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

ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

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

  • #61
    Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    Ya know tonight is probably not the best night to be saying how bad the Grizzlies are.

    If one team looked like it needed to be contracted and the other team did not I can safely say that the Grizzlies were not the team looking like they were giving the fans their money's worth.
    15 years in the league and they haven't won a single playoff game. Not playoff series, but playoff GAME.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
      Considering he's played basketball almost his entire life, nearly a decade professionally at the highest level on earth, I'd say he probably knows a lot about the league. Certainly more than a bunch of guys on an internet message board (me included).

      The idea of contraction has about 1% to do with the on-court product and 99% with money, IYAM. And I wouldn't call it a stretch to say that there are people on the internet (and probably this board) that understand business and accounting a lot better than LeBron. Maybe not me, but I am still definitely free to completely disagree with everything he says. And I do.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

        I doubt the league will contract any team. 30 is a good number with 15 in each conference.

        If anything, teams who struggle financially and have a lack of support with probably move to another city.

        There's really only 2 teams who are in danger of leaving and that's the Hornets and Kings. Other than that, everyone else seems fine with where they are.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

          If you had to cut 10 teams from the NBA, who would they be?

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            If you had to cut 10 teams from the NBA, who would they be?
            How would the NBA pay all thoes owners of the 10 teams for cutting the team??

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

              It's just a hypothetical.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                I'm not going purely on W-L records, previous championships, current rosters, etc.

                MEM
                SAC
                MIA
                DET
                CHA
                TOR
                NOH

                Those are the only few I could think of.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  Yep.

                  For his own personal sake as a member of the NBA Players' Union, he shouldn't be opening his mouth about this subject because he basically said he wanted to cut jobs. He's basically advocating layoffs some of his fellow players. That's not a good thing for any player to say.

                  But from the standoint of truth, he's just speaking from experience: He plays against the San Antonio Spurs one night and the Memphis Grizzlies on another night. I'd say he's qualified to speak about the disparity in talent level between those teams. He's saying that NBA fans probably aren't getting a better product with teams like the Grizzlies in the league, and I'd say those arguments have pretty good merits.
                  Memphis beat Lebron this year at the buzzer.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                    I'm not going purely on W-L records, previous championships, current rosters, etc.

                    MEM
                    SAC
                    MIA
                    DET
                    CHA
                    TOR
                    NOH

                    Those are the only few I could think of.
                    On face value its surprising to see MIA on that list however, for a team who has had alot of success in this decade, they have a very weak fan base, so it actually makes sense.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                      UPDATE: LeBron doesn't even know what the word "contraction" means. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/trueho...ory?id=5960277)
                      MIAMI -- LeBron James welcomes the New Jersey Nets and the Minnesota Timberwolves as part of the NBA, and said that he never intended to advocate contraction in recent comments he made about the league's "watered down" talent level compared to the 1980s.
                      "That's crazy, because I had no idea what the word 'contraction' meant before I saw it on the Internet," James said after the Miami Heat's practice Monday. "I never even mentioned that. That word never even came out of my mouth. I was just saying how the league was back in the '80s and how it could be good again. I never said, 'Let's take some of the teams out.' "
                      James found himself Monday in a position of yet again having to clarify some controversial comments. On Thursday, he told reporters before the Heat's game against the Phoenix Suns that he would like to see more stars playing together instead of them being spread out throughout the league.
                      He also made specific references to the Nets and Timberwolves, including promising forward Kevin Love, in reference to the number of premier players toiling along with struggling teams. James was portrayed in some reports as advocating contraction and the loss of NBA jobs at a time when the league and players' association are haggling over a new collective bargaining agreement.
                      James, who was named Eastern Conference Player of the Week on Monday, said he was speaking only in hypothetical terms when he suggested what it might be like to remove Love, the league's leading rebounder, from the struggling Timberwolves, or to see some of the Nets' better players on teams that could contend for a championship.
                      "Imagine if you could take Kevin Love off Minnesota and add him to another team and you shrink the [league]," James said Thursday. "Looking at some of the teams that aren't that great, you take Brook Lopez or you take Devin Harris off these teams that aren't that good right now and you add him to a team that could be really good. Not saying let's take New Jersey and let's take Minnesota out of the league. But hey, you guys are not stupid, I'm not stupid, it would be great for the league."
                      Several players and league officials fired back in disagreement with James.
                      Nets coach Avery Johnson, who was part of the recruiting contingent that made a failed pitch to James in free agency last summer, also disagreed with James' notion that having a handful of teams loaded with star players would be a good thing for the NBA.
                      "Maybe the league would be better if we didn't have three stars on one team," Johnson said in a veiled reference to the Heat's trio of James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh.
                      "I didn't see his first comment and I didn't see the clarification," Johnson later said. "I just heard about it. I'm not even really interested. Like I said earlier, I think I mentioned it on our conference call [yesterday], it is what it is. I like the league the way it is and we'll keep moving from there."
                      Los Angeles Lakers guard Derek Fisher, president of the players' association, said James' comments were "surprising" but that he did not know if the two-time MVP's stance would "necessarily hurt our case."
                      The Heat (22-9) have won 14 of their past 15 games entering Tuesday's visit from the New York Knicks. Monday was not the first time this season James has come out to clarify previous comments.
                      He revisited comments to CNN about race being a factor in his popularity taking a dip after his free agency decision. James also attempted to clear up critical statements he made about coach Erik Spoelstra having played him too many minutes in a Nov. 11 loss to Boston, the on-court bump between he and Spoelstra on Nov. 27 against Dallas and whether he engaged former Cleveland teammates in friendly banter during a Dec. 2 win against the Cavaliers.
                      James said he was only trying to show support for a time in the 1980s when teams such as the Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, 76ers and Celtics were dominant with star-studded rosters. James said he did not speak with Fisher, nor anyone else from the players' association, about his comments on the Heat's trip to Los Angeles, where they defeated the Lakers on Saturday.
                      "I'm with the players, and the players know that," James said Monday. "I've been with the players. It's not about getting guys out of the league or knocking teams out. I didn't mean to upset nobody. I didn't tell Avery Johnson to leave either. I didn't say let's abandon the Nets, and not let them move to Brooklyn or let's tear down the Target Center in Minnesota. I never said that."
                      First bolded part is his backtracking, second bolded part is his response to this comment by Avery (http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/n...r_espn_5959290):

