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

Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

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

  • #31
    Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    Because a third of the teams in the league are compulsive gamblers addicted to the thrill of hitting big in the draft, which leads to a significant amount of unwatchable games in the last quarter of the season. This hurts the watch ability of the league for League Pass freaks like me and I'm sure even more for season ticket holders.
    If that happens it will be the first time it has happened. The truth is tanking is not a real problem. Teams do not tank like you want to believe they do. Tanking is the exception not the rule. When the coach and players step on the floor they are playing to win, some teams just aren't that good. If you don't like watching bad teams then don't watch them cause no matter what you do there will be bad teams.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

      I agree that at any point in time, there will be good teams and bad teams. The problem IMO is that the good teams tend to be the few well-run franchises (Spurs of course being the best example) while the rest take turns being bad teams. Wouldn't it be much better for the league if ALL the teams are well-run?

      And there I think is the problem with the draft. Getting good talent is only part of the battle. Getting a good FO is absolutely essential as well. And the big, big problem with the draft is that the optimal way to benefit from the draft is by making good GMs act like bad GMs (i.e. by assembling bad teams).

      The current system allows bad GMs to use the draft as a crutch. Even those bright young guys running tank jobs in Philly or Orlando or Phoenix, who knows if they're really good? They have a plan for getting good draft picks, which is nice, but the real question is, can they assemble good teams? That can't be answered for a few years yet.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        Also, like Ransom said, you're sending your best young talent to dysfunctional franchises. While I don't think it's as big a problem, there's still a case to be made that you're squandering their limited time in the league and stalling their development by making them go to poorly run teams. Then you're setting them up as villains if they decide to leave the team that they never had a choice to be on in the first place.
        Yes, this is one of my main issues. I really believe being in a poorly run team can hurt a player's development. It's like taking a talented businessman and forcing him to work for a terrible company.

        Now a couple of things i'll admit: In theory, small market teams with a good reputation in developing talent (like the Spurs, and recently Pacers) ought to have a leg up in convincing people to come to them. But let's face it, players coming out of college or high school don't always make the wisest choices (Dwight Howard's alleged list of players he'd like to play with comes to mind). At least it would be their choice, of course.

        There's a lot of interesting ideas here, but to go back to my original post, is it possible to eliminate or at least minimize the financial advantages a big market team has, so that it is very difficult to pay more than one or two players 'superstar' money? My thought is that a rookie or young star might be less likely to go play with Kobe or Lebron if the team could only afford to pay him a much as a role player.

        Yeah, that involves a lot of fantasy in and of itself I know. I was just pondering if the assumption that players would always go to the Lakers, etc if all things were equal might be flawed.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

          The pro0blem with "punishing" "poorly run teams" is that we as fans in particular really have no earthly idea what constitutes a "poorly run team". Is going for the brass ring by spending lots of money and coming up short only to fall victim to the LT "poorly run"? Is saving money but never going for big talent "poorly run"? Is overpaying a superstar to stay "poorly run"? Is refusing to overpay a superstar to stay and thus losing attendance/marketing/games "poorly run"? Is Donald Sterling a "poor" owner because his franchise doesn't win big, or is he a "good" owner because his franchise doesn't lose great gobs of money? Is assembling a bunch of players and having them go down with injuries "poorly run"? Is being in the same division with a perennial powerhouse "poorly run"?

          People use the counter examples of San Antonio and OKC as "well run" franchises, but bear in mind we would probably not be even thinking about San Antonio without what they got in the draft - and OKC had to be in the tank for years and end up with the team moving before they (once again via the draft) got a superstar player.

          Far too often I think the "well run" franchises are the ones who either got lucky in the past and have maintained the status they got then OR have enough money or market that they can make huge mistakes and still not suffer for it in the attendance or attention area.

          The draft (to me) is meant to try to level that and try to keep the NBA being all about who has the deepest pockets and the biggest fanbase. I maintain that there are probably just as few "poorly run" franchises as there are "well run" franchises - everyone else is like pretty much every business ever opened, run well enough to handle situations day-to-day but neither spectacularly prone to big mistakes nor amazingly able to make perfect moves.
          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


          • #35
            Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

            Assign draft position based on the aggregate player rankings within the league who were with that franchise at the end of the season regardless of whether their team made the playoffs or not. The 15 teams with the worst aggregate player rankings participate in a live 15 ball ping pong ball draft, with the first ball coming out getting the 15th pick, the second ball 14th, and so on until only one ball is left for the team that gets the top pick.

            In that many players have incentive based contracts, the players as a whole would not want to tank due to financial ramifications to them.

            Also, the best way for teams to tank under this scenario would be to trade higher ranked players for lower up through the trade deadline, which I believe might lead to a redistribution of talent and take away the majority of the large market advantages in securing talent.

            Thoughts?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

              If anything, the draft needs to say exactly the same as not to confuse the league dumbest GM's. The truth is, smart GMs build good teams, and every time there is a wrinkle on how to build a team, there are always a few GMs who **** it and badly stunt the grown of their respective team.

              Just keep the **** the same, and count on smart front offices to build good teams. That's the one constant, if you're not an idiot you can build a good team. I didn't say a championship team, but a good team. I'd argue it is fairly easy to build a solid mid level playoff contender if you're not a ****ing idiot.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                If anything, the draft needs to say exactly the same as not to confuse the league dumbest GM's. The truth is, smart GMs build good teams, and every time there is a wrinkle on how to build a team, there are always a few GMs who **** it and badly stunt the grown of their respective team.

