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 Kstat View Post
    You're the one that keeps brining up superstars and big markets as the things that create a competitive advantage.

    The pacers are +145 on the season in foul differential. That is just about exactly double what the Knicks are, and nearly triple what the thunder are.

    The defending champion Miami heat, with three all stars and the reigning MVP that went a month without committing a foul, are a +136.

    How is THAT not suspicious?

    I would love to see those calls broken down by individual player. I bet LeBron/Wade are reponsible for the majority of the differential.

    I think superstar calls are also based off of situations. LeBron is going to get a touchy foul for him in a tight game when he doesn't in a blowout. And besides, pretty much everyone else on the roster doesn't shoot all that much, or stand out and launch threes. I can't imagine Mike Miller having a whole lot of foul shots, eventhough he's playing for Miami, because he doesn't put himself in situations to even get the benefit of the doubt.

    Compared to a team that has tried to build their offensive identity around something called "smashmouth" and playing inside.

    IT's not as simple as just comparing the number of calls, but rather the situations where the calls are made.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

      Originally posted by billbradley View Post
      So refs are taking a hit to their own pocket for the good of the NBA, even though calling games for superstars doesn't create the blockbuster matches and champions that would be good for the NBA!

      Maybe they should try NOT calling the game for superstars...
      How are they taking a hit in their pocket? Because they don't expose it? It's something that is impossible to prove, if it is just a wink-wink thing, so what are they going to say?

      Tim Donaghy has said it BTW. But I guess it's just easier to think that an official who actually did it for profit without anyone knowing for years is just an isolated incident.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        It could be very well part of the process on who gets to call what playoff games. "Good little soldiers" get rewarded. People do things for their employer, that they don't have to do, that helps out their employer all the time without a direct benefit to said employee.

        I refer people to my company and not my office, all the time.

        Then why hasn't Bevetta who is considered to be the alltime and best "Good Little Solder" worked an NBA Finals game since 2008?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          I would love to see those calls broken down by individual player. I bet LeBron/Wade are reponsible for the majority of the differential.

          I think superstar calls are also based off of situations. LeBron is going to get a touchy foul for him in a tight game when he doesn't in a blowout. And besides, pretty much everyone else on the roster doesn't shoot all that much, or stand out and launch threes. I can't imagine Mike Miller having a whole lot of foul shots, eventhough he's playing for Miami, because he doesn't put himself in situations to even get the benefit of the doubt.

          Compared to a team that has tried to build their offensive identity around something called "smashmouth" and playing inside.

          IT's not as simple as just comparing the number of calls, but rather the situations where the calls are made.
          First off, you're the one that brought up lebron's zero foul streak.

          Second, now you're addressing Indiana's style of play, after we've gone ten pages determining that referees call things based on ulterior motives and not basketball? So now it's okay that the pacers get called for a lot less fouls than they commit...why? Because they're the pacers? Every thing is on the level when it's the pacers benefitting?

          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


          • Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            How are they taking a hit in their pocket? Because they don't expose it? It's something that is impossible to prove, if it is just a wink-wink thing, so what are they going to say?

            Tim Donaghy has said it BTW. But I guess it's just easier to think that an official who actually did it for profit without anyone knowing for years is just an isolated incident.
            Tim donaghy also said he never affected the outcome of a game. Are we picking and choosing what to believe from him?

            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 Since86 View Post
              How are they taking a hit in their pocket? Because they don't expose it? It's something that is impossible to prove, if it is just a wink-wink thing, so what are they going to say?
              UB has given examples of refs being "good little soldiers" or making bad calls that favor superstars or big market teams not reffing big games. That is a clear hit to the pocket.

              Originally posted by Since86
              Tim Donaghy has said it BTW. But I guess it's just easier to think that an official who actually did it for profit without anyone knowing for years is just an isolated incident.
              I'm just going off of the FBI instead of what you're opinion is based on zero proof.

              Comment


              • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Tim donaghy also said he never affected the outcome of a game. Are we picking and choosing what to believe from him?
                Yes we are, we believe what he said about the WCF 2002 and what he said about Bevetta, but then we don't believe him when he says he didn't affect the outcome of games.

                Comment


                • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  First off, you're the one that brought up lebron's zero foul streak.
                  Yep, which would mean how many fouls he got called for him would be XXXX to 0. Allowing for a pretty large differential as a team, even if the rest of his teammates are at a more equal value...



