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

Is the NBA rigged???

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

  • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

    Originally posted by rock747 View Post
    You misread what I wrote and it was rhetorical.
    I was just making sure you knew it was on youtube
    Smothered Chicken!

    Comment


    • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

      Originally posted by rock747 View Post
      I don't see how any of that would prove anything. I think most arguments center around game that are meaningful and all NBA players complain about calls all game long.
      well I don't know howjudging NBA bias by number of free throws proves anything either

      Comment


      • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        well I don't know howjudging NBA bias by number of free throws proves anything either
        The article I posted proves that there is a large statistical jump in free throws for one team battling for a playoff spot and a great fall off for the opposing playoff team. It is at least statistical evidence to look at. The games are over the last 10 or so which would encompass the meaningful "playoff race" games.
        Last edited by rock747; 04-16-2013, 02:30 PM.
        "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

        Comment


        • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

          Originally posted by rock747 View Post
          The article I posted proves that there is a large statistical jump in free throws for one team battling for a playoff spot and a great fall off for the opposing playoff team. It is at least statistical evidence to look at. The games are over the last 10 or so which would encompass the meaningful "playoff race" games.
          Well then I guess all the refs got the memo. Luckily these memos never leak out. Wonder if the memo was changed after Kobe got injured.

          Comment


          • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Well then I guess all the refs got the memo. Luckily these memos never leak out. Wonder if the memo was changed after Kobe got injured.
            Not sure if there's a memo, but there's undoubtedly a marked statistical change for both teams.
            "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

            Comment


            • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Well then I guess all the refs got the memo. Luckily these memos never leak out. Wonder if the memo was changed after Kobe got injured.
              The NBA doesn't have to literally send out memos to the refs that say "Get the superstars and major markets into the playoffs. Thanks. D. Stern"... The veteran refs know the agenda (Guys like Joey Crawford, Dick Bavetta, and Bennet Salvatore have all been around for over 30 years each). There's a reason they consistently get sheduled for the most important games of the season. You'd never see a guy in his mid 70's working as the crew chief of an NFL championship game. The corruption is so blatantly obvious. The only thing that's debatable is the extent.

              Comment


              • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                Bennett is 63 years old.
                Crawford is 61 years old
                Bevetta is 74. - but he has not worked an NBA Finals game since 2008. http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.c...r-for-bavetta/



                Date on this is from a year ago

                http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2012/03...in-transition/
              • By Chris Bernucca March 28, 2012 at 1:22 PM


                Who are the only two refs to work the past 5 NBA Finals?

                Quick quiz: Who are the only two referees to work the last five NBA Finals?Dick Bavetta?
              • Sorry, he hasn’t worked a Finals since 2008. Eddie F. Rush? Nope. Since 2007, he’s only gotten the call once.

              • Mike Callahan? You’re getting warmer. He’s worked the last three, as have both Derrick Stafford and Monty McCutchen.

              • Scott Foster? Joey Crawford? Warmer still. Both have worked the last four.

              • If you answered Dan Crawford and Ken Mauer, take a bow. That duo has the longest current run of sustained excellence among NBA referees.

              • Now here’s a better question. How many referees who worked any of the last five NBA Finals won’t be working this year’s Finals? Hint: It’s a much longer list.

              • Working the NBA Finals is unquestionably the pinnacle of the officiating profession. It is what all of them – quietly or outwardly – strive to reach.

              • I met Mauer in a hotel hospitality suite, about two hours after he had just finished his first NBA Finals assignment in 2006. I asked him how much of a thrill the night had been for him. After he got past the initial shock that someone besides a referee knew how big a deal it was, he smiled broadly and explained how big a deal it was.

              • Only a dozen guys get picked every year, and if you believe the NBA – and we do, despite some transparency issues – they are chosen through a merit system which grades their performance throughout the regular season and postseason.

              • As the playoffs progress, the number of referees working games are whittled down for each round. The work roster starts with somewhere between 25 and 30 for the first round and ultimately drops to 12 for the Finals. With very few exceptions, the guys (or gal) who work the most through the postseason draw Finals assignments.

              • Over the last five years, 60 Finals slots have been available. Those slots have gone to a grand total of just 22 referees. And over the last five years, that group has been cut in half.

              • The attrition has come via retirement through fulfillment, exhaustion, injury or disenchantment, or via slippage through the merit system. But whatever the reason, the number of elite NBA referees has taken a serious hit over the last five years, a period we like to call the post-Donaghy era.

              • The exiting group includes Steve Javie, who in all likelihood would have worked the last five Finals had he not been injured in the 2009-10 season. That injury forced Javie to retire after last season.

              • It also includes Jim Clark, Bob Delaney, Joe DeRosa, Joe Forte, Bernie Fryer and Mark Wunderlich, all of whom have retired as NBA referees since their last Finals assignment. In addition, Bennett Salvatore is sidelined by an injury.

              • The list also likely will include Bavetta, Rush and Tom Washington, who remain highly active but haven’t been working much in June in recent years. Each has drawn at least two Finals assignments in the last five years but just one in the last two (Rush in 2010).
                Unlike other businesses, which often do not replace a departing employee and simply offset the workload upon other employees, NBA referees by and large must be replaced upon departure. There are regulations in place that prevent referees from working too frequently (a) overall, (b) in specific cities and (c) in games involving specific teams in order to maintain a visible level of integrity.

              • In order to follow those regulations, the referee work force must remain inherently the same size. And with three officials for all 990 games being played over 124 days, that’s nearly 3,000 shifts to cover while being mindful of the above limitations.

