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

  • #91
    Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

    Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
    People,

    Get a grip. I beseech you.

    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.

    Are there bad calls? Yes. Do they have an impact on a game? Certainly. However, over the course of 48 minutes there are hundreds, or even thousands, of split second officiating decisions made, and on balance they tend to even out in terms of which side they favor.

    MJB
    I agree with you in that I doubt that I've ever seen an NBA game that had officiating that heavily favored one team over another when evaluated across the 48 minutes of the game.

    But, let's be a little more realistic with what the actual intentions are of the thread. What most would agree on is that this thread really isn't about the entirety of the game, it is about the portion of the game commonly referred to as the "end game", the last 3-5 minutes of the game.

    Because the latest perception always seems to be the "lasting impression", a bad call (or non-call) made at or near the end of a game is always perceived to be the game changer. I've felt that way when Reggie pushed off on Jordan and the non-call enabled us to win the game. And I've felt that way when Johnson was allowed his dribble before hitting the 3-pointer as well as his following free throw that ultimately lost us the game.

    In my opinion, it is imperative that referees do a better job of "getting it right" in end game situations. What is a foul on one end of the court on one play absolutely must be called a foul on the other end of the court.

    In tonight's game against the Bulls, I really thought that Collison's foul could have been called either way. I believed that Collison may actually have leaned into Rose ever so slightly and that is why he was called for the foul on the contact.

    Immediately following, Rose was not called for the foul when replay showed a very obvious contact with Granger's arm on Granger's shot prior to the clock expiring.

    This call on this last shot by Granger is one that officials absolutely must get right. And, in my opinion, in such a closely contested game, there is absolutely no excuse for not getting it right.

    As I said previously, it is the calls made during the end game that leaves the fans with their perceptions of the quality of the officiating. Get the calls right and fans will have no problem with the officiating.

    So, in summary, have I seen games that contained bad calls that seemed to favor one team over another in the entirety of a game? I can't say that I have. Have I seen games that contained bad calls that favored one team over another over the course of the last few minutes of a game? Let's just say that I've seen more than a handful.
    Last edited by beast23; 03-18-2011, 11:50 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

      All,

      I generally like the give and take on this board, but I have erred here.

      Debating officiating and the effect on a game is akin to talking politics, or at least what talking politics has evolved into. This is a no win discussion, and I should have stayed out of it.

      Mea culpa. I stand by what I said before, but this is one of the very few threads I've visited on this board that is powered by emotion rather than logic. I'm wrong quite a bit, but my observations are almost always based on logic, and as a result I had no business straying into this area.

      Carry on without me. Have fun.

      MJB

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=310318011

        It was the last regular-season meeting between the teams, but Rose wouldn't mind getting revenge.

        "That's a team we could possibly see in the playoffs," he said. "I can't wait to play them again."
        That was a quote from the recap from the ESPN article. Not sure if it garnered a link of it's own of where I got it from, but I did so just in case. I would like to have a rivalry with the bulls, but as they say you first need to be competitive to have a rivalry. I really hate the Bulls though even with zeke giving them all those picks year in and year out if it wasn't for them getting lucky one year with the ping pong balls. They'd still be scraping the bottom of the barrel in all likelihood. If we see them in the playoffs we're probably going to see more of the same from the refs tonight except even worse if that's possible. I just want to be competitive is all I ask. I realize getting ahead of myself a bit but I really hope we make the playoffs.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

          Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
          All,

          I generally like the give and take on this board, but I have erred here.

          Debating officiating and the effect on a game is akin to talking politics, or at least what talking politics has evolved into. This is a no win discussion, and I should have stayed out of it.

          Mea culpa. I stand by what I said before, but this is one of the very few threads I've visited on this board that is powered by emotion rather than logic. I'm wrong quite a bit, but my observations are almost always based on logic, and as a result I had no business straying into this area.

          Carry on without me. Have fun.

          MJB
          Sure, for the most part we all respond with emotion when discussing officiating but there is a reason for a seemingly common acceptance of the belief that NBA officials are flawed don't you think?

          Every game every where ever from every given sport fans complain about officiating but it is normally a minority and it is generally a quite subdued debate.

