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

how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

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

  • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

    From the first link (I remember reading this artcile way back when FYI.)

    Crawford also called a technical in a recent game against Duncan, who said Sunday that Crawford has a "personal vendetta against me."

    Is that not a form of a bias? Or is Duncan just imagining things?

    Comment


    • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      In any endeavor involving subjectivity it is impossible to completely eliminate bias. The league's job is to correct/punish egregious examples and reward those who minimize it.
      Would you say Joey is rewarded or punished?

      I think he's rewarded, considering he does NBA Finals games......
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Would you say Joey is rewarded or punished?

        I think he's rewarded, considering he does NBA Finals games......
        He must score very well

        Comment


        • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

          New York was 57-25 that season and a legitimate title contender. A Knicks' victory would have set up a New York-Chicago conference final, a ratings dream between storied rivals, in the No. 1 and No. 3 markets in the country. The league destroyed that potential matchup with one ruling from Rod Thorn, then the league's vice president of operations. It followed the letter of its law, right or wrong.

          The next day, "I had 350 voice mails," recalled Thorn, now the president of the Nets, and he knew it was 350 because his answering machine cut off. "Three hundred forty-two of them were negative, and around 10 of them I had to give to Horace Balmer (then the league's director of security). You know, 'I know where you live, and I will shoot you' ... People were enraged."

          In 2007, the NBA suspended Phoenix Suns Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw one game each for coming off the bench during an altercation between the Spurs' Robert Horry and the Suns' Steve Nash in the waning seconds of Phoenix's Game 4 victory in the Western Conference semis that tied the series at 2-2. In doing so, the league severely hurt the NBA's most exciting, fan-friendly team.

          Fans loved the Suns' fast-break style and their telegenic stars, including Nash, the two-time league MVP. Phoenix is a much larger media market than San Antonio -- 12th highest in the country, compared to San Antonio's 37th-highest, according to Nielsen numbers for 2007-08. (Indeed, among NBA media markets, only Memphis, 47th in the United States, and New Orleans, 53rd, are smaller than San Antonio).

          The Spurs, as I've explained before, are ratings killers, having participated in three of the four lowest-rated Finals in history. Their superstar, Tim Duncan, says next to nothing to the media and doesn't have annual postseason ad campaigns from the shoe companies that could potentially boost his Q ratings.

          Horry got a two-game suspension for pushing Nash and then shoving Phoenix guard Raja Bell, but that was a trade the Spurs would take every time. San Antonio went on to win the pivotal Game 5 over the Stoudemire/Diaw-less Suns, and took the series. Phoenix fans, players and team officials howled at what they believed was biased treatment in San Antonio's favor -- and they've never really moved past it. That was Phoenix's last, best chance to win a championship.

          This wasn't a bang-bang call by a referee. This was the NBA deliberately stepping in, knowing it was going to change the tenor of the series, and doing harm to the aspirations of the league's most popular team. Surely, if the league was attempting to nudge the more popular Suns toward the Finals, and a date with LeBron's Cavs, it would have overlooked Stoudemire's size 17s taking a few non-threatening steps toward the fray. It would have made up some explanation that would have kept Phoenix's dominant forward on the court for Game 5 -- the winner of which, when an NBA series is tied 2-2, goes on to win that series 83 percent of the time. But it didn't. It made a very, very unpopular call that led to near-overwhelming criticism from local and national media.
          http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...fs1/index.html

          Interestingly enough Stern has the final word in this article

          "We have a league where Chicago hasn't been successful, New York hasn't been successful recently," Stern said. "San Antonio has. Detroit has. It's a great league. But at some point we have to just keep pushing and eliminate the crackpot ideas, even if they're somewhat conveniently embraced by some people at the margin."

          Comment


          • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Would you say Joey is rewarded or punished?

            I think he's rewarded, considering he does NBA Finals games......
            Ahh. So the public suspension wasn't enough? Or do you have evidence of later transgressions from Joey that should have been punished? Or do you believe that it's kind of a "you're fired" thing, considering all those young, experienced, and skilled NBA referees clamoring to take over?

            You can be punished AND rewarded over the course of a career. Happens to lots of people who both make mistakes sometimes AND manage to do a good job at other times.
            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


            • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              He must score very well
              Or his partners must just suck even worse.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                what raises my eyebrows is the fact that the sexier team seems to always be getting these favorable calls.

                Chicago is getting a push big time from the media to be title contenders like the Jordan Bulls. The Pacers don't belong in the playoffs in some people's eyes with the below 500 record.

                OKC is also being marketed as young title challengers. Denver just isn't a big draw without Carmello.

                Miami would be a huge ratings draw if they advance in the playoffs. Philly doesn't have any marketable superstars.

