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

The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

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

  • #46
    Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
    I still contend if the NBA admitted to making mistakes 99.9% of the doubt would be erased.
    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


    • #47
      Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

      Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
      The refs have made some bad calls. They've made many mistakes. However, they've also missed what I think have been clear fouls on Lebron, DWade, and Durant when they drive and make baskets. The only thing that really bugs me that the refs sometimes get caught up in is calling a foul only when the player misses a shot at the basket. Is it not a foul when the shot goes in?
      LOVE IT


      Ultimately the refs haven't been great but they get waaaaay too much of the blame when a team loses. Take last night's game. If the Thunder hadn't dug themselves so big of a hole or hit more of their free throws, a missed foul call wouldn't have mattered in the last 20 seconds of the game.
      While I agree (and free throws killed them) there is no excuse for blown calls. Yeah, the refs are human. But the point is to get every call right. So I will never excuse a missed call, esp one as obvious as last night.

      Which again, if an NBA official just came out and did a segment that said "We let them play, here are other plays that cold have been called a foul but we choose not to".............

      Oh wait, Stern made a 1-0 decision that the NBA will NEVER admit that their refs make mistakes. Lord help you if you dare question him, you will just get hit with a fine

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

        The NBA admits their blown calls quite often. It has to be obviously a mistake, not just questionable.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          The NBA admits their blown calls quite often. It has to be obviously a mistake, not just questionable.
          Define quite often.

          Though screw it, dont bother. Why dont we have an "Inside the NBA" segment with a retired NBA ref (the NFL has a ref on standby during all broascasts) who can explain calls (like the no call on the Battier screen).

          What would it hurt to educate the fans on the rules? What would it hurt to say "Well, that goaltend was the wrong call and it should have been a clean block?"

          Im sure it was a one nothing decision that the NBA made, and no one is going to change the NBA's mind

          EDIT:

          For the hell of it I did a quick google search. Only looking at the first page

          1. NBA admits wrong call at end of Hawks game (May 13, 2012)
          2. The NBA has admitted that referee Scott Foster blew a goaltending call ... After he did make the wrong call (Feb 7, 2012)

          Last edited by vapacersfan; 06-15-2012, 10:01 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

            ESPN hired ex-NBA referee Steve Javie for the purpose of explaining calls.

            http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ba...4209--nba.html

            They haven't yet incorporated him into the game as an on-camera personality yet, but I believe it was his input last night that made Jeff Van Gundy explain that the goaltending call on Ibaka was incorrect, after first saying he didn't know and had never seen that play happen before and didn't know what the correct call should be.

            recall: Someone else (Durant?) blocked a shot into the backboard, then Ibaka deflected it AGAIN. It should not have been goaltending, because as JVG explained it, after the first block the ball was no longer rising.
            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


            • #51
              Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

              FWIW, Javie just explained the lead official had a bad angle on the shot, hence why he missed the call (he was looking at KD's left side, LeBron fouled on his right side).

              This was on ESPN just now (11:15AM EST)

              This is something I could get used to, even if I hate ESPN. Why the NBA hasnt done this sooner or more often I will never understand

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                FWIW, Javie just explained the lead official had a bad angle on the shot, hence why he missed the call (he was looking at KD's left side, LeBron fouled on his right side).

                This was on ESPN just now (11:15AM EST)

                This is something I could get used to, even if I hate ESPN. Why the NBA hasnt done this sooner or more often I will never understand
                I agree with Javie. I didn't see the foul when it happened in live action and thought it was good defense. It was only after the second reply that I saw the fouls.

                Sometimes we forget that the refs don't get the benefit of super slo-mo like we do at home. Shoot, they don't even have as good an angle being on the floor as we do looking down on the action from above.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                  It's a wonder they call ANY fouls then!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                    Define quite often.

                    Though screw it, dont bother. Why dont we have an "Inside the NBA" segment with a retired NBA ref (the NFL has a ref on standby during all broascasts) who can explain calls (like the no call on the Battier screen).

                    What would it hurt to educate the fans on the rules? What would it hurt to say "Well, that goaltend was the wrong call and it should have been a clean block?"

                    Im sure it was a one nothing decision that the NBA made, and no one is going to change the NBA's mind

                    EDIT:

                    For the hell of it I did a quick google search. Only looking at the first page

                    1. NBA admits wrong call at end of Hawks game (May 13, 2012)
                    2. The NBA has admitted that referee Scott Foster blew a goaltending call ... After he did make the wrong call (Feb 7, 2012)


                    What?

