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

Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

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

  • #46
    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    Just saying you can't compare the best basketball players in the world with MLS rejects.
    Good thing that's not what the comparison is.

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    And for the umpteenth time, it was a complete fluke that allowed Durant to both sign with the Warriors and get paid max money. That scenario will never play itself out again. It's like being struck by a meteor and then going out and buying meteor insurance.
    This is the second time it's happened, not the first. So pretending like it's a once in a lifetime thing, when this is the second time it's happened, is pretty disingenuous.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

      No, it's the first. Golden state already had maxed out 3 of their guys. They didn't clear their entire roster in one summer like Miami did, nor did they stockpile guys on rookie contracts like Cleveland did.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        So because you think it is impossible for something to happen we shouldn't talk about ideas we wish they would implement? Yeah **** off dude.
        I'd like them to put a team on Mars. That's something I think they should implement. And they'll get there before the union agrees to a hard cap. I see you've (long since) run out of intelligent points to make and so that's the last I'm commenting on the issue. Enjoy neverland.

        PS if having your ideas shot down hurts your feelings that much, perhaps you should find a safe space elsewhere.
        Last edited by Kstat; 07-15-2016, 11:05 AM.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          No, it's the first. Golden state already had maxed out 3 of their guys. They didn't clear their entire roster in one summer like Miami did, nor did they stockpile guys on rookie contracts like Cleveland did.
          The results are the same, and that's the issue here. Not everything has to line up hole by hole and be a perfect match for them to be similar situations.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            The results are the same, and that's the issue here. Not everything has to line up hole by hole and be a perfect match for them to be similar situations.
            No one cares about the results. it's the method that people are whining about.

            If the salary cap doesn't spike $24 million in one summer Durant isn't on golden state right now. That's just a fact. Unless you see that happening again anytime soon, this is much ado about nothing.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

              Originally posted by Adam Silver
              I’ll say, and I’ve read several stories suggesting that that’s something that the league wants, this notion of two super teams, that it’s a huge television attraction. I don’t think it’s good for the league, just to be really clear.
              The topic is superteams in general, not specific ways superteams are formed. Superteams, no matter how they are formed, are perceived to be bad for the league is Silver's point. Arguing about how superteams are formed differently, misses the forest for the tree.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                The topic is superteams in general, not specific ways superteams are formed. Superteams, no matter how they are formed, are perceived to be bad for the league is Silver's point. Arguing about how superteams are formed differently, misses the forest for the tree.
                The guy you just quoted agrees with me. Oh the irony....

                On Tuesday in Las Vegas, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said he believes Kevin Durant signing with the Warriors is not good for the NBA.

                On Wednesday in Los Angeles, Silver relayed to Joe Vardon of Cleveland.com the conversation he had with Durant's mom, Wanda, about the decision.

                [RELATED: Cuban loves an NBA villain: Everybody will root against Warriors]

                "The one thing I have learned, I was just talking to Kevin Durant's mom, every situation is different," Silver explained. "This was a team in Golden State where they have three All-stars who were all drafted. A team that's under the cap. And one free agent, who also happens to be a superstar, makes a decision to go to that team.

                "It's very different than if multiple players from different teams had come together and said 'let's all land on yet a completely different team.'"


                The Warriors drafted Steph Curry seventh overall in 2009, Klay Thompson 11th overall in 2011, and Draymond Green 35th overall in 2012.

                Andre Iguodala was acquired via trade in July 2013.

                [REWIND: Durant's answer to those who disagree with him joining Warriors]

                "Every situation is unique, and these players have difficult decisions to make," Silver said. "Of course they want to win. I'm sure it was very difficult for him (Durant) to leave the Oklahoma City community. Look at the incredible things he's done there over the years."

                Durant played his rookie season in Seattle, and the subsequent eight seasons in Oklahoma City.

                He was inducted into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame last November.

                "These decisions are always difficult, and these are young men," Silver added. "It's a lot of responsibility."
                You walked right into that one...

                Seriously, what were the odds?
                Last edited by Kstat; 07-15-2016, 11:19 AM.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                  Every situation IS different, that's not what I'm disagreeing with you on. I'm saying that the result (superteam) is the problem regardless of how each superteam is formed (situation).

