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

Cheating

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

  • Re: Cheating

    Originally posted by Roferr View Post
    Not in Rik Smit's case. He could get knocked into the 3rd row by Shaq and it would be a foul on Rik. He could step completely to the side when Shaq lowers his shoulder and goes to the basket, misses Smit altogether, falls on his assss and a foul is called on Rik. Two quick fouls and Rik's on the bench for 20 minutes of the first half. Rik got called for the most phantom fouls than any other player of his status.

    Harrison comes close to the number and quickness of fouls but he's no where near Rik's status when it comes to elite centers.
    I agree 100% with you about Shaq getting away with a whole lot of crap (how many times did we hear the announcers make the excuse for the refs "Shaq is one of the hardest players to officiate") but you lost all credibility when you mentioned Harrisons name Harrison brings a lot of that upon himself by not keeping his mouth shut.

    Mr.Boyle,

    Since we are on this ever so touch topic, I have to ask you about a conversation that happened in the Nets-Lakers finals a few years back. A few people heard the head referee at the time (I cant remember his name) during a TV timeout remind his 2 other ref's that "O Neal (refering to Shaq) has 5 fouls, lets keep that in mind" or something to the effect.

    I will admit when I first heard that rumor I thought it was bogus, but as several people went back on VCR's/TIVO they were able to read lips and see the same exact thing. I even seem to recall ESPN picking a story up on this topic.

    Does that not conern you in the least?

    Comment


    • Re: Cheating

      Originally posted by ABADays View Post
      No Don, Tins get in these ZONES and it usually costs us. He doesn't seem to learn from them.
      Yup! Old news really. This has really started happenning about two years ago just after the brawl when he had to take leadership and more responsibility. The years before he would have a few moments completely dominating the ball, but after the brawl he had to and since he just does it a lot more regularly. The bad thing, offcourse, is that he doesn't need to do this currently, worse, it's counterproductive now .

      I must say that Tins seemed to have a very good first half and he played quite good. It's in the 4th quarter that I am not very happy with his decision-making, one-on-ones, etc. I dunno about this game. I think the team played very good and well in two games we did give the Mavericks good to very good opposition. I'm not a fan of Tins (anymore), but to blame this loss on here is overlooking the play/contributions of others maybe and those "others" aren't the referees btw.

      Regards,

      Mourning
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • Re: Cheating

        Mr. Boyle

        Come on you KNOW Wade was gettin phantoms in the Finals last year. And LBJ traveled against us (Wizards) for those game winners right?

        Yes I'm still hung up on those calls.
        STARBURY

        08 and Beyond

        Comment


        • Re: Cheating

          Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
          Mr. Boyle

          Come on you KNOW Wade was gettin phantoms in the Finals last year. And LBJ traveled against us (Wizards) for those game winners right?

          Yes I'm still hung up on those calls.

          I still do not see half of the "phanton" calls on Wade that many people here complain about.

          As for Lebron, yes he did travel. Then again, if Gill would just learn to not let Bron get in his head and hit his free throws .............

          Comment


          • Re: Cheating

            Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
            I agree 100% with you about Shaq getting away with a whole lot of crap (how many times did we hear the announcers make the excuse for the refs "Shaq is one of the hardest players to officiate") but you lost all credibility when you mentioned Harrisons name Harrison brings a lot of that upon himself by not keeping his mouth shut.

            Mr.Boyle,

            Since we are on this ever so touch topic, I have to ask you about a conversation that happened in the Nets-Lakers finals a few years back. A few people heard the head referee at the time (I cant remember his name) during a TV timeout remind his 2 other ref's that "O Neal (refering to Shaq) has 5 fouls, lets keep that in mind" or something to the effect.

            I will admit when I first heard that rumor I thought it was bogus, but as several people went back on VCR's/TIVO they were able to read lips and see the same exact thing. I even seem to recall ESPN picking a story up on this topic.

            Does that not conern you in the least?
            I haven't really heard that one but I have one that I witnessed on TV. MJ picked up his 5th foul (game on national tv), and he goes to the ref and holds up five fingers and you could see him mouth "that's five". Needless to say, he didn't foul out in a very roughly played game. The type of game he and Pippen would mug players to steal the ball.
            .

            Comment


            • Re: Cheating

              [QUOTE=vapacersfan;528188]I agree 100% with you about Shaq getting away with a whole lot of crap (how many times did we hear the announcers make the excuse for the refs "Shaq is one of the hardest players to officiate") but you lost all credibility when you mentioned Harrisons name Harrison brings a lot of that upon himself by not keeping his mouth shut.
              ____________________________________________

              Harrison does get mouthy and shows a lot of disdain in his face that the refs don't appreciate but he gets a lot of phantom calls called against him. He should realize that he is a "newbie" and that fouls aren't going his way. This was not the case with Rik. I wasn't trying to pigeon hole them, just making a note about "phantom calls".
              .

              Comment


              • Re: Cheating

                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                I still do not see half of the "phanton" calls on Wade that many people here complain about.
                find the tapes and re-watch them. He is literally barely touched on 80% of those fouls.

                As for Lebron, yes he did travel. Then again, if Gill would just learn to not let Bron get in his head and hit his free throws .............
                Gil wouldn't have had to hit those ft's if David Stern didn;t have a man crush on LeBron.
                STARBURY

                08 and Beyond

                Comment


                • Re: Cheating

                  Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                  find the tapes and re-watch them. He is literally barely touched on 80% of those fouls.



                  Gil wouldn't have had to hit those ft's if David Stern didn;t have a man crush on LeBron.
                  I just got a new DVR (I love comcast) so I lost all my saved stuff, but I think your 80% is quite exaderated.

