Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

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

  • ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

    NEW YORK -- David Stern wants to take a closer look at flopping and referees to be able to take a second look at all flagrant fouls.

    And the NBA commissioner isn't sure he wants to see his veteran players in the Olympics anymore.


    Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver said Wednesday the league is committed to sending top players to the Olympics only through London, and then wants to look into saving them just for the world basketball championship and having the Olympics reserved for those 23 and under, as soccer does.

    That discussion will happen later with FIBA, basketball's world governing body. First, Stern has some changes he wants to talk over with the recently changed competition committee.
    He has previously urged a crackdown on flopping, the art of players falling down to make officials believe they were fouled. He called for a "not instant, but thorough review."

    "I think we are going to approach something that many tell me is impossible, which is deciding whether someone was acting or was actually, and thereby tending, intending to trick the fans, and the referees; or, whether there was a legitimate reason for that particular person to go sprawling," Stern said. "And then the question is, what to do in that case, and that's the kind of discussion that I look forward to having with the committee."

    Referees can currently only review the more severe flagrant-2 fouls, to decide if they were indeed worthy of an automatic ejection or should be downgraded to a level 1. The issue came up during the Miami-Indiana series, when a flagrant against the Heat's Udonis Haslem appeared to fit the criteria of a 2 -- and was upgraded to that the next day by the league office -- but was only ruled a 1 on the floor and officials had no ability to look at it again.
    "I think that we ought to have video review of flagrant ones and twos, and that's something that the committee should look at," Stern said.

    Stern said he also wants an end to defensive basket interference.


    "I happen to be a fan of the elimination of basket interference," Stern said of the rule that prohibits offensive players from touching the ball while it is in the area above the rim. "I think it's one of those plays that if you look at it, and if you watch the number of times that players either do or don't touch the ball, it really puts the referees in a very uncomfortable position, because even on replay, I'm not sure you can get it right. ...

    "I look at that together with video replay where we have to continue on our march, which has been pretty embracing to expand the areas in which we use instant replay. Those are two areas."
    The biggest change could be the look of the Olympic teams in 2016. NBA players began competing in 1992 in Barcelona, with the famed U.S. team of Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and the rest of a squad that was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame two years ago.

    "It's the 20th anniversary of Barcelona, where the only Dream Team that I ever celebrated played," S
    tern said.
    This year's U.S. team could include the likes of LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, but it would be time for the younger guys to take over if the change that Stern and Silver are warming to was enacted.

    "We think international soccer has an excellent model and in the case of soccer, of course, there's the World Cup of football, which is the biggest sporting event in the world every four years, and then in the off years, for the World Cup, they play, in essence, with some exceptions, a 23-and-under competition at the Olympics," Silver said.

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/79...ayers-olympics

  • #2
    Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

    Olympic soccer is the worst. Why would we want to go to that model when the Olympics have finally became incredibly fun and competitive to watch?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

      Olympics is by far the best international basketball competition today. World Cup pretty much sucks.

      Olympic tournament is compact, good organization. Hardly any country even brings their top team to FIBA World Cup anymore.
      World Cup is too big, too many bad teams from non-basketball countries (like 10-12 every time, as opposed to 2-3 in the Olympics).
      Most importantly, FIBA is a crappy organization. There's always some nonsense happening in the World Cup. Scheduling, training facilities, living facilities, something always goes wrong. Nothing of that sort when it comes to the Olympic Committee and the Olympics.

      It would be idiotic to limit the Olympics to U-23. Even if it's only the US, it hurts the competition big time, and the World Cup is no replacement at this time. If you want to use U-23, use them in the World Cup.

      I understand why Stern would want this. It's his job to look out for the NBA interests, and that's preventing star injuries. He'd probably love to use U23 in every competition.
      But for international basketball, that's terrible.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

        I would be strongly against eliminating defensive goaltending. I like the rule as it is.

        Yes review all flagrant foul calls. I expect that to change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

          Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

          Stern said he also wants an end to defensive basket interference.

          "I happen to be a fan of the elimination of basket interference," Stern said of the rule that prohibits offensive players from touching the ball while it is in the area above the rim. "I think it's one of those plays that if you look at it, and if you watch the number of times that players either do or don't touch the ball, it really puts the referees in a very uncomfortable position, because even on replay, I'm not sure you can get it right. ...
          The two highlighted parts are contradictory.

          I would assume that he wants to eliminate offensive goaltending. International basketball, you recall, has no offensive goaltending rule. An offensive player can tip the ball in while on the rim or over the rim.

          I am OK with the change. The point of having the rule was that you cannot have a giant (namely Wilt Chamberlain) under the basket just tipping everything in. College ball adopted the rule specifically in response Wilt in 1957, and the NBA adopted it in 1958, before he arrived (his year with the Globetrotters). The widened lane (adopted in 1957) and 3-second rule (always existed), though, prevents this from being a huge concern, it seems to me.