                  You're trying to narrow this down and say just this situation is the problem, when Silver is saying any situation INCLUDING this one where superteams are formed are a problem.

                  It's like saying car deaths are a problem we need to fix, and you saying we just need to fix drunk driving. Well, that is true, but the problem is bigger than just drunk driving. GS situation is a problem, but it's one problem out of multiple that makes a whole.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                    Yeah...you're not digging yourself out of this one. He's not saying all super teams are a problem. He's backtracking on his previous statement regarding Durant. Not a complete 180, but this is definitely damage control from the predictable player backlash.

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    "It's very different than if multiple players from different teams had come together and said 'let's all land on yet a completely different team.'"
                    Silver has pretty much narrowed his focus on the LeBron Heat and nobody else.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 07-15-2016, 11:43 AM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                      I am with Kstat that this won't happen again....like this. It will happen again in a different way. When a league that has so few roster spots as the NBA there will always be ways to make this happen.

                      No one will complained when Duncan took less to keep Manu and Tony there. No one complained when Wade took less so they could get players like Deng, McBob, etc. after Lebron left.
                      The reason you are made is the same reason we were able to get Thaddeus Young and Al Jefferson. A 24 million a year cap increase. It will not happen again. I do think there should be tweeks to the caphold and %s. The previous CBA the players had like 57.5% of the profits. Now they have 51%. If they met in the middle I think it would increase the cap again. Maybe not 24 million. But it would go up to the point that a max player could join with two other max players.

                      So the question is. How many max free agents should a team have? How many of their own drafted players should they be able to retain if they are max players? How many max players can a team add if they have maxed drafted players?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                        JJ Redick would like to have a word....












                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                          You're right KStat, it's not about superteams and creating competitive balance it's solely about drastic cap increases.

                          “In terms of creating a league in which every team has the opportunity to compete, I think we do need to re-examine some of the elements of our system so that I’m not here next year or the year after again talking about anomalies,” Silver said. “The good news is that we are in a collective bargaining cycle, so it gives everybody an opportunity, owners and the union, to sit down behind closed doors and take a fresh look at the system and see if there is a better way that we can do it. My belief is we can make it better.”
                          http://www.si.com/nba/2016/07/12/kev...room-law-fouls

                          How silly of me thinking he was talking about the big picture, instead of focusing on details. "Elements" is clearly a singular situation.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                            Guys have the freedom to do what they want and we as fans have the freedom to analyze and weigh the evidence, much of which is objective.

                            Boston is an absolutely hideous example to this because Pierce/KG/Allen were all at the tail end of their primes on wretched lottery teams. Nevertheless, you could obviously measure the extreme difference that KG and Allen made because they immediately became the best team in the league after being one of the worst.

                            Miami - different than Boston because it involved FA, but like Boston they were a brand new team and you could certainly quantify the extreme differences Lebron and Bosh made. They went from first round out to making the Finals.

                            How much is Durant gonna improve GS from a results perspective? They gonna win 74 games instead of 73? They gonna go to the Finals? Well they've done that twice. They gonna win a ring? They've done that too. What makes Durant's decision so lame (other than the fact that he cowered at the challenge of taking his great OKC team to the top) is that anything they accomplish with him could have been accomplished without him because the team was already so great. Boston wouldn't have won a title without KG and Allen. Miami wouldn't have won without Lebron and Bosh. GS has won it all without Durant and easily could have again.

                            ****yeah yeah, he's his own man, yada yada yada

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              They gonna win a ring? They've done that too. What makes Durant's decision so lame (other than the fact that he cowered at the challenge of taking his great OKC team to the top) is that anything they accomplish with him could have been accomplished without him because the team was already so great. Boston wouldn't have won a title without KG and Allen. Miami wouldn't have won without Lebron and Bosh. GS has won it all without Durant and easily could have again.
                              And yet he should have the choice to do that if he wants.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                                I can tell you that I don't look forward to seeing another Warriors / Cavs NBA Finals for the next 2 to 3 seasons. That's my perception of what has happened to the NBA...mainly because the Warriors have become the Joneses' and Teams are either copying them and/or the rules make it easier for such Small ball Teams to succeed.

                                I want variety....not the same old s*** of jacking up 3s and playing ultra-small ball where Lebron is the biggest Player on the court in a Lebron/Curry NBA finals.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X