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

  • #46
    Re: Rules changes?

    Whoa - waitaminute!

    Every single sport has it's benchwarmers. What's wrong with developing talent or being an average player with a niche?

    If talent were such an issue, then the NCAA wouldn't have any fans. The problem here is competitiveness. Changing the number of teams would not balance the competitiveness of the league given current rules regarding free agency. The same teams will continue to attract the top free agents, free agents will continue to flood over to one team all at once to chase rings.

    That would happen even if there were only 8 teams.
    “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


    • #47
      Re: Rules changes?

      Obviously, there can only be five guys on the court for a team at any given time. And obviously, Playoff rotations still wouldn't be much longer than 8-9 guys.

      But, with fewer players, the talent level of Guy #8 and Guy #9 is significantly greater. So instead of seeing guys like Damon Stoudamire, Theo Ratliff and Devin Brown getting burn in the Playoffs, we get to see much more talented players fill those roles. And that elevates the overall level of play in the League.

      With fewer teams, guys like Mo Pete and Luis Scola wouldn't be starters on some of the best teams in the League. Guys like Joe Johnson and Ryan Gomes from the contracted Hawks and TWolves would have those spots and the level of play would go from very, very high to off-the-fricking-charts.

      As for the 8-team League idea, that would be amazing. If guys like Jamal Crawford and LaMarcus Aldridge were struggling to even make the League, just imagine how great it would be to watch a team of LeBron, Timmy, Boozer, Michael Redd and Andre Miller go toe to toe in the Finals with a squad of Kobe, KG, Chris Kaman, Caron Butler and Deron Williams?

      I'm not saying either a 24-team league or an 8-team league would spread out the titles any more (I honestly don't think that's possible given that the top 5% of basketball players are soooo much better than the rest). But it would definitely make for better games.
      Last edited by JayRedd; 08-04-2008, 05:18 PM.
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Rules changes?

        Maybe they could all lose to Argentina?
        “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


        • #49
          Re: Rules changes?

          How about more teams and two European-style divisions based on record?

          You win and you move up to the top division, from which the playoffs and the championship come.

          You lose and you're relegated to the second division. Win in the second division and you get to move up.

          Makes the regular season a bit more important if your record keeps you in the "major" league.

          Solves the problem of the "Leastern" conference.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Rules changes?

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            How about more teams and two European-style divisions based on record?

            You win and you move up to the top division, from which the playoffs and the championship come.

            You lose and you're relegated to the second division. Win in the second division and you get to move up.

            Makes the regular season a bit more important if your record keeps you in the "major" league.

            Solves the problem of the "Leastern" conference.
            I actually love that idea.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Rules changes?

              Originally posted by Jim R View Post
              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.
              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              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.
              I think Bill's verticality rule should also be applied to guys that bite on pump fakes or jump to defend in the post. Just because a guy goes straight up should not give the offensive player the right to move or jump into him and draw a foul. He still "Owns" that space. If He jumps into the offensive players space and hits him or brings his arms down into him, fine then it is a def. foul. Burt, If he goes straight up and the off. player moves into him it should be an offensive foul. The refs call it the other way too often for my taste.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Rules changes?

                Agreed.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Rules changes?

                  If I was elected NBA Czar these are the first things I'd do:

                  Inform the refs I wanted each game called consistently and by the rulebook. What gets a rookie a foul or other call should be no different than a team's superstar. No playing favorites with the whistle.

                  Become more publicly accessible and open on ref criticisms and hand down meaningful resolutions to those that don't meet the grade. I'm looking at you Violet Palmer.

                  Do away with guaranteed contracts yesterday. I'm fine with the first year being guaranteed, and I'm fine with each successive year independently becoming guaranteed by a certain point in each offseason. But no contract should be guaranteed past 1 year at a time. ...especially at the salaries NBA players are getting. Get the salaries under control.

                  Shorten the season. The season is too long (too many games). The games would take on more importance if there were fewer of them. If that means rotating home and away games with the other conference over the course of two years, so be it.

                  Mandate lower ticket prices throughout the arenas (Not just nosebleed seats). Then start working toward lowering salaries to something based on the reality of ticket sales and the fewer games. Players can make their 'big $ kills' through endorsements... or not at all.

                  Consider various ideas to create a climate where players go to college and STAY longer... or go to the NBDL. Implement a system where the time spent in college affects your salary and/or length of contract (with the contract being TEAM options each season). You jump early to the NBA and the team you go to will hold your rights a lot longer than a 4 year player... and at less money per year in my way of thinking... and all with team options so that if you don't live up to potential or decide to put more time into partying than practicing, you can be cut.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Rules changes?

                    Originally posted by BBall
                    Do away with guaranteed contracts yesterday. I'm fine with the first year being guaranteed, and I'm fine with each successive year independently becoming guaranteed by a certain point in each offseason.

                    How about if teams were allowed to guarantee a player's contract, but not required to by the CBA?
                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: Rules changes?

                      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                      How about if teams were allowed to guarantee a player's contract, but not required to by the CBA?
                      I might eventually give in to that but not easily. I'd look at it the same as the situation with the HS'ers going straight to the pros- Too many teams wouldn't be able to keep their hands out of the cookie jar.

                      If teams were allowed to guarantee the contracts there'd be the potential for players to holdout for that guaranteed contract... and there would be (too much) pressure on GM's to offer that guaranteed contract as sweetener in the deals they were offering.

                      I'd rather just do away with the guaranteed contracts entirely (except let them be guaranteed for 1 year at a time as I explained in the other post). I feel strongly enough about this issue of doing away with guaranteed contracts that I would totally support management/NBA if there was a lockout over this issue.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Rules changes?

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        How about if teams were allowed to guarantee a player's contract, but not required to by the CBA?
                        I'm torn here. The players have some leverage IF the guaranteed contract is available, period. And I think the contracts should be guaranteed against a career-ending injury. But the entitlement that comes with the guaranteed contracts is a real problem for the NBA.


                        Here's the thread I started two summers ago on this topic:

                        http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ad.php?t=24709
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: Rules changes?

                          Rather than getting rid of guaranteed contract, which is a laudible goal, but probably not practical, I'd settle for the current 5- and 6-year maxes to be lowered to 3- and 4-year.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Rules changes?

                            I stand by what I said two summers ago, nonguaranteed contracts would encourage selfish play

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Rules changes?

                              And guaranteed contracts encourage lazy players.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Re: Rules changes?

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I stand by what I said two summers ago, nonguaranteed contracts would encourage selfish play

                                And I stand by my reply to that. Even if it did initially create selfish players it would quickly self correct. The power that non-guaranteed contracts would give to coaching and management would quickly negate the issue of selfish play. You play selfishly, you get cut. It's as simple as that.

                                Players would quickly learn that they need to do what the coach is asking or their NBA career will be short.

                                If anything, this would put a premium on players that are coachable and perform well in a team environment. That is a good thing (for the health of the game and the league)!

                                -Bball
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X