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

Rules changes?

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

  • #31
    Re: Rules changes?

    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
    I hate how guys like Pierce can get to the foul line just by throwing themselves in a crowd and flopping their arms. I like guys who draw fouls by putting the defender in a position where he has to foul to stop the basket.
    The sentiment is probably universal. But how would you change it?

    Would it help to have 4 refs on the floor? Is the solution calling fewer fouls and letting the offensive players learn not to waste possessions?
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Rules changes?

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
      The sentiment is probably universal. But how would you change it?

      Would it help to have 4 refs on the floor? Is the solution calling fewer fouls and letting the offensive players learn not to waste possessions?
      I don't think a rule change is necessary to address this. I think it's just up to the referees to say, "Lowering your head and plowing towards the basket isn't enough." I'd be looking for him to make a more direct attempt at a layup or close jumper before I just bail him out. And of course I'd want to actually see him get slapped or whatnot.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Rules changes?

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        Do you have any suggestions for rules changes that would make NBA basketball better? Here's a few specific questions:


        1. Is NBA basketball a contact sport or a collision sport? What should it be?

        Basketball was conceived as a strict non-contact sport. Over time it changed to allow some touching and leverage -- making it a contact sport. But today the NBA allows so much contact that it is almost a collision sport. If you think it is currently on the wrong side of that divide, what rules changes could help?
        The way I like the game to be called is an issue verticality. Every player has a right to a vertical plane. As he moves, the space he takes up moves with him. There will be times when one plane intersects and bumps up to another. The one who initiates an amount of contact which displaces or impedes the player from his plane should get the foul.

        In other words, if I'm checking you and you're stationary, it's not a foul. If you start to move, and I reach through to make enough contact to impede your progress, it should be a foul. This isn't to suggest it still isn't an exercise of subjectivity on the part of the official, but I grow tired of hearing fans (as a coach) scream, "He's touching him!!"

        Hell, I'm yelling at my guys to touch him! Of course he's touching him.

        This certainly extends into other situations, such as off the ball positioning, taking a charge, rebounding, and screening. It's not just about contact. It's about displacement and advantage.


        2. What rules changes would make NBA basktball easier to officiate?

        This question relates to the Doneghy scandal. Some people believe that, though it cannot be proven, the NBA is clean except for one or a few rogue refs who get caught. Others believe that, though it cannot be proven, the NBA is rotten.

        The problem is not just Donaghy, but the fact that good officiating "cannot be proven." No doubt a lot of fans are ignorant, and some of us (me, particularly) can't see the quick action clearly enough to second guess the refs. But even a very thorough and expert assessment like that presented by 82games.com (link below) finds a significant number of "bad" calls, leaving fans to dispute whether they were deliberate cheats or just mistakes because the ref saw the action from a bad angle.

        http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm

        The way to break this knot is to make the game more black and white. For the sake of its reputation, the NBA needs to allow fewer situations where the right call is unclear. How can this be done without harming the game?
        NBA officials do the best job of calling verticality. There is a lot of common sense in it. I love the half circle in the lane. I wish that would trickle down. I also love how they will call a player going in for a layup for clearing out. That is rarely called at the college level, let alone the HS level.

        I'd like to see uniformity in "continuation". The general rule is if the player is into his shot, including picking up his dribble as the foul is called, the basket should count. I hate the NBA crap. I also hate to see a player travel through continuation and have it count.

        I'd like to see a yearly emphasis on traveling and palming. Most people don't really know those rules, though, but it would still be good to have it strictly enforced. It's not a travel until you pick up AND put down your pivot. A jump stop is allowed if it's six inches or six feet. It's not a palm unless you put your palm underneath the ball or bring it to a stop with your hand elsewhere. In other words, it's not a palm if your hand is on the side of it.



        3. How about raising the rim to 12 feet?

        I'm just asking!

        Raising the rim might shift the game from pure athleticism, back to skill and
        team play. Would you welcome that? Rick Carlisle has suggested raising the rim, so it isn't a totally loopy idea.

        This thread, as ChicagoJ would say, "is built for the off-season." This is the lowest time of year, so it is an opportunity to think outside the box. Many people hate the idea of any change. But the game we enjoy has changed a lot from Dr. Naismith's peach basket game, and there's no saying that the time for changes has ceased.

        Final word: We've discussed many ideas affecting the fan experience (parking, food, sound effects, etc.) in other threads. For this thread, please stick to the game itself as it happens on the floor.
        No thanks.
        Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Rules changes?

          If the offensive player lowers his head and bullies his way in there, call the offensive foul, (and make it count double )

          These are the greatest athletes in the world because they can adapt to however the officials call the game. Clearly some players are better with less contact (think: Reggie) and some players are only in the league because they make contact (think: Dale). But Dale could set clean screens and use legal blockout techniques. And Reggie wasn't afraid of contact.

          But they can and will adapt, so I think its bogus to say that calling a moving screen consistently will impact the pace of the game. Its the occasional inconsistent offical that hurts the pace of the game. The players (and coaches) will attempt to exploit every possible advantage. As they should. Its up to the officials to properly protect the rules of the game of basketball.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Rules changes?

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            The sentiment is probably universal. But how would you change it?

            Would it help to have 4 refs on the floor? Is the solution calling fewer fouls and letting the offensive players learn not to waste possessions?
            See that goes back to my first post in this thread, about having refs who have the ability to work a game. Just because Pierce jumps into his defender who is also in the air - that doesn't mean there has to be a foul called. seems like now if the defneder is off his feet, the offensive player can do almost anything. A lot of situations cannot be reffed by the book.