          I find it odd that you'd argue officiating isn't a problem when in almost every big NBA game in the last 20 years where the officiating was discussed on a national level, David Stern shot down any and all accusations indicating the officiating was flawed.

          This in complete contrast if we were to compare his response to the NFL's response in like situations. If we look at the NFL we can all remember in the 2004 playoffs when Marvin Harrison was grossly molested on seemingly every play. While the bias' of those of us from Indiana was plainly obvious, and we were still the only ones that cared, the NFL took another look and noted officials needed to ensure passing interference rules were enforced! Since then I think some of us now cringe when officials overcompensate in the Colts favor as I can readily admit, but that doesn't change the fact that we all saw a clear problem with the officiating, and the NFL rectified the problem.

          If we look back at the now famous Lakers-Kings series which was, unlike the Colts-Pats playoff game, a national story, David Stern shot down any accusations contending there was a problem with officiating. You don't see this as a problem?

          I certainly would agree fans need to cool it when complaining about officiating. At the end of the day, the best team almost always wins. But in the NBA, different from every other pro sport, certain players definitely get help. If we ignore this and assume the inherent innocence of the NBA's leadership wouldn't we be a foolish group of customers? I expect a competitive balance and equality within the sport that you would think depends upon true healthy competition.

          I know a lot of people are disagreeing with you. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have lost all ability to reason or think coherently. At least think about that even if you don't feel the need to respond.
          Last edited by mattie; 03-19-2011, 06:43 AM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

            Originally posted by TheColdHardTruth View Post
            Indeed. On the Bulls RealGM game thread the general consensus was that the refs gave the game to the Pacers.

            So really, with fans of all teams thinking the refs are out to get their team, the logical conclusion is that the refs aren't out to get anyone, and are just inconsistent.

            Also of interest, the Bulls fans on thay forum think the Pacers announcers are terrible and were taking pot-shots at the Bulls players all night. They feel the same way about them that most people here feel about the Celtics announcers. So the other conclusion is that the opposing commentators are not as bad you many think they are either.
            I agree, though I have NEVER been able to stand the Celtics announcers

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

              This sport is so hard to ref.
              "man, PG has been really good."

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                All,

                I generally like the give and take on this board, but I have erred here.

                Debating officiating and the effect on a game is akin to talking politics, or at least what talking politics has evolved into. This is a no win discussion, and I should have stayed out of it.

                Mea culpa. I stand by what I said before, but this is one of the very few threads I've visited on this board that is powered by emotion rather than logic. I'm wrong quite a bit, but my observations are almost always based on logic, and as a result I had no business straying into this area.

                Carry on without me. Have fun.

                MJB
                I thanked this post because I love that we have Pacers officials and brass that read and post here (I love the questions every few months asking if Larry Bird or Herb Simon read this site) but I am sad to see you leave.

                Not because I feel you are right or wrong. There is a lot of give or take on this topic, and sure some people speak more with emotion then with logic, but that does not mean they are [totally] wrong.

                Sadly I feel you just gave the reply David Stern does any time officiating comes in . BLAH BLAH BLAH I have seen more games then you have and I know for a fact officiating is not a problem. I am right and you are wrong, it is a 1-0 vote and that is official.

                I will bow out with that, and the hope that one day in the future we get consistent officiating, even if that means the Pacers losing a game because of fair calls (and I agree with whoever mentioned late possession being remember more then early game possessions, but I think the die hards remember missed calls on both ends of the floor)

                Or perhaps David Stern sent a memo to Mr. Boyle and informed him to stop talking about the officials.....actually wouldn't he have to "privately" tell him but then "publicly" tell us he was not going to talk about the "private" conversation

                -VA

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                  Originally posted by beast23;1197556
                  Because the latest perception always seems to be the "lasting impression", a bad call (or non-call) made at or near the end of a game is always perceived to be the game changer. I've felt that way when Reggie pushed off on Jordan and the non-call enabled us to win the game. And I've felt that way when [B
                  Johnson was allowed his dribble before hitting the 3-pointer as well as his following free throw that ultimately lost us the game.[/B]
                  Johnson?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                    Originally posted by TheColdHardTruth View Post
                    Indeed. On the Bulls RealGM game thread the general consensus was that the refs gave the game to the Pacers.