          It is really a remnant of the rule book aimed to limit anyone who was 7'1" with a 50" vertical jump and a flatfooted standing reach of 9'6" from dominating so much. Since there has been only one of those guys, ever, it can probably be rescinded.
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-31-2012, 10:05 AM.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

            Eliminating defensive goaltending would be a huge detriment to the game. There are too many players capable of blocking whatever comes toward the rim.

            Doing away with this would effectively eliminate jump-shooting, especially from long-range.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
              The two highlighted parts are contradictory.

              I would assume that he wants to eliminate offensive goaltending. International basketball, you recall, has no offensive goaltending rule. An offensive player can tip the ball in while on the rim or over the rim.

              I am OK with the change. The point of having the rule was that you cannot have a giant (namely Wilt Chamberlain) under the basket just tipping everything in. College ball adopted the rule specifically for Wilt in 1958, and the NBA adopted it that same year, before he arrived. The widened lane (adopted in 1957) and 3-second rule (always existed), though, prevents this from being a huge concern, it seems to me.
              That wouldn't be nearly as bad.

              Eliminating defensive goaltending would ruin the game though, IMO.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                Eliminating defensive goaltending would be a huge detriment to the game. There are too many players capable of blocking whatever comes toward the rim.

                Doing away with this would effectively eliminate jump-shooting, especially from long-range.
                I agree. I would tell Hibbert to NEVER bother attempting to block a shot outside the paint. I would have Hibbert move backwards, and sway the shot as it's heading towards the rim.

                I do agree with looking at and deterring flopping. As much as I hate to say this, I thought Miami became a BETTER team once the refs swallowed their whistles on flops. Lebron and Wade had to actually use their TALENTS to score, and the team was forced to play defense. Another benefit, players can stay in longer and play more "physical" without the fear of being called for a good acting job. I'm all for punishing floppers. Heck, I'm all for calling defensive flopping as blocking fouls and awarding the offense one FT and the ball. On offensive flopping, I would just treat it as a turnover.
                Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 05-31-2012, 10:30 AM.


                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

                  i'm pretty sure they're talking about offensive interference, which they did prior to this season too.

                  defensive interference (goaltending) exists in every form of the game, i highly doubt the nba will eliminate it.

                  edit: just read what stern is saying and it's clearly offensive interference.

                  "I think it's one of those plays that if you look at it, and if you watch the number of times that players either do or don't touch the ball, it really puts the referees in a very uncomfortable position, because even on replay, I'm not sure you can get it right. ... "

                  goaltending isn't about whether the player touched it or not, it's about whether the shot was going up or down when it was blocked.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I would be strongly against eliminating defensive goaltending. I like the rule as it is.

                    Yes review all flagrant foul calls. I expect that to change.
                    I agree. I'd add that I hope they do something about flopping. Like even if it's missed and they review the tape and see they flopped, they are automatically suspended a game. The only want to get rid of it is to come down hard. Flopping is disgusting. I don't like when our guys do it or any other team. This isn't soccer.
                    First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

                      Originally posted by Frostwolf View Post
                      i'm pretty sure they're talking about offensive interference, which they did prior to this season too.

                      defensive interference (goaltending) exists in every form of the game, i highly doubt the nba will eliminate it.

                      edit: just read what stern is saying and it's clearly offensive interference.

                      "I think it's one of those plays that if you look at it, and if you watch the number of times that players either do or don't touch the ball, it really puts the referees in a very uncomfortable position, because even on replay, I'm not sure you can get it right. ... "

                      goaltending isn't about whether the player touched it or not, it's about whether the shot was going up or down when it was blocked.

                      I think you guys are splitting hairs here. It's both offensive and defensive goaltending, because IMHO he's talking about when the ball hits the rim it becomes live. Defensive goaltending, by blocking a shot on it's way down, would still be illegal, but once it hits the rim both sides would be able to either tip it in or knock it off the rim.



                      And it's pretty sad that a room full of lawyers couldn't forsee a problem with not being able to review flagrant 1 fouls.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

                        I love watching Euro and World Cup soccer, but good gods do I find Olympic soccer boring as hell. Then again, I follow Germany.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

                          Screw Stern, if the players get picked and want to compete and they make the team, who the **** is he to tell them they can't?
                          Senior at the University of Louisville.
                          Greenfield ---> The Ville

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I would be strongly against eliminating defensive goaltending. I like the rule as it is.

                            Yes review all flagrant foul calls. I expect that to change.
                            Completely agree. Where's the clamor for eliminating defensive basket interference? Stern's working on a problem where there isn't one.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN: David Stern talks Olympics, flopping

                              He HAD to have mis-spoke when he said eliminating defensive basket inference. Had to.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X