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

Lockout News and Discussions thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

    NBA lockout: Law professor predicts players' union to file more lawsuits
    http://lakersblog.latimes.com/lakers...-lawsuits.html

    Below are excepts of an interview with Notre Dame law professor Joseph Bauer on the NBA players' union filing antitrust lawsuits against the league. Bauer specializes in antitrust law.

    On the NBA players union filing two antitrust lawsuits at federal courts in Oakland and Minneapolis:

    "I don't think this is the end of the lawsuits. What's going on with these multiple lawsuits is that both parties are looking for what they perceive to be the friendliest courts."

    Will this give the players' union additional leverage?

    "Only if they can persuade the court that the labor exemption from the antitrust laws can no longer be invoked by the owners and the courts should run at the antitrust claims on the merits. That could get the owners' attention. A court can't come up with a labor contract, but can they make the parties more amenable to an agreement? That's certainly possible."
    Based on past precedents of antitrust lawsuits, how do you see it playing out?

    "Different courts can look at precisely the same facts and legal standards and can come to different conclusions. The best evidence is the NFL lockout. The trial courts ruled one way and the appellate courts ruled another. They're more likely to be successful in pressing the antitrust claim than the NFL, but I can't say that with any certainty."


    Why's that?
    "They seem to have a more judicious selection of the court they're in. California tends to be more liberal than in Minnesota. I'm sure David Boise and others have done their homework. I'm sure the NFL also did well, but [litagor] David Boies and other good lawyers learn from experience. They'll pick up on what arguments did or didn't work. The reliefs the NFL were asking for was an injunction and the reliefs the players are asking for here is monetary. It's easier to award monetary relief than an injunction. With an injunction, you have to craft everything to the facts. A court can easily measure the damages done in dollars and cents."

    How long do these suits last?

    "Antitrust cases are notorious for being protracted. We would be further down the road into the season before there's an antitrust ruling. If that's what either parties is counting on to resolve this question, then that's the end of the season."

    What could cause hope for a season?

    "The antitrust case will put pressure on the parties and their perceptions on whether or not they'll prevail. The owners could come back to the bargaining table with different terms. But they foresaw this might be one strategy the players might pursue. Litigation can also harden parties' positions. Many high-powered lawsuits entail both parties simultaneously preparing for the litigation and seeing if they can settle."

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      Here's a thought - as a tweak to your system, what if the league BRI pool were distributed to teams based on number of wins? Right now you have the league pool going out equally to all teams (if I understood it correctly) in the form of league funded salaries. What if you change the formula so that good teams get more of the pool and bad teams get less? Not substantially more or substantially less, but enough so that every owner will have incentive to improve the team instead of pocketing the money.
      Just can't buy this because with more money you can continually cherry pick players on their first FA contracts, meaning the whole age and injuries thing won't wear out your team.

      I believe you force money to be spent to improve the team by having a minimum salary as well as a maximum one.
      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: Lockout News and Discussions thread

        Thanks for posting Bill. I'd be interested if anyone reads anything regarding the leagues suit several weeks ago to declare the lockout legal and put an end to any anti trust claims. I'd hope they knew what they were doing and might be able to get an earlier ruling. If so, I wonder if it would eliminate any players anti trust lawsuits. Otherwise, what was the point.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

          There's a whole article here, but nothing earth shattering. I did find this quote interesting.

          "As someone close to this whole process told me yesterday: Sometimes things have to get darkest before brightness arrives again."

          I think they mean the players need to lose some more checks for the owners to be ready to come in and try to settle this.

          Reference:

          Memo to Stern: Pick up the phone
          http://sheridanhoops.com/2011/11/18/memo-to-stern-pick-up-the-phone/

          Comment


          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post

            He can't go out and make a tackle.........
            Yeah, we've all witnessed that!

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

              Comment


              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                There has been one dynasty after another. It has never been competitive where half or more than half the teams actually have a shot. So, how would you know if a competitive league wouldn't be more popular?

                The reason the popularity rose with MJ and Magic, for example, was that at least those dynasties played great basketball and had some personality and flair. Also, Boston had competition with the Lakers which increased interest considerably. In contrast, no one really was a huge rival with the Spurs like that and while they were a great team they had no personality.

                So during down times in the NBA, a) people didn't watch their own team because it had no chance and b) they didn't watch the Spurs because they were boring and had no perennial foe to battle. IOW, there wasn't an interesting rivalry...which is precisely what fans enjoy.

                For the rest of the teams, it isn't much of a rivalry when it's between two .300 teams who are fighting for 6th place in the division.

                The difference comes down to....why do people even follow the league? To watch a great Laker or Celtic team 1000 miles away win another championship or watch the Pacers and many other teams compete for a championship each and every year? How do you think a competitive league would affect attendance here in Indy. Imagine a "May Madness" along the lines of the NCAA's March Madness. I realize this is an unlikely scenario, but I do think it's possible to create a more balanced league. It might need to have less teams, but I do think it's doable.
                Sure, there was. In the 70s, 8 different teams won the NBA title in those 10 years. After two consecutive Washington Wizards - Seattle SuperSonics finals, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird came in and saved the league. And Magic's epic Game 6 performance in 1980 was on tape delay. There's your example on whether a competitive league would be more popular.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...ham/51282176/1

                  It's too bad they didn't have this guy leading them instead of Hunter.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                    Originally posted by shags View Post
                    Sure, there was. In the 70s, 8 different teams won the NBA title in those 10 years. After two consecutive Washington Wizards - Seattle SuperSonics finals, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird came in and saved the league. And Magic's epic Game 6 performance in 1980 was on tape delay. There's your example on whether a competitive league would be more popular.
                    That is not an example of a balanced league being bad for the NBA but of what two dynamic players can mean to the NBA in general. Those two could have been in any other city and had the same effect.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                      Originally posted by owl View Post
                      That is not an example of a balanced league being bad for the NBA but of what two dynamic players can mean to the NBA in general. Those two could have been in any other city and had the same effect.
                      I think shags point wasn't about location, but that it seems most people would rather see less balance with a few All Star teams no matter where the teams are located. Of course most fans here, myself included, don't want to see 2 to 4 absolutely stacked teams, but I think most of the public prefers it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                        Originally posted by shags View Post
                        Sure, there was. In the 70s, 8 different teams won the NBA title in those 10 years. After two consecutive Washington Wizards - Seattle SuperSonics finals, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird came in and saved the league. And Magic's epic Game 6 performance in 1980 was on tape delay. There's your example on whether a competitive league would be more popular.
                        You do realize that times change right? Using the excuse that the league wasn't popular in the 1970s when they were competitive, and trying to say that's proof positive it won't be popular now isn't based on anything but faulty opinion.

                        Three's Company was once an extremely popular show. Maybe a struggling network should retry that idea. I mean, hey, if what wasn't popular then won't be popular now, must mean what was popular then would still be popular now.


                        This isn't the 1970s.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                          I was thinking that too Since. It really could go either way as far as using the 70s as an example. Did people want fewer options for teams contending for a title or was the league just not popular yet? I don't know. But I do think people love to have 2 to 4 super teams today, but you're right, the 70s isn't a full proof example.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                            Has anybody seen numerical estimates of how many people are (temporarily or permanently) out of a job specifically because of the lockout?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                              This sucks.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout News and Discussions thread

                                Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                                I was thinking that too Since. It really could go either way as far as using the 70s as an example. Did people want fewer options for teams contending for a title or was the league just not popular yet? I don't know. But I do think people love to have 2 to 4 super teams today, but you're right, the 70s isn't a full proof example.
                                It was more popular in the 60's than the 70's. That's pretty telling.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X