guy fails to make the league, then he should have made enough to buy a college education or use that money for what ever investment purpose.

                          Also give the guys the opportunity to buy an insurance policy on their career in case of injury. I'd even offer this for college players.

                          Plus this just gives guys greater pathways to success. College in general is not for everyone.
                          That is absurd. The player shouldn't be forced to buy an insurance policy most of these kids can't afford that. It should be provided by the college or the NBA.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                            ^College, sure... But in no way should a paid athlete have some sort of career insurance paid for by anyone other than themselves...
                            Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                              That is absurd. The player shouldn't be forced to buy an insurance policy most of these kids can't afford that. It should be provided by the college or the NBA.
                              Not to make it political, ok to make it political, tell that to our government!

                              I don't really that the insurance policy thing is a real motivator for this type of rule. It is something that would get thrown around cause it sounds nice, but it isn't something that would actually be taken into consideration. Especially since most of the players would make enough after one season in the NBA to pay for college a few times over. Orlando was making $800+k his rookie season. That is enough money to pay for 12 college degrees. The goal behind it is so that the NBA doesn't have to develop the basic skills needed to truly be deserving of a roster spot, so that players aren't draft purely on potential but tangible applicable talent, and to give the players some time to mature and hopefully learn some money management skills so that they will be better prepared to handle the fame and money.
                              Last edited by Eleazar; 03-13-2014, 01:41 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                                Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
                                ^College, sure... But in no way should a paid athlete have some sort of career insurance paid for by anyone other than themselves...
                                But that is the whole point, they aren't being paid they are being forced to pay college ball. If the NBA is forcing kids to stay in school the least they can do is pay the insurance of these elite prospects. Chris Webber couldn't afford to buy pizza and food to get through the week when he was at Michigan how the hell would he afford an insurance policy?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X