                Boston is somehow sexier than New York even though NYC is a bigger market. Ratings would favor the Celtics nationally i think.

                Why can't the less sexy team get calls ever?
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Ahh. So the public suspension wasn't enough? Or do you have evidence of later transgressions from Joey that should have been punished? Or do you believe that it's kind of a "you're fired" thing, considering all those young, experienced, and skilled NBA referees clamoring to take over?
                  Stern himself said Joey had prior incidents. Incidents he was never punished for, for all we know.

                  What else do I need to say? He should have been fired if that was a habit, rather than an isolated incident.

                  So now the argument is going to be that there will be worse officials if the NBA fires experienced ones over incidents like Joey had with Tim?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  You can be punished AND rewarded over the course of a career. Happens to lots of people who both make mistakes sometimes AND manage to do a good job at other times.
                  I know. I never said you couldn't.

                  I said that if Joey is a top 5 ref, considering his personal vendetta against players and coaches then that's not a very good review of the other referees. That means his transgressions aren't as often, or aren't as serious as his co-workers.

                  Do you think Joey is a POSITIVE story for referee's and should be used as an example on how they should officiate? I sure as hell don't.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Stern himself said Joey had prior incidents. Incidents he was never punished for, for all we know.

                    What else do I need to say? He should have been fired if that was a habit, rather than an isolated incident.
                    Or the prior incidents were minimal but were enough to stack together and make the punishment for this one a suspension.

                    Not all mistakes are of the same egregious nature, nor do they necessarily deserve the same level of punishment until taken as a whole.

                    I will go so far as to say, however, that IF the league were to simply publicize those mistakes and their punishments as they happened, we wouldn't be having this discussion. For instance, how do we know he wasn't fined or even given shorter, unpublicized, suspensions for his previous transgressions? That's my reason for advocating transparency.

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I said that if Joey is a top 5 ref, considering his personal vendetta against players and coaches then that's not a very good review of the other referees. That means his transgressions aren't as often, or aren't as serious as his co-workers.
                    Why? If he overcomes his supposed vendetta nearly all of the time and his work on the floor during those periods is cited as good by all observers internally and externally, what makes it impossible for him to be a good ref? The fact that he isn't perfect?

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Do you think Joey is a POSITIVE story for referee's and should be used as an example on how they should officiate? I sure as hell don't.
                    I think almost all of his work on the floor IS a positive story, and I think his mistakes (and punishment for them) offer an object lesson as well.

                    Within the bounds of human fallibility, I think he is a good referee.
                    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


                    • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                      Seeing as how bad the officiating was for the Heat game, I feel its appropriate to bump this thread. Ironically, when I first started this thread, it was after a Heat game last season
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                        It was one of the better officiated games so during these playoffs.

                        If the Pacers don't want to get called for so many fouls, they shouldn't foul so much.

                        Comment


                        • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          It was one of the better officiated games so during these playoffs.

                          If the Pacers don't want to get called for so many fouls, they shouldn't foul so much.
                          No. Wade initiates contact, and the refs bail him out. Wade, Rose, and Paul Pierce make me sick with their cheap foul calls.
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                            Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                            I would be willing to wager that I've seen more NBA games than almost any of you, and of this I am certain: I have never...and I mean NEVER...seen a game decided by the officials.
                            Either you didn't watch game 6 of the Kings and Lakers or I could sell you sand while you're stranded in the desert

                            The Lakers attempted 40 free throws to the Kings' 25 in that game, and Los Angeles made 21 of 27 from the line while Sacramento converted 7 of 9 in the fourth quarter alone. Lakers won 106-102 to force game 7.

                            You're telling me the officials didn't decide that game? They put the Lakers on the line for 27 free throws in the 4th quarter and the Lakers only won by 4. Kings win that game easy if not for the officials.
                            "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                            Comment


                            • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                              No. Wade initiates contact, and the refs bail him out. Wade, Rose, and Paul Pierce make me sick with their cheap foul calls.
                              Exactly. He initiates contact by driving the ball to the basket, and forcing a defender to either take him on or give him a layup. Nearly every time the defender takes him on, he fouls him. Does he get bailed out? Maybe once a game. The other half dozen times, he's getting fouled.

                              It's good offense, because it works. The Pacers' wings could learn a thing or two from those guys.

                              Comment


                              • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                                Exactly. He initiates contact by driving the ball to the basket, and forcing a defender to either take him on or give him a layup. Nearly every time the defender takes him on, he fouls him. Does he get bailed out? Maybe once a game. The other half dozen times, he's getting fouled.

                                It's good offense, because it works. The Pacers' wings could learn a thing or two from those guys.
                                Paul George could really learn something about taking it strong to the hoop.
                                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X