                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Second, now you're addressing Indiana's style of play, after we've gone ten pages determining that referees call things based on ulterior motives and not basketball? So now it's okay that the pacers get called for a lot less fouls than they commit...why? Because they're the pacers?
                  No, that's not what I meant. I mean that when you put the ball into the post, you're more likely to get a foul called beause there's more contact in the lane than there is taking a jumpshot.

                  The odds of there being contact when getting in the middle is a lot higher than the odds standing on the outside.
                  Last edited by Since86; 04-17-2013, 02:47 PM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Yes we are, we believe what he said about the WCF 2002 and what he said about Bevetta, but then we don't believe him when he says he didn't affect the outcome of games.
                    But only one out of the three refs was in on it, according to him...keep in mind that one ref was able to fix that game with the other two knowing nothing about it and never questioning it..but somehow Donaghy, a guy that didn't work the game knew about it.

                    The best part about the story: Donaghy conveniently never has to specifically accuse anybody, and therefore never has to prove anything!

                    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 billbradley View Post
                      UB has given examples of refs being "good little soldiers" or making bad calls that favor superstars or big market teams not reffing big games. That is a clear hit to the pocket.
                      And what are they going to say? I didn't get to ref a game, because I didn't follow their unsaid, but understood rule? They win that lawsuit? Unless they think they can, it benefits to keep their mouth shut and just continue doing their job.

                      As the saying goes, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander."
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Yes we are, we believe what he said about the WCF 2002 and what he said about Bevetta, but then we don't believe him when he says he didn't affect the outcome of games.
                        So what are you saying with this then?

                        Edit: I'd like to add that the "de-bunking" of Tim Donaghy's accusation that Dick keeps games close is based on 7-point lines. Tim specifically stated he would only bet on the underdog "every time" on double digit spreads. No one even broke attempted to break the numbers down like that to find his probability of cashing out. With 7 point spreads you would beat the spread 60% of Dick's games. But Tim didn't say anything about 7 point spreads. He said "double digits". Again, 7 is not a double digit number. They de-bunked nothing, except in the eyes of those willing to ignore Tim's actual words and take the what the de-bunkers used as definition of "heavy underdog".
                        Last edited by TinManJoshua; 04-17-2013, 02:59 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          And what are they going to say? I didn't get to ref a game, because I didn't follow their unsaid, but understood rule? They win that lawsuit? Unless they think they can, it benefits to keep their mouth shut and just continue doing their job.

                          As the saying goes, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander."
                          That does not answer my question. Why make the call then? It doesn't benefit the NBA because they don't get the marquee match ups or champions. It doesn't benefit the ref because they end up officiating less games.

                          You say it's unsaid, yet how is the message delivered unless it is said? The refs are punished!

                          None of what you're saying adds up.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Is the NBA rigged???

                            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                            So what are you saying with this then?
                            That Donaghy is a liar when its convenient to call him a liar and he's telling the truth when we we want him to be telling the truth.

                            Him saying the NBA fixes games benefited him. He was trying to sell a book. Him saying he never personally fixed a game also benefited him, as it kept him from doing extra jail time. Even his story about the Kings/Lakers game was the perfect conspiracy theory because he never had to prove anything or directly accuse anybody. It makes absolutely no sense that one ref would be in on it and the other two (A) would not be in on it (B) would not notice it happening and (C) would do nothing about it after the fact, but let's face it: Donaghy was pandering to the lowest common denominator with that one.

                            Everything he said, he said to benefit his situation. He's already proven integrity means nothing to him. He's a proven degenerate.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 04-17-2013, 02:59 PM.

                            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???

                              Couple of things not discussed in this thread. Refs can be and are at times influenced by the home crowd. Although a few refs I think actually enjoy going against the home crowd. Refs are also influenced by momentum and flow of the game. During a long run by a team, refs can get caught up in it and make a few bad calls to help the team on the run. Also refs used to reward subconsiously the more aggressive team - not as much as they used to. Refs also tend to call a really physical team a little differently than a less physical team. This too has changed a little the past 5-10 years - it falls under the category if a team fouls on every play refs won't call fouls every time - like I say this is less prevalent than it used to be.

                              But I remember in 1994 season - Larry Brown's first the pacers were called for a ton of fouls early in the season - Larry said it was because the pacers were much more physical than they had been and if they just keep playing that way the refs will know this is how we play now and adjust. Not sure if larry was convinved of that or if he just said that for his team sake. But later in the year fewer calls were called - I think partially for the reason larry mentioned, but probably more so because the pacers players got used to playing the more physical style.
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-17-2013, 02:59 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Is the NBA rigged???



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X