            That reminds me of a book I read, I believe by Terry Pluto - probably came out in the mid 90's and there was a really good chapter about the refs. I am going to try and dig that out

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Rules changes?

              UB, that's Falling from Grace.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Rules changes?

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                Um, that's exactly what it is. It IS giving leeway over the Matt Harprings of the NBA just because they make it look "pretty."
                My point is that it isn't the proverbial "superstar favoritism" that everybody harps about constantly. The point was that the officials often legitimately don't even notice when LeBron and Flash travel because it looks like such a natural and fluid move that their eyes don't register any advantage gained by the extra step -- it just appears to be a very nice move in the confines of rules.

                So, yes, it's unfortunate that Matt Harpring cannot benefit from the same phenomenon, but it's not because others are getting "leeway"...It's because of a ceiling on the optical processing capability of referees. They simply cannot retinally process a rapid DWade spin move and watch to recognize when the final dribble has finished and then also follow his foot as it steps, lands and pivots all within a split second to determine whether or not the pivot foot remained completely stationary or whether he dragged it two-three inches.

                Harpring just can't move that fast. When he walks, it's called because it looks like an awkward, non-traditional basketball move. But Flash and Bron have such nimbly bimbly catlike foot control that they can make awkward, spinning three step, double jump stop moves look so fluid and normal that there is no red flag of "hey, that looked sort of weird and unusual" registered by the official. And unless Stern can find some refs with X-Men-style, mutation enhanced sight capabilities, they are all goingg to have a hard time making those judgement calls more accurately.
                Last edited by JayRedd; 08-04-2008, 02:58 PM.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Rules changes?

                  Then how can 12,000 fans at the arena see the travel and groan in unison?

                  When a Pacers player would travel without being called for it, the folks in my section of the Arena would always say, "Hey, we just away with one."

                  I don't think our section of the Arena was especially unique or gifted. But if so, then that is where Stern should start his search.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Rules changes?

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    UB, that's Falling from Grace.
                    That is it, I think it is at my dads house - I'l look for it this weekend.

                    I used to read a lot of books on the NBA, but it doesn't seem like there are as many -or maybe I just need to get to the bookstore more often

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Rules changes?

                      They simply cannot retinally process a rapid DWade spin move and watch to recognize when the final dribble has finished and then also follow his foot as it steps, lands and pivots all within a split second to determine whether or not the pivot foot remained completely stationary or whether he dragged it two-three inches.

                      Ya know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any ****-******* ******* write a sentence.





                      .
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Rules changes?

                        My changes are monumental:

                        - Expand to 32 teams with 4 teams in 4 divisions per conference. 16 teams get into the playoffs, division winners are guaranteed playoff spots, other 4 spots determined by record. Seattle and Vegas are easy sells, but the teams should go to whomever can guarantee financial losses for up to 10 seasons. No more Hornets fiascos, please.

                        - Shorten season to 80 games a season. in the 32 team format I just described, this is easy.

                        Each team plays teams in their own division 4 times.
                        3 other teams in the division x 4 games = 12 games.

                        Each team plays teams in their own conference (but outside the division) 3 times.
                        12 other teams in the conference x 3 games = 36 games.

                        Each team plays teams in the other conference twice.
                        16 teams in other conference x 2 games = 32 games.

                        32+36+12= 80 games


                        - The Finals Format is beyond ridiculous. Change it to 2/2/1/1/1

                        - No more than one day off in the middle of a series, no more than 2 days off between series.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Rules changes?

                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          Expand to 32 teams with 4 teams in 4 divisions per conference.
                          Really? I would like to see the League lose four teams as it is.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Rules changes?

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                            Really? I would like to see the League lose four teams as it is.
                            For several years, I've been advocating going back to 23 teams, though I'm quieter about it these days.

                            I used to say the six teams to go would be Atlanta, LA Clippers, NO Hornets, Toronto, Minnesota, and Golden State...but that list probably wouldn't fly now.

                            Teams wax and wane. The problem is now that any discussion of retraction would probably include the Pacers being one of the teams axed.

                            Objectively, 30 teams is too many, however I don't particularly want to see the Pacers folded.

                            I do think Atlanta, Memphis, and the Clippers would probably be tops on the list for franchises to fold. I'd also keep the Hornets there because I simply don't see New Orleans as a viable longterm basketball city.

                            I just hate getting too close to the subject because it's pretty hard to keep Indy off that list.

                            (I am 100% opposed to any additional expansion, particularly to Europe, which promises to be a logistical nightmare with dubious return.)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Rules changes?

                              The reason 32 works for me is that I like the format of the NFL divisions.

                              I guess it all depends on what you want the league to be: More exclusive or less?

                              To this day, it remains the most difficult league to break the seal and win a first championship in. Spreading out the talent and reducing the power of free agents to go to teams with more money would go a long way to making a better league. As such, there's no discernible difference between 30 and 32, other than the math works out a whole lot better with 32.
                              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Rules changes?

                                It still means two dozen more players would be needed in a league where there aren't even 360 qualified players to fill the current demand.

                                You cut it back down to 26 or 24 and you only need the best 288 players to fill out all the 12 man rosters.

                                Bye bye Anthony Johnson, Jerome James, Sean Marks, Lorenzen Wright and Mark Madsen...Hello more teams that, instead of blowing $10 million of their fleeting cap room on Corey Maggette level-talent, have a rotation with five or six legitimately talented players.
                                Read my Pacers blog:
                                8points9seconds.com

                                Follow my twitter:

                                @8pts9secs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X