                Just keep the **** the same, and count on smart front offices to build good teams. That's the one constant, if you're not an idiot you can build a good team. I didn't say a championship team, but a good team. I'd argue it is fairly easy to build a solid mid level playoff contender if you're not a ****ing idiot.
                But a solid mid-level playoff team is to many a mediocre team, particularly if they can't get up over the top.

                What "smart" GM every got his team to the top of the league without a top-5 pick? And, of the ones who brought that pick in as a free agent or via trade, which of those are not big market or deep pocket teams?

                If you answer "Larry Bird" to that, bear in mind that the Pacers were considered by many to be a "poorly run" franchise during Bird's first 3 years solo.
                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


                • #38
                  Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                  Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                  Assign draft position based on the aggregate player rankings within the league who were with that franchise at the end of the season regardless of whether their team made the playoffs or not. The 15 teams with the worst aggregate player rankings participate in a live 15 ball ping pong ball draft, with the first ball coming out getting the 15th pick, the second ball 14th, and so on until only one ball is left for the team that gets the top pick.

                  In that many players have incentive based contracts, the players as a whole would not want to tank due to financial ramifications to them.

                  Also, the best way for teams to tank under this scenario would be to trade higher ranked players for lower up through the trade deadline, which I believe might lead to a redistribution of talent and take away the majority of the large market advantages in securing talent.

                  Thoughts?
                  Kind of creates an atmosphere where everyone is trying to be San Antonio with a top player who sits out a year.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    But a solid mid-level playoff team is to many a mediocre team, particularly if they can't get up over the top.

                    What "smart" GM every got his team to the top of the league without a top-5 pick? And, of the ones who brought that pick in as a free agent or via trade, which of those are not big market or deep pocket teams?

                    If you answer "Larry Bird" to that, bear in mind that the Pacers were considered by many to be a "poorly run" franchise during Bird's first 3 years solo.
                    I didn't say you could build a championship team easily, just a mid-level playoff team.

                    It absolutely takes a little luck to become a contender. The Pacers flatout lucked out with Paul George. None of their other moves are lucky, but getting PG's talent at number 10? Lucky as ****.

                    With all that said, for a long time I, and most others felt that once you hit that mid-level playoff contention level, that you either suddenly get better or you have to blow it up. I believe there are a lot more options available. You can do trades, and sign FA's to help your team get better. If a certain player is hurting your capspace, get rid of him, and continue to build your team.

                    Take the Hawks as an example. Even now, they could make a simple trade to make themselves much better. They have two powerforwards and they need a center. Houston has two centers and they need a PF.

                    Imagine how much better they would be with a frontcourt of Asik and Horford?? There are a lot of things teams can do to continuely build their team as long as they don't stand pat, and they get creative with their trades.

                    Changing the draft isn't going to do much to change that. In the end, smart, calculated moves from the front office with a little bit of luck helps build teams.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                      If that happens it will be the first time it has happened. The truth is tanking is not a real problem. Teams do not tank like you want to believe they do. Tanking is the exception not the rule. When the coach and players step on the floor they are playing to win, some teams just aren't that good. If you don't like watching bad teams then don't watch them cause no matter what you do there will be bad teams.
                      They're bad teams because they're designed to be bad. There is no incentive for being an average to good team. There is a huge advantage to being terrible. I don't doubt that coaches and player's are doing their best to win games. It doesn't matter because front offices are rewarded for building bad teams.

                      Tanking is not missing shots on purpose. It's the front office giving away assets or avoiding things that could make the team better because they want to gamble on the lottery. I saw this in person when I lived in Denver the season before the 03 draft. Useful players were traded and sub-NBA talent was signed, on purpose, to lose games. This happens every year throughout the league. It's a problem.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                        They're bad teams because they're designed to be bad. There is no incentive for being an average to good team. There is a huge advantage to being terrible. I don't doubt that coaches and player's are doing their best to win games. It doesn't matter because front offices are rewarded for building bad teams.

                        Tanking is not missing shots on purpose. It's the front office giving away assets or avoiding things that could make the team better because they want to gamble on the lottery. I saw this in person when I lived in Denver the season before the 03 draft. Useful players were traded and sub-NBA talent was signed, on purpose, to lose games. This happens every year throughout the league. It's a problem.
                        Oh, come on. Vincent Yarbrough, Shammond Williams, Jeff Trepagnier, Rodney White, and Nikoloz Tskitishvili were trying to win.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                          I think the teams with the four worst records should have to play a Toilet Bowl tournament on ESPN Classic during the first round of the playoffs. Winner gets the first pick, runner-up the second, consolation game winner the third etc. etc. The rest of the teams out of the playoffs pick by record.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                            Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                            I think the teams with the four worst records should have to play a Toilet Bowl tournament on ESPN Classic during the first round of the playoffs. Winner gets the first pick, runner-up the second, consolation game winner the third etc. etc. The rest of the teams out of the playoffs pick by record.
                            That would be odd. The players would probably be throwing the game...to avoid losing their starting job to the #1 pick.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              That would be odd. The players would probably be throwing the game...to avoid losing their starting job to the #1 pick.
                              Thats why it would be on ESPN Classic... you have to buy the sports tier just to get it on Directv nowadays!
                              "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                              "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Thought Experiment: What if We Just Got Rid of the Draft?

                                Why would you want to take away one of my 3 favorite days of the year?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X