                    NBATV has had a show for 4 or 5 seasons (maybe longer) every week with Ronnie Nunn, they review calls, good calls, bad calls, missed calls, questionable calls. I've been watching it for years.

                    I figured most people were aware of the show. it is usually pretty good. He always asked the NBATV host to voice his opinion about a questionable call first and they are usually wrong at least 50% of the time - the NBATV guy is.
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-15-2012, 12:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                      The league has a perception problem, whether or not the problem is real or not is up for debate. What isn't up for debate though is how the league handles this problem. It acts like it has something to hide, therefor it exacerbates the problem. If there is actually a problem it could very easily be fixed, not by just having a single show on a TV station that the majority of people either don't know about or don't get, but by making everything open. When the review a game don't just announce a single mistake once a month or so, but release the whole report and list every single bad call or missed call (within reason). For the really bad ones give an explanation. If there is a controversial call, always release why it is the right or wrong call. Doing it once a month is like saying, hey little plebs here is your missed call correction for the month, no ignore that we didn't correct the other million calls many of which were far more egregious than this one.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        What?

                        NBATV has had a show for 4 or 5 seasons (maybe longer) every week with Ronnie Nunn, they review calls, good calls, bad calls, missed calls, questionable calls. I've been watching it for years.

                        I figured most people were aware of the show. it is usually pretty good. He always asked the NBATV host to voice his opinion about a questionable call first and they are usually wrong at least 50% of the time - the NBATV guy is.
                        What?

                        In the 55555 years I have had cable (with Cox and Comcast) I have never had NBATV. It was an option as an addon, but fresh out of college and paying all my own bills I stuck with a basic TV package. Why not show this program on ESPN or TNT (or another standard channel)

                        Thats great that the host was wrong 50% of the time (in your opinion). I dont care if the host (and fans) are wrong 99.9% of the time. Knowledge is power, and it is also huge to just say "yeah, it was a blown call. #$%@ happens"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          And that's still a MAJOR problem, regardless if your a "conspiracy theorist" or not.
                          Exactly. If these refs are being graded then refs calling things differently makes no sense.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                            Originally posted by rousea24 View Post
                            A study? Really? If you don't think superstars don't get a lot more calls than the average player, then you are pretty delusional. I'm sorry. I don't think it's any kind of secret that superstars get many more calls than other players.
                            it's not just the calls they get- it's the ones they don't get too.....

                            http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/31/sports/sp-55256

                            this article points to just how important having a superstar really is in this league. this league is a business. and those who bring in the most attendance and get the ratings somehow manage to avoid getting in foul trouble or if they do- fouling out is next to unthinkable. having a superstar not only gives that actual playing advantage that an average or even very good player can't or can't quite give you, it is almost like having diplomatic immunity from the refs.
                            Last edited by clownskull; 06-16-2012, 01:45 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              Lebron could have been called for a foul. There was clear, significant contact. Guess what, they rarely call it in that situation (unless it's Joey Crawford, LOL).

                              Jordan pushed off Byron Russell to hit his game winner. He knew it would never be called. Reggie knew he could get away with a little bit of a push-off on any final shot. His defenders knew they could get away with a little grab on the final shot. His screener knew he could get away with a little grab on the screen to set up the final shot.

                              Almost all refs "let them play" in that situation, unless it is clear that the contact totally prevented a decent shot attempt. Durant is mad at himself for missing that shot. And to be honest, similar amounts of contact was a no-call for much of the night, so you can argue it wasn't even just the end-of-game let-them-play mentality at work.
                              So the officials are right to selectively enforce rules or they're wrong?

                              I can't believe that swallowing the whistle is a good excuse for a call not being made. If it's a foul, it should be called. That's the rule book. If the rule needs to be changed, then change the rule. By allowing selective enforcement, you're just asking for this type of criticism. Not just asking for it, but rolling around in it.

                              I don't even know why they'd have a rule book, if it gets tossed out the window at the most important times.

                              And the no-call doesn't support the idea of superstar calls, but it does support the idea that the NBA likes to make drama and 1-1 is better than 2-0 for the NBA. If it's called moving the goalposts, so be it, but there's not one motivation and only one motivation.
                              Last edited by Since86; 06-16-2012, 08:11 PM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The Polarizing Topic of NBA Conspiracies and ESPNs Involvement

                                If it's a foul, call it a foul. I don't give a **** whether it's in the first minute or the last minute. I don't care if it's LBJ or Jeff Pendergraff just make the call. If you don't/won't/can't then you need to be replaced. If the league is telling you to swallow the whistle, then the league deserves all the **** they get. This is Stern's little cesspool he made so let him ***** about swimming in it.
                                http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
                                "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X