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

Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

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

  • Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

    With the heavy imbalance between East and West, there's a lot of talk about possibly going to no conferences and simply taking the top 16 playoff teams. So what would this year's playoffs look like if we did that? Of course the regular season schedules are uneven and would have been adjusted accordingly if this was adopted, but based on the NCAA 16 team style bracket, I thought I'd lay out what the matchups would be. I tried to get the tie breakers as accurate as I could, though that was difficult since we had 3 teams with 54 wins, and another set of 3 with 48 as well. Anyways the hypothetical playoffs as stands:

    1. Spurs vs 16. Bobcats
    Spurs are heavy favorites against the Mavs from what I can see, but no doubt the Vegas odds here would be something else. Note the Hawks are the only Eastern team to actually not make the Playoffs (actually, they would have also finished behind the T'Wolves). It's only a 7 to 9 team disparity, it's just that the East fills up bottom of the bracket.

    8. Warriors vs 9. Grizzlies
    A good matchup, though maybe not as intriguing as Warriors/Clippers if you would rather see a high scoring game. But hey, I'm sure the Grizzlies would take this vs meeting the Thunder. The winner would get the Spurs, unless in this format they choose to reseed each round.

    5. Houston vs 12. Bulls
    Note that Houston actually finishes ahead of Miami, according to what I've read. The Rockets, Heat and Blazers all had 54 wins. The Bulls swept the season series with the Suns, thus they win the tiebreaker (Raptors, Bulls and Suns all finished with 48 wins). 5-12 is always a hot spot for upsets in the NCAA tournament, are the Bulls a dark horse candidate for a low seed win here?

    4. Pacers vs 13. Suns
    Pacers just miss facing the Bulls. Then again, the Suns won both games against the Pacers, and had a tougher Western conference schedule, so maybe this isn't so preferable. But yeah, the Pacers arguably get a terrible deal in this scenario, instead of a match up as with the sub .500 Hawks the Pacers get a hot young Suns team. At least Indiana would be guaranteed home court through the second round.

    6. Heat vs 11. Raptors
    Note that, at 48 wins the team that won the Atlantic Division would miss the playoffs in the West. Here they are an 11 seed. The Heat arguably get a good draw. But they aren't guaranteed home court into even the second round. I'm sure people would still pick them to go to the finals, but if they were the 6th seed, I'm guessing there would be a lot more doubts.

    3. Clippers vs 14. Wizards
    I'm sure the Clippers would prefer the Wizards to the Warriors. Check out that potential Heat/Clippers 2nd round matchup with the Clippers holding home court.

    7. Portland vs 10. Dallas
    The lower seeded Western Conference teams benefit a lot here, as Dallas goes from facing the Spurs to the Blazers. This could be a hard fought series.

    2. Thunder vs 15. Nets
    That late season tanking didn't turn out so well for Brooklyn in this scenario. Still, this match up intrigues me a bit.

    So! We replace the Hawks with the Suns. That's good. The top 3 Western Conference teams at least look to have an easy time against their eastern opponents. Less competitive for them but arguably more fair. The final weeks of the regular season could have been very hectic in battles of seeding, and the Heat/Pacers race would have been mostly a side issue. In fact this scenario seems like a bad deal for the Pacers and Heat, who go from top of their conference and battling for home court through the Conference finals to possibly not having it past the first round. If they did meet, again assuming they did not reseed, Miami and Indiana would have to meet in the finals. What do you think? A fairer system?
    Last edited by Ransom; 04-18-2014, 12:28 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

    We would definitely lose in the 1st round.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

      I think we'd need to build a completely different team for this format. Well at least tweak it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

        I actually think our playoff experience would win in the end against the Suns, and I'm optimistic about our chances against the Rockets with homecourt advantage. Spurs, not so much.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

          Yeah, the Suns are not a favorable matchup, but I think our talent would win out. I would also think being able to focus on them alone for an extended stretch would work to our advantage. During the regular season teams like the Kings, Suns and Hawks were very nontraditional, which if you did not have time to prepare for them, could give you fits. These teams used this to their advantage and caught teams with superior talent on busy schedules offguard and could thus take advantage. Given that we would have time to prepare for the Suns we could focus solely on them. Also, there are no back to backs, so their speed and athletic advantages would be minimized.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

            I'd prefer it, as I could go to a game or two here lol. The crappy east teams just need to get better, feels like that drum has been beating for 10+ years though.
            "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


            • #7
              Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

              I'm not a fan of the concept of 16 seeds, with the 16th seed playing the #1 seed etc. You'd see very very few upsets in the first round, making a lot of those series really boring. If this was the NCAA, sure, but we're talking 7 game series here.

