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

Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

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

  • Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

    Let this thread serve as the starting point for more focused debates (and eventually votes) pertaining to ABA Keeper League alterations.

    First off, the question of why needs to be answered. Why do we want to change things? It would be helpful to discuss our goals first so that we better tailor any prospective changes toward meeting those goals. Is it a simple question of participation, or do we need to address competitiveness as well?

  • #2
    Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

    Since I started this, let me weigh in.

    I feel the part of the problem is we have two leagues that are set up exactly the same. The only difference is the amount of keepers. At the beginning I thought this would be positive, now it appears to be a major drawback.

    Another issue has to be the lack of our yearly re-draft league, the original A.B.A.. With out that league filtering out weak owners we're left with about a quarter of the league not putting in the time or effort that others are use to.

    Boredom is another issue. We've been playing with the same set of rules for more than 10 years now.

    With all that said, I would like to see some minor changes made to our league. Nothing to the extent I proposed on the league site. I attempted to set up a league with those rules before without the success I was looking for. Next fall I will try once again to start up a 15 player salaried based keeper league.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

      How much do you think competitiveness has to do with inactivity? I mean, are the owners absentee GMs because they have ****** teams? And, if so, do we then want to provide them with more and better opportunities to improve their squads - within and between seasons - than simple waiver wire primacy?
      Last edited by LG33; 03-04-2015, 12:23 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

        Look at the most active owner list and match it up with their W-L record.

        I haven't done that so I'm not really sure what it might say.

        Off the top of my head I don't think how well your team is doing indicates how active you are.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

          what do people think of changing the # of keepers drastically (maybe down to 5 or 4 even, with potential additional keepers for young players)? just throwing ideas out as to other ways in which teams can improve.

          oh and thank you LG and james for leading the discussion.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

            Draft Changes

            IDEA #1: I think teams that fall below a certain performance threshold should be able to draft two second rounders, and, if they so choose, should be able to forfeit their second rounder (as opposed to their first) to protect more keepers. Huh? Well, here's how it might work:

            Imagine there are ten teams in the league, and let's say that the bottom four teams perform significantly worse than the top five. The normal draft structure (barring any trades) is pretty straight forward (1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 / 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 / 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10), so that the worst team ends up with the 1st pick, the 11th pick, and 21st pick.

            Under this proposal, the bottom four teams would lose their third rounders for additional second rounders. There's a number of ways we could do this, of course, but for simplicity's sake let's just have them select two in a row. The new draft order now looks differently (1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 / 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 / 5-6-7-8-9-10), so that the worst team now gets the 1st pick, the 11th pick and the 12th pick. They are free to use these picks as trade chips, to protect additional keepers (giving up the 12th pick first), or simply to add talent faster. This plan would also see the better teams' draft position worsen, hopefully serving to even things out across the league.

            IDEA #2: Let's forget about draft order and move to a bidding system. This option, of course, would be much more complicated to administer, so if this is an idea that picks up traction, I'd volunteer to run it myself. In this scenario, each team receives credits inversely proportional to their team's scoring average or finish. Then there is a blind bidding process on each rookie and free agent. The goal here is to still give the poorer teams better chances to improve, while simultaneously injecting some excitement and strategy into the draft. And, unlike draft picks which you can either use or trade, these credits will rollover from year to year. If you don't like the rookie class, you can save up for the next year's draft.


            Obviously, these are just the beginnings of half-baked ideas, but if either of them strike a chord I'll put some more thought into them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

              Originally posted by Frostwolf View Post
              what do people think of changing the # of keepers drastically (maybe down to 5 or 4 even, with potential additional keepers for young players)? just throwing ideas out as to other ways in which teams can improve.
              Or maybe, instead of reducing the # of keepers, we instead introduce a two-tiered protection scheme. Currently, we can protect nine players without forfeiting any of our draft selections. That means we only have to let go of three guys and, due to the size of this league, most teams have at least three inconsequential dudes on their roster. But what if we treated every draft as if it were an expansion draft, so out of those nine keepers, you have to leave three vulnerable to poaching. How poaching would work can be worked out however we choose. I would suggest that no team can suffer multiple poachings in a single season (or maybe even in consecutive seasons). Secondly, the poached team should acquire a draft pick as consolation, perhaps from the team that's doing the poaching. In a way, this would be akin to a forced trade. Alternatively, we could create additional draft slots to alleviate the poachee's loss. Does every team get a chance to poach? In what order? Obviously, there are details to be ironed out, but I think this might be an interesting direction to go in.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

                I love the credits idea you floated, LG. It's a move away from more realism, but a step towards making the whole thing more strategic and I like that. A lot.

                Not sure how the rest of the owners feel about that though.
                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


                • #9
                  Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

                  I like a lot of these ideas, here's another what if:

                  Teams have an incentive to be more active. They forfeit their second round pick if they're in the bottom 5 of the most active owners list at the end of the season.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

                    I'll do ya one better on that.....

                    The 1st round is based on record, all other rounds based on the "most active" list. The most active owner gets the 1st over all pick in all but the 1st round.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

                      i actually really like that idea. the site keeps track of how active each owner is right?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

                        According to the site, I'm the 10th ranked most active owner this year, but I log in at least twice a day and I've engaged half the teams in (mostly unsuccessful) trade negotiations. I shouldn't be penalized for that. Moreover, the better teams are going to have the most active owners, so I think it will hurt competitiveness even more. I think using that as a criterion for draft order would set the ABA KL in a bad direction. In my opinion, there are better ways to encourage activity.
                        Last edited by LG33; 03-05-2015, 03:42 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

                          Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                          According to the site, I'm the 10th ranked most active owner this year, but I log in at least twice a day and I've engaged half the teams in (mostly unsuccessful) trade negotiations. I shouldn't be penalized for that. Moreover, the better teams are going to have the most active owners, so I think it will hurt competitiveness even more. I think using that as a criterion for draft order would set the ABA KL in a bad direction. In my opinion, there are better ways to encourage activity.
                          i agree with that too, and maybe basing entirely on that stat is too much - maybe a weighted system where record, average, owner activity (and anything else) all factor into draft position?

                          also the system can be gamed just by logging in and out repeatedly, so there's that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

                            I think that "activity" is based on the number of individual sites (like each time you click a link in their site like rosters, game logs, etc.) you visit within hoops.ws, not just how many times you log on.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Changes to the ABA Keeper League - Discussion Thread

                              I think manager activity should only be used for the commissioner to see if anyone needs to be replaced, and a new owner brought in if it's a severe enough case. But as was mentioned by zallen541, if it's based upon clicks within the site, then that # will always be skewed a bit. I am like LG33, I log on a couple times a day, and I'm ranked 9th right now, sometimes as high as 2nd, it varies.

                              But I'd sure hate to see any manager be penalized in any way, due to using less clicks within the site to manage their team, but maybe they log on as much as anyone else. I do understand though, how on a commissioner level it can be frustrating if multiple team owners average logging on once every week or 2, and never respond to any trade requests.

                              Tweaking the scoring a bit sounds ok to me, maybe take a few different categories from 1 points to 1.5 or something. I do not like the idea of altering the draft a whole lot all at once, it's been the same for so long, that would be a lot to digest. One change per season if necessary to the draft format seems logical, and then make changes in other areas as well if it looks like it will improve the league in the commissioners eyes.


                              I also like the idea of another keeper league being set up in addition to this one, but with different rules and options, that has a lot that can be explored going in from scratch.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X