                  As for Lebron, I wont argue with you on Stern having a man crush. Of course, Gill could have helped that by hitting those free throws and ignoring the sweet nothings Lebron whispered in his ear

                  Comment


                  • Re: Cheating

                    Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                    All,

                    It seems to me that we're dealing with semantics here. I certainly agree that officiating plays a role in every outcome, just as a variety of other factors come into play. Whie I infer that several fans believe otherwise, my position is that I've never seen officiating as the sole determining factor in an outcome.

                    On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

                    MJB
                    I seem to remember one of the worst offensive fouls of all time on no less than the best player of all time go uncalled as our boy Reggie iced the game winner and ran down the court to spin in circles for five minutes.

                    Clearly, Stern mandated that the refs keep their whistles in their pockets so that he could get the marquee Utah/Indiana Finals matchup that he so badly desired.

                    I personally think all this conspiracy stuff is ridiculous. Everyone complains about NBA officiating. Well, I've seen very few well officiated in the NCAA, in high school, in AAU, in the YMCA, in men's league, in pick-up or in elementary school.

                    Basketball is just a hard game to officiate. Few can do it consistently well on any level. Add NBA speed, athleticism and physicality and it just makes a very hard thing to do a lot more difficult.

                    As to why they continue to use grandfatherly-looking, 65-year-old men to try and do this...Well that's a whole different debate.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • Re: Cheating

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                      I just got a new DVR (I love comcast) so I lost all my saved stuff, but I think your 80% is quite exaderated.
                      you may be right - 75%

                      As for Lebron, I wont argue with you on Stern having a man crush. Of course, Gill could have helped that by hitting those free throws and ignoring the sweet nothings Lebron whispered in his ear
                      see us this year!!!
                      STARBURY

                      08 and Beyond

                      Comment


                      • Re: Cheating

                        Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
                        you may be right - 75%



                        see us this year!!!
                        More like 1%, maybe 2 or 3%.....

                        Well see about this year.....

                        Comment


                        • Re: Cheating

                          Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                          All,

                          It seems to me that we're dealing with semantics here. I certainly agree that officiating plays a role in every outcome, just as a variety of other factors come into play. Whie I infer that several fans believe otherwise, my position is that I've never seen officiating as the sole determining factor in an outcome.

                          On a related note, how come very few (if any) of you ever seem to remember the blatant calls that go in Indiana's favor?

                          MJB
                          I do, and I'm embarrassed when it happens. Without a doubt they do benefit from some pretty awful calls going their way. When I see bad calls either way I consider it a poorly officiated game and a disservice to me if I've paid to see the game.

                          But I also dislike when the Pacers beat a team playing terrible basketball if I bought a ticket. I came to see the sport played and officiated well and fairly, understanding that some mistakes are natural of course.

                          Most nights the officials are fine, but sometimes they do blow calls. Again, my typical concern is what type of game the refs establish rather than are the Pacers getting ripped off. Usually the breaks fall even both ways which makes that a non issue, but if they are playing a low talent team and the refs are letting EVERYONE smack and bump it removes their finesse advantage (for example).



                          Now if it was a competition between the official and the average courtside Pacers fan, the official would destroy them in terms of accuracy, even on a bad night.

                          I seem to remember one of the worst offensive fouls of all time on no less than the best player of all time go uncalled as our boy Reggie iced the game winner and ran down the court to spin in circles for five minutes.
                          Jay, what about a certain night in NY and a shove to the back that went uncalled as well. But then again wasn't there an intentional foul call (2 FTs and the ball) that went their way that year or the year after...Harper maybe being the guy fouled?

                          BTW, I don't totally buy the "star treatment/rookie" thing. Stars are more talented, quicker, smarter, etc. That's how they became stars. They tend to avoid contact better and make better choices. For all the talk of Harrison getting no calls, if you've watched him live and down close you see a bull in a china shop most of the time. He's slow and clumsy most of the time, and far too willing to defend with his hands (which ends up slapping the arm or elbow).

                          That's why his fouling stayed the same while Granger (a year behind him in NBA experience) saw his fouls per minute drop like a rock after a month or two. Players just get better, that's a big part of the equation. Much more than "the refs have to learn their game" and way, way more than "the refs give them preferrential treatment".

                          Comment


                          • Re: Cheating

                            To follow up that final thought just consider this:

                            Magically they invent a PERFECT foul calling machine that takes over officiating NBA games. Is it not possible, even likely, that a far more talented team will kill the other team in terms of foul calls? At some point lesser players DO FOUL MORE, just like they miss shots, don't control the ball as well, run as fast, jump as high, and so on.

                            So when we see games that everyone is talking about all the foul calls going for one team, is it because it's bias or because that team is just outplaying the other?

                            Wade caught some breaks in the finals to be sure, but he also attacked the rim without mercy and was able to get by the perimeter defense with some quick dribble moves.

                            Sometimes that foul discrepency creates a focus on the refs when maybe it should be on the players instead.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Cheating

                              I have heard many people try to explain away the whole “star treatment”

                              I have seen plenty of stars get away with 10X as much more stuff then any other player, and it was not just because he was more talented.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Cheating

                                One has to allow for the entertainment aspect of the NBA in order to understand that it isn't always about the game. Fans are not going to shell out big bucks to attend these games if the star players on these teams get into foul trouble and spend half of the game sitting on the bench in warmup outfits. Once Jordan established himself as a superstar, how many times did he foul out, or even ride the pines for any extended period of time? This preferantial treatment is extended to all of the supertars of the game, and to think other wise is really the same type of thinking that people that watch pro wrestling have. People who believe that the star attractions on these teams don't receive special treatment, probably still believe in Santa Claus.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X