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

  • #91
    Re: Cheating

    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

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Cheating

      Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
      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 think that one is fairly simple to answer: The calls that get remembered are the ones that frustrate fans when they are already in an emotional state because of their emotional investment in the game. That "burns" the call into memory, whereas a bad call in favor of a fan's team or player will be quickly forgotten because there is little to no emotion associated with it.

      Comment


      • #93
        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
        All calls that come our way are payback for the Larry Johnson incident.

        Actually, although I will admit the blatant calls in our favor, I'm not claiming to be objective. I will let the opposing fans take issue with those calls. I will celebrate the hand-outs just as much as wins the team earns entirely on its own.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Cheating

          This topic seems to come up at least once or twice a season, and I could not agree with Shade anymore.

          As for your question Mr.Boyle, I think the obvious answer is because we are Pacers fans and we are not going to be frustrated by the obvious calls we get.

          Now I for one have no problem admitting all the phantom calls we have gotten (Reggie Miller anyone?) but at the same time, I will NEVER forget the Larry Johnson call. I had just started following the NBA at that time.

          As Shade said earlier, and I certainilly respect your opinion and the fact you probably will not come out and say "I think this league is rigged" that Kings-Lakers series was one of those series where EVERYONE was talking about the officiating.

          I will admit I was rooting for the Kings at the time, and the Kings still could have won that series (has there been a choke job then game 7 of that series?) but if you can honestly look at a series like that and tell me you dont see anything "suspicious" to say the least, then I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

          Oh, and for the record, I say we blame all of this on David Stern Of course I am kidding. Maybe.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Cheating

            Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
            Roferr,

            No offense taken. I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't seen any games that weren't impacted by officiating. Every game has that element to it, but I stand by my statement that I've never seen a game decided by the officials.

            Ever. And I've seen the majority of those 1600+ games from courtside, which offers a pretty clear observation point.

            MJB
            I must admit that you get an entirely different perspective watching a game live. You see things that aren't apparent on TV. On the other hand, if replays are shown (somehow they seem to be very selective, especially on a national broadcast), you can get a second or third chance at it.
            .

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Cheating

              [QUOTE=Naptown_Seth;527745]Have the nads? Um, was it Rick who chased down Al? He's the second highest paid player and one of the bigger front line guys.
              __________________________________________________-


              Regardless, RC is in control. He could have subbed for Al, especially when even the average fan could see that he just wasn't getting it done.
              .

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Cheating

                All,

                The emotional investment does create a skewed viewpoint. And while I don't argue that the Kings-Lakers series to which many refer had an abundance of curious calls, how come nobody ever mentions the blatant meving pick that allowed Bibby to get off the game winning shot in Game #5?

                Could it be because that doesn't fit into the theory that the NBA wanted the Lakers in the next round?

                MJB

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Cheating

                  Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                  Dude (and others),

                  I'm always amused by the outrage directed at the officiating in a game like the one we saw last night. I've seen over 1,600 games since I've been with the Pacers, and I've yet to see the first one where the outcome was determined by officiating.

                  Was the officiating below average last night? Yes. Did it cost the Pacers the game? No. The Pacers shot more free throws than Dallas did, and the Mavs lost two players via DQ to Indiana's one (and that came with :02 left in OT). There's no question that some cricial calls that went against the Pacers were incorrect, but officiating was down the list as far as criteria for determing the outcome of this one was concerned.

                  And, Dude, for what it's worth, I wouldn't have called a foul on Granger's put back at the end of regulation, either. To suggest that only a die hard Mavs fan would see it any other way than the way you saw it is, it seems to me, a tad myopic.

                  MJB
                  I agree with you that the officials did not cause the Pacers to lose last night's game against Dallas. The Pacers just plain out didn't finish off the Mav's when they had them on the ropes. This team for some reason doesn't have that killer instinct, that the all good teams have and need to have to make it to the top. I believe that their problem is more mental than physical in letting close games get away from them, and in my mind that is a much more difficult problem to solve.

                  Now, I do disagree with you somewhat on your point that you have never seen a Pacer game that the officiating determined the outcome. Technically, you are correct, however how can anyone not recall the days of MJ and the Bulls? Did one call in those games cost the Pacers the game, no, however the officials set the tone of those games and it was the totality of the game calls that indeed affect the outcome of those games.
                  Rik Smits was effectivelly taken out of those games by the way the officals called those games with the Bulls and that did affect the outcome.