              • Have you seen some names you don’t recognize at the bottom of boxscores? Some unfamilar faces wearing the grey shirts? Join the club. Perhaps not coincidentally, the league has 11 referees with three years or less taking regular assignments this season.
                In addition, the NBA also has a half-dozen “guest” referees – Steven Anderson, Scott Bolnick, SirAllen Conner, Matt Myers, Kevin Scott and Ben Taylor – who have worked between eight and 18 games each this season.

              • As always, there’s been a couple of instances where the officiating could have been better. I have seen Violet Palmer and Zach Zarba – both of whom worked playoff games a year ago – exacerbate obvious missed calls by handing out technical fouls. My boss has seen Josh Tiven exhibit some serious rabbit ears.

              • And in Phoenix on Tuesday night, Commissioner David Stern said he was “not going to mention the LaMarcus Aldridge and Portland game” on Feb. 6 in which Aldridge was called for goaltending on a clean block of Kevin Durant’s tying drive in the closing seconds that forced overtime in a game eventually won by Oklahoma City. The league admitted the call was wrong the following day.

              • This is not an indictment of NBA referees, who also have done a darn good job this season of adhering to the points of emphasis. Ridiculous continuation plays that start at the 3-point circle have been virtually eliminated. Defenders are being given more leeway with their line of verticality, whether it be with their hands or body. Palms, carries and travels seem to be called with more frequency.

              • And as Stern also noted, the league will continue to look at goaltending and other calls that may be subjected to replay review.

              • In Friday night’s Boston-Philadelphia game, announcer Mike Breen – who has lower-level officiating in his background – pointed out the importance of the use of replay determining whether a shot was a 2-pointer or a 3-pointer. The game could be decided by one point, and the outcome could determine who won the season series, and the tiebreaker could determine who wins the division, and the seeding would determine a first-round playoff opponent. So, yeah, it was kind of important.

              • And there has been an increase in the use of replay, which in general has been a phenomenal addition to the game but can occasionally create more questions than it answers.

              • The playoffs are a month away. It is the one time every season where the NBA gives us a glance at its referee rating system. We are not allowed to see the individual exams, grading curve or dispensing of demerits. But the honor roll becomes public record, noted at the bottom of each postseason boxscore.
                And given the attrition of the last five years, it will be interesting to see how the most important games of the season are impacted, if at all, by the referees. They comprise a changing workforce subject to intense public and private scrutiny while trying to excel at a craft that is extremely difficult, bordering on impossible.
              Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-16-2013, 03:57 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                First of all, the actual finals are much less important than the preceding rounds. Though the league has a vested interest in extending the finals as many games as possible, they don't ultimately care who wins the damn title (as long as the teams competing are good ratings drawers). Second, are you proposing that Ken Mauer and Danny Crawford don't fit into that same category of veteran refs? Danny has been around for 29 years, and Ken 27. They might as well be Bavetta and Salvatore. And the idea that these refs are selected based on some merit based system is beyond laughable. Where can I find the results of these assessment, or even an explanation of the criteria used in them?
                Last edited by LongTimePacerFan; 04-16-2013, 04:37 PM.

                Comment


                • ...because that would be too obvious.....

                  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


                  • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                    Originally posted by LongTimePacerFan View Post
                    First of all, the actual finals are much less important than the preceding rounds. Though the league has a vested interest in extending the finals as many games as possible, they don't ultimately care who wins the damn title (as long as the teams competing are good ratings drawers). Second, are you proposing that Ken Mauer and Danny Crawford don't fit into that same category of veteran refs? Danny has been around for 29 years, and Ken 27. They might as well be Bavetta and Salvatore. And the idea that these refs are selected based on some merit based system is beyond laughable. Where can I find the results of these assessment, or even an explanation of the criteria used in them?

                    You said those refs you listed worked the most important games of the season, now you tell me that doesn't mean the finals, well then you tell me when the most important games of the season are, when are these games, they sound really good, I want to make sure I don't miss those.

                    They wouldn't make the assessments open to the public. So the nba flat out lies that they pick the refs based on a merit system. Why hasn't Bevetta worked and a finals game since 2008

                    Comment


                    • UB, they can't have a conspiracy that leaves behind pesky things like factual evidence. That would be too obvious....

                      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


                      • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        UB, they can't have a conspiracy that leaves behind pesky things like factual evidence. That would be too obvious....
                        Oh, like statistics.... which seem to support it?
                        "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                          Oh, like statistics.... which seem to support it?
                          UB left you a stat and nobody has addressed it yet....

                          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


                          • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            UB left you a stat and nobody has addressed it yet....
                            My issue was with the egregious free throw statistic change during the time frame of the playoff push between the Jazz and Lakers. As far as the officials go, I believe his point is that the "important" games would be those in which aiding a certain team would be of financial benefit. Thus, the finals actually would seem to be less important than say the conference finals. The Conspiracy being that the NBA cares about viewership ratings and once certain teams are in the finals the NBA would not have as much vested interest.

                            So for instance, say the Lakers are down 3-2 in a series against Sacramento. Maybe Dick Bavetta could be put on that particular game to ensure the LA has a good shot at tying the series up.

                            I believe this is the sentiment that he was trying to convey here.
                            Last edited by rock747; 04-17-2013, 02:27 AM.
                            "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                            Comment


                            • I have to say, it's shocking that the NBA's leader in free throws attempted on the season has attempted so many more free throws than the 6th worst team in the nba at getting to the line. It just doesn't make any sense...

                              Just a quick peek, but 8 out of Utah's last 10 games have come against teams in the top 12 in the league in free throws allowed. And the jazz themselves are one of the worst attending teams to the line...

                              Now, I suppose the nba could have scheduled Utah to play 10 out of 10 against teams that don't foul....but that would be too obvious.

                              (By the way Memphis is tied for 9th in the nba in FTAs allowed...conspiracy!)
                              Last edited by Kstat; 04-17-2013, 03:50 AM.

                              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