                      Not only did LeBron James not want to play for the Nets, he also thinks the league could do without the team altogether, and that doesn't sit well with New Jersey coach Avery Johnson.
                      James said Thursday that he'd like to return to the days when teams had three or four stars per squad and that contracting the likes of the Nets and Wolves might be a good start to achieving that.
                      "I disagree," Johnson told reporters Sunday. "Maybe the league would be better if we didn't have three stars on one team."
                      James turned down the Nets, Knicks, Bulls and a host of other interested teams to sign as a free agent with the Heat, which also added Chris Bosh and re-signed Dwyane Wade.
                      "Imagine if you could take Kevin Love off Minnesota and add him to another team and you shrink the [league]," James said Thursday. "Looking at some of the teams that aren't that great, you take Brook Lopez or you take Devin Harris off these teams that aren't that good right now and you add him to a team that could be really good. Not saying let's take New Jersey and let's take Minnesota out of the league. But hey, you guys are not stupid, I'm not stupid, it would be great for the league."
                      Johnson met with James in July during New Jersey's courtship and felt that he took the Nets' interest seriously. The coach said he might discuss James' comments with him the next time the teams meet. The "king" gets a reprieve until April 3 for that to take place.
                      Johnson, meanwhile, is focused on his improving team and the Nets' impending move.
                      "We're going to Brooklyn. We're not going to contract," Johnson told reporters.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                        hornets ---> seattle (key arena - temporarily)
                        kings ---> las vegas (thomas & mack center - temporarily)

                        they need to get the kings out of california 4 teams is too much and the 3 other teams are fine and have support

                        the warriors are moving to san francisco in a new arena in the near future

                        its dumb that the nets are going to ****in brooklyn when they play in the prudential center which is brand new

                        waste of money in my opinion
                        In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                          In the 80s there were great teams, good teams, average teams, bad teams and awful teams - just like now.

                          However, it seems to me that the quality of the average team is higher today.

                          LeBron's point is nonsensical because there was a huge influx of talent since the 80s. The international talent alone - non-existent in the 80s - is enough to build a few quality teams. And there are more and better American players too. The difference is more evident amongst role-players/reserves. Those guys used to be a lot worse than what they are now.

                          As for expansion for financial reasons, I think it's very far from happening when a franchise like New Orleans is sold by $300 million. I also agree with the point speakout made about it's more difficult to attract fanbases from a different geographical area these days. I think that even if the league over-expanded - and I used to believe that was the case but I changed my opinion - it doesn't necessarily mean that contraction is appropriate now.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                            I'm not going purely on W-L records, previous championships, current rosters, etc.

                            MEM
                            SAC
                            MIA
                            DET
                            CHA
                            TOR
                            NOH

                            Those are the only few I could think of.
                            You could add the clippers, warriors and the Twolves and exchange MIA with the Bucks.

                            With all the talk of contraction I want to know what was the last major sport to do it (NFL,NBA,NHL,MLB). I don't think it has ever been done in the modern era of professional sports.
                            Last edited by Gamble1; 12-28-2010, 12:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                              Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                              UPDATE: LeBron doesn't even know what the word "contraction" means. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/trueho...ory?id=5960277)


                              First bolded part is his backtracking, second bolded part is his response to this comment by Avery (http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/n...r_espn_5959290):

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: ESPN: LeBron James discusses contraction

                                You know LeBron I really didn't have an issue with what you said until you made up that BS excuse of not knowing what Contraction means.

                                Really?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X