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

NBA Acknowledges missed call at end of Denver game.

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

  • #91
    Re: NBA Acknowledges missed call at end of Denver game.

    Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
    I don't think we "earned" a friendly whistle. But one of the big things coming out of the immediate post-game hurrah was that "we didn't play well enough the other 43 minutes to deserve to win". even tweeted out that the last two calls didn't matter because we didn't play well enough in the first three quarters to win. But we did play well enough in the fourth to win. We were a blown call away from either game winning free throws or overtime, with the way we were playing the last five minutes we could have won going away(not saying that's exactly how it would have went down, but the momentum swing was clear to me.)

    So while we didn't play well the first three quarters, we cranked it up in the 4th. It wasn't Denver getting sloppy, it was us "turning it on". We came back and had a tie game with 2 seconds left. You can't throw out the last five minutes because the first 43 didn't go well. We were in the game in winning time and that's all that matters.

    Edit: none of this is directed at you, it's just sort of what I've gleamed from the boards since the game.

    Oh, I was pumped up during that comeback! I was losing hope at the six minute mark and then by the last minute I was cheering so loud that I was scolded for yelling at the TV after bedtime. Especially when I yelled "GET THAT **** OUT OF HERE!" when Paul blocked the shot at the 28 second mark to give us a chance to play for the win in regulation.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: NBA Acknowledges missed call at end of Denver game.

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      It reads like your battling "such-and-such deserved the call" with "you don't deserve a call when you dribble out the shot clock."

      I think both positions aren't right.
      Well, I'm still butchering it then.

      Such-and-such deserved the call is wrong, period.

      But even if you ascribe to that, which I don't, if a player "deserves" a call I'd think it would be for the aggressive player trying to make something happen. In the case, dribbling down the shot clock from that far away from the basket is akin to a white flag. You aren't playing for the win, you're playing not to lose/ hoping for OT.

      There's some confusion here because I think this passive attitude and playing not to lose after the timeout at 0:16.8 is what cost the Pacers the game, not the officiating. And I'm not helping any by explaining it poorly. The Pacers wasted a great comeback over the last two possessions by playing not to lose, and then committing an unfortunate foul that led to Denvers GW FT. And this still pisses me off more than the blown call at 0:02.2.

      Let me try it this way: even if you think the call should have been made at 0:02.2 because the Pacers "deserved" it, I don't think they "deserved it". But I do think the foul should have been called because it WAS A FOUL! Period. And if you think the foul shouldn't have been called at 0:00.4 because the Nuggets didn't deserve it, then I think that fould should have been called because it was a foul. Unfortunately for my team.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: NBA Acknowledges missed call at end of Denver game.

        There's no point in arguing whether or not there should've been a call.

        The refs blew the call. The guys that employ the refs said that they blew the call.

        I wish we could just focus on the fact that the NBA came out and publicly said they made a mistake and it hurt the Pacers chances of winning. When was the last time they did that regarding a Pacers game?

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: NBA Acknowledges missed call at end of Denver game.

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          I can understand this. Call the shot clock violation on Indiana's last possession and give Denver the ball at 0:01.8.

          But there's a problem with this. It's not one of your options. The league has implied (via silence) that the foul on Denver's last possession was valid. In other words, since both defenses committed fouls, both teams deserved opportunities to win the game at the line. It should have only gone to OT if both Iggy and Paul hit the same number of FTs in the last 2.2 seconds. Of course, Denver might have run something different with more than 0:00.5 on the clock, and down by 1 or 2 points.

          It's really an impure argument to say that what happened on the previous possession, or over the last five minutes, or who had momentum, should dictate whether a foul is called or not. If it is a foul in the second quarter, the same play is a foul at 0:02.2. I don't want the rules to change, via inconsistent enforcement, because of momentum, the time remaining on the clock, or giving the refs leeway to decide who morally "deserves" the call. That's the slippery slope that justifies the Superstar calls.

          If Paul George fouled Iggy, Iggy should be shooting. If iggy fouled Paul George, Paul should be shooting. "Letting the players decide" has become a license to foul, which favors the defense. I'd rather they force defenders to play without fouling.
          The overall problem of that was the inconsistency of the two calls. They should either call both or ignore both. That's the bottom line.

          They didn't do that and so they influenced the outcome of this particular game.

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          And if you really want to talk about "deserving", we didn't play to win on that last possession. We played not to lose, to get to OT, and we got burned. I really wish Lance could've found a high percentage shot as he drove the lane before the Pacers called timeout at 0:16.8. The Nuggets were getting the ball back anyway. I'd rather run a play for a high percentage shot - without regard to milking the clock and force them to counter. That's playing to win vs. having one of our lesser ball dribble idly against one of the league's better defenders.
          Denver didn't play to win in the last 5:35 minutes.

          Neither team deserved to win in regulation.

          The game should have gone to overtime. That's my main argument.

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          While I don't agree with the no-call at 0:02.2, we didn't "deserve" the foul call after dribbling out the clock.
          I never said we deserved that call. Personally, I would hate it. I agree completely with that no-call. I just think that Iggy's should be a no-call as well.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: NBA Acknowledges missed call at end of Denver game.

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            In no way am I possibly advocating that fouls are based on who deserves the whistle.

            Nuntius is.
            That's not exactly what I'm advocating. I never said that the Pacers deserved that particular call. All I said was that the Nuggets didn't deserve the last call and that the game deserved to go to overtime.

            That's it.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: NBA Acknowledges missed call at end of Denver game.

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
              I still disagree...the problem was starting the play with the ball in PG's hands. Should have started in Hill's hands, with a West pick-and-roll where you try to entice Iggy to rotate toward the ball and leave George open for a catch-and-shoot. Preferably from about 18 feet as we did not need to shoot a three in that situation. I don't mind him taking the shot in that situation, but I don't want him initiating the play.

              He's not a good enough one-on-one creator or ball handler to run an iso in that situation, and I'm really questioning his game awareness for holding the ball too long and settling - appearantly - for a three-pointer in a tie game.

              He did lower his shoulder as he was losing the ball. I didn't mind the no-call so much because one could also make a case for an offensive foul call. He was clearly playing for the foul call and FTs (which actually would have given Denver even more time on the clock, we couldn't run the game clock to zero if we did score on that possession), and I don't like to see players get "bailed out" when they are playing for the whistle instead of trying to score the ball.

              There was a lot of contact on that play, but I'm not convinced that the contact actually changed the outcome of the play itself. I think that play was heading for a shot clock violation/ turnover of some type any way.
              Irrelevant at the end of the day. What is relevant is that the Nuggets fouled and the Pacers didn't get the call that they obviously deserved and then didn't get an equal call seconds later the other way around. The NBA has owned up to that. That George had the ball in his hands was a choice that had nothing to do with the referees making a wrong/inconsistent call. That's the point.
              Last edited by Mourning; 02-02-2013, 05:16 AM.
              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

              Comment

              Working...
              X