              Also let's not forget the travel time issues. With a 2-2-1-1-1 format and 5 hour flights between cities (Clippers/Wizards for example) you're likely to see a lot of player fatigue the later you get in the playoffs.

              Finally TV time is going to suck for the fans. If you live in the East, be prepared for a lot of 10:30 PM tipoff times for your team's road games. If you live in the West, you'll have a lot of 4PM tipoffs (not as great as it sounds when you have a 9-5 job and a commute home).

              This is why I don't think we'll ever ditch the conferences. A better idea might be trying to improve parity by tweaking the draft (if your conference sucks in the playoffs, your conference gets more ping pong balls), improving ownership quality in the east, or whatever else would actually result in better parity between conferences.

              This isn't meant to crap on your hypothetical though, it's a fun thought experiment

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

                I am not a fan of doing away with conferences. And I don't care about upsets, or having upsets.

                I just like the idea that we have to beat the heat in order to get a chance to play a western conference team. Plus the conference format helps to build rivarlies

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

                  Doing away with conferences is fine with me. It doesn't change who we'd play or how many times we'd play them. It just makes the playoff scheduling more fair.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

                    I was actually thinking about this the other day, although I would keep the conferences just for the sake of traveling being easier. I love the idea of a 1 though 16 seed playoff where conferences become irrelevant. I wouldn't mind seeing a Spurs vs Thunder Finals series.
                    Last edited by IAmHoosier; 04-18-2014, 03:04 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      . It doesn't change who we'd play or how many times we'd play them.
                      Yes it does we would play the Suns instead of the Hawks.

                      Maybe I am misreading your comment

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

                        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                        Doing away with conferences is fine with me. It doesn't change who we'd play or how many times we'd play them. It just makes the playoff scheduling more fair.
                        It changes who we'd play quite a bit, which is the whole point.

                        If I'm reading the OP correctly we'd probably have to beat the Suns, Heat, Spurs, OKC. That's brutal compared to Hawks/Bulls/Heat/OKC. First two rounds become significantly tougher, plus we're flying further for each road game and relative time of day fluctuates more between home/road games, making both teams more tired as the playoffs go on.

                        On the other side of the equation, the Spurs get a cakewalk through the first 3 rounds. Instead of playing Dallas/Houston/OKC to get the finals, they now play Bobcats/Warriors/Pacers , which is a lot easier in the first two rounds IMO.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

                          Or how about realigning the conferences every year. Have a Eastern Conference and Western Conference one year and the following year have a Northern Conference and Southern Conference and it just keeps going back and forth. Shake things up a little.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Yes it does we would play the Suns instead of the Hawks.

                            Maybe I am misreading your comment
                            I'm talking about during the regular season.

                            For the playoffs it'd be different, but not that different. There's currently not a lot of parity in the NBA, and I think the new CBA creates even less parity, so you'll routinely see/play the same teams in the top 4-6 if you make the playoffs.

                            I agree about the rivalries. We'd lose our rivalries with Cleveland/Milwaukee/Detroit, but the playoff format would probably still put us up against the Heat. And then new rivalries would form.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Because I'm Bored: What if There Were No Conferences?

                              I think that a 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15 etc 7 game series in the first round would have pretty poor ratings and would be a pretty big blowout almost every year... might make more sense to go back to a 5-game 1st round format, esp. considering the increased travel time.

                              I also think you'd still want to keep divisions, even if you ditch conferences. Would keep regional rivalries intact and you could still guarantee that each division winner gets a playoff spot so that each region of the country has at least 1 team to watch, if for no other reason than ratings

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X