                    So really, with fans of all teams thinking the refs are out to get their team, the logical conclusion is that the refs aren't out to get anyone, and are just inconsistent.

                    Also of interest, the Bulls fans on thay forum think the Pacers announcers are terrible and were taking pot-shots at the Bulls players all night. They feel the same way about them that most people here feel about the Celtics announcers. So the other conclusion is that the opposing commentators are not as bad you many think they are either.
                    The vast majority of neutral fans seem to believe that the Pacers got jobbed last night.

                    Comment


                    • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                      Johnson?

                      Comment


                      • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                        I had erased that whole series from my memory, damn you, damn you all!!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                          Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                          All,

                          I generally like the give and take on this board, but I have erred here.

                          Debating officiating and the effect on a game is akin to talking politics, or at least what talking politics has evolved into. This is a no win discussion, and I should have stayed out of it.

                          Mea culpa. I stand by what I said before, but this is one of the very few threads I've visited on this board that is powered by emotion rather than logic. I'm wrong quite a bit, but my observations are almost always based on logic, and as a result I had no business straying into this area.

                          Carry on without me. Have fun.

                          MJB
                          I often hear the explanation that "it evens out," but is there any actual statistical data to support this theory?

                          Mark, though I respect that you have seen more games than me, I feel I have a large enough sample size under my belt (hundreds of games over a 23-year span) to form an educated opinion on the subject.

                          Comment


                          • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                            Originally posted by mboyle1313 View Post
                            All,

                            I generally like the give and take on this board, but I have erred here.

                            Debating officiating and the effect on a game is akin to talking politics, or at least what talking politics has evolved into. This is a no win discussion, and I should have stayed out of it.

                            Mea culpa. I stand by what I said before, but this is one of the very few threads I've visited on this board that is powered by emotion rather than logic. I'm wrong quite a bit, but my observations are almost always based on logic, and as a result I had no business straying into this area.

                            Carry on without me. Have fun.

                            MJB
                            I just don't care for the insinuation here that anyone who questions the officiating is nothing but emotional and illogical. I don't think that's necessarily fair or accurate.

                            Sure, it describes some people, some of the time, but not all people at all times who would object to what they see during a game.

                            I mentioned outliers. Nothing emotional or illogical about that.

                            Others brought up Tim Donaghy. Also not emotional or illogical.

                            Comment


                            • Re: how do the Pacers overcome bad officiating?

                              I think last night showed where the "benefit of the doubt" goes as well as showing how a team recovers from it.

                              I called before the inbounds at the end of regulation that Rose would go into someone and heave up the shot to draw the foul. Now, from my angle, he didn't "go into" Collison, Collison was behind him and Rose hung his left leg under DC's stance and then hooked DC's leg as he went up to the right, effectively pulling DC in. The effect, however, was the same.

                              The no-call on Danny was, of course, because the referees want to "let 'em play" on the last possession...

                              The response by the team, though, is EXACTLY what you have to do. You come out hard, you keep playing the best way you can, and hopefully things will finally even out.

                              Where does the idea of bias come from? Rose got 10 of the 16 points he scored in the last 6 minutes of the 4th from the FT line. Much as we're a young team, I don't think our defense suddenly completely fell apart like that.
                              Last edited by BillS; 03-19-2011, 12:41 PM. Reason: Fixed review of Rose foul after watching replay
                              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?

                                Yeah I don't think officiating is worth arguing about. A large portion of PD members thought the refs were trying to "give" the Bulls the game last night (many such comments in the game thread) but I invite you to go read the game thread from last nights game on the Bulls ESPN message board:

                                http://boards.espn.go.com/boards/mb/...=8354184&tsn=1

                                If you thought there were a lot of complaints about the officiating on the digest, these guys complained about it 1 out of every 4 posts in their game thread. It was pretty entertaining reading how agitated they got at Foster and Hansbrough's hustle though.

                                On a side note, after reading some of the other topics on that message board, it made me appreciate the overall sophisticated nature of Pacers Digest that much more. Half of their posts lacked any kind of substance and overall just seemed like a bunch of kindergardeners slapping away at a keyboard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X