                  I do believe that in most games the calls average out, but that is not the whole story. Officials can by calling a game close or by letting them play, leverage a game to either help or hurt a team.

                  Bottom line, I believe that officals take their cues from the players, play like a winner and you usually will catch the breaks. IMO

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Cheating

                    Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                    All,

                    The emotional investment does create a skewed viewpoint. And while I don't argue that the Kings-Lakers series to which many refer had an abundance of curious calls, how come nobody ever mentions the blatant meving pick that allowed Bibby to get off the game winning shot in Game #5?

                    Could it be because that doesn't fit into the theory that the NBA wanted the Lakers in the next round?

                    MJB
                    I have to admit I followed that series really closely (that was the series that made me a huge Mike Bibby fan, boy did he ever pull a "Croshere") but I have to admit I do not remember that play at all. I am going to have to go see if it's on youtube.

                    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
                      Or certain "no calls"...two of Reggie's most famous shots involve him pushing off a defender...and one of those defenders was a guy named Michael Jordan.

                      When you're playing against a stacked deck, compete even harder. Show the world how much you'll fight for the winners circle. If you do, someday the cellophane will crackle off a fresh pack, one that belongs to you, and the cards will be stacked in your favor.
                      -Pat Riley

                      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
                        Oh, we've gotten the benefit of some calls, no doubt.

                        Reggie's banked in 3-pointer over NJ after the buzzer in '02.
                        Reggie's push off of Jordan for the game winner in '98.
                        Reggie's push off of Starks for the game winner in '95.

                        But all those teams were evil, so it's all good.

                        I won't deny the Pacers get some calls, but reaming a team with blatantly bad phantom/missed calls over and over and over again over the course of a game is completely unacceptable.

                        The refs can't give a team every call, but they can give them an unhealthy advantage/disadvantage due to a barrage of bad ones. My emphasis goes beyond simple missed calls, and is more focused on the ones that are blatantly biased.

                        One example would be Dwayne Wade. How many phantom calls did the Heat get in their favor during last season's playoffs due to Wade, especially in the Finals? That's completely unfair, and you can't convince me all of those were simply "missed calls." If the game is moving that fast for them, then we need more refs on the floor.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Cheating

                          Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                          Roferr,

                          No offense taken. I didn't mean to imply that I hadn't seen any games that weren't impacted by officiating. Every game has that element to it, but I stand by my statement that I've never seen a game decided by the officials.

                          Ever. And I've seen the majority of those 1600+ games from courtside, which offers a pretty clear observation point.

                          MJB
                          I find that to be an incredible asertion from someone who has been at courtside for 1600 games. The difference between impacted and decided certainly seems very fuzzy to me. A guy getting two or three quick fouls so he sits out a half doesn't ever decide a game only impacts it? A star getting all the "fouls" only impacts a game. A rookie getting ridiculous fouls in just a few minutes only impacts? I guess impacts and decides is in the mind of the beholder.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Cheating

                            Speaskout,

                            The examples you cite would certainly have an impact on a game. However, why do you assume (to use your example) that a player picking up 2-3 quick fouls is necessarily attributable to an officials decision? Is it not possible that the player actually committed those fouls and has, through his own actions, rendered himself unavailable?

                            MJB

                            Comment


                            • Re: Cheating

                              Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                              Speaskout,

                              The examples you cite would certainly have an impact on a game. However, why do you assume (to use your example) that a player picking up 2-3 quick fouls is necessarily attributable to an officials decision? Is it not possible that the player actually committed those fouls and has, through his own actions, rendered himself unavailable?

                              MJB
                              Sometimes refs set a tone and call a couple of quick fouls to make a point. So the example is justified even if the offender has committed very tick-tack fouls. A foul isn't always a foul. It depends on the ref, his mood, the particular quarter, what he saw or didn't see, etc. You ever see a ref ask another ref his opinion on a call? You'll see that maybe once a year. You ever see a ref try to over rule another ref becasue he had a better view? Only in football do they really try to get it right. The umpires, linesmen, ref actually talk to each other.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Cheating

                                Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                                Speaskout,

                                The examples you cite would certainly have an impact on a game. However, why do you assume (to use your example) that a player picking up 2-3 quick fouls is necessarily attributable to an officials decision? Is it not possible that the player actually committed those fouls and has, through his own actions, rendered himself unavailable?

                                MJB
                                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.
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X