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

Game reports from Philly} Sixers lose control of Pacers house.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Game reports from Philly} Sixers lose control of Pacers house.

    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/spo...l/15957652.htm

    Sixers lose control of Pacers' house By PHIL JASNER
    jasnerp@phillynews.com

    INDIANAPOLIS - The editors wanted everything in early because of election returns. The 76ers cooperated. They were done by roughly 9:20 last night. They lost in a landslide.

    Stop us if you've heard this before, but they were outshot and outrebounded, only this time they had no antidote. Stop us again if you've heard this before, but for the second game in succession Chris Webber and Samuel Dalembert sat out the fourth quarter, only this time the two starting big men were out for the final 19 minutes, 39 seconds.

    With 100 percent of the precincts in, the Indiana Pacers were 97-86 winners in a race that ceased being competitive in the second quarter. The Sixers, who trailed by as many as 25 points, were beaten by at least 20 rebounds for the second time in four games, this time by 52-32; despite being barely outshot overall (45.1 percent to 44.6), they wounded themselves with a 6-for-24 second quarter in which they were outscored, 31-13.

    They came in 3-0 for the first time since 2000-01, and didn't look anything like a team with that record.

    "I was just hoping guys weren't feeling like, 'Yeah, we're going to lose one sooner or later,' but it just definitely didn't have to happen tonight,'' Allen Iverson said after shooting 8-for-22 and handing out only three assists. "It'd be crazy to think you're going to win all 82 games, but it didn't have to happen tonight. It was a game we could have won.''

    Down 64-47 with 4:48 left in the third quarter, Iverson yelped, "Come on, we ain't goin' home yet. We ain't goin' anywhere yet.'' Sadly, that exhortation fell on deaf ears. The Pacers placed all five starters in double scoring figures, with Jermaine O'Neal at the head of the class, contributing 16 points, 11 rebounds and four blocks. Rawle Marshall came off the bench to score 16 points, while backup big man Jeff Foster took 10 rebounds; Stephen Jackson and Jamaal Tinsley combined for 11 assists, five fewer than all of the Sixers.

    "If we approach it like, 'Tonight we're just going to come out and go through the motions,' we're going to have a long season,'' said Iverson, who insisted he wasn't ready to suggest that was what had just happened. "We've got to approach every game like we approached the first three, trying to win every game. You've got to play like you're trying to win every single game.

    "I know we didn't play as hard as we could have played as a team. I don't want guys to feel like we have to lose a game. You have to feel like you're a good team. It's all right to be a good team. I know things haven't been going well around here lately, especially last year, but last year is over.

    "[You've] got to feel like you're a good team. Don't get paranoia; don't get antsy. Just feel like you can win. Don't think it's a big deal when you win a basketball game. We can win. We have the capability of winning basketball games. We've got personnel to win basketball games, and you've got to approach it like that.''

    Coach Maurice Cheeks lamented his players taking "a lot of quick shots, resulting in [the Pacers] getting up and down, shooting a lot of layups.''

    "That's where our defense broke down,'' he said. Later, he said, "We've obviously got to do a lot better rebounding the ball.''

    Webber, showing a new look - bald, sans headband - put up a diplomatic front, saying, "It's not one point. You just have to give them credit.''

    "As a team, we're 3-1; we've just got to keep plugging away,'' he said. "For me personally, it's just staying focused, staying professional, playing hard.''

    Asked whether it was a concern that they twice have been beaten on the glass by at least 20, Webber said, "It's like, yes and no. Only four games, yes. But only four games and it's been twice, no.

    "It's something I'm sure we'll address, and we have to do it by committee. The more rotations you're doing, the less likely guys are going to be in position to rebound and know where shots are coming from. When you know where shots are coming from, you can pretty much gauge where [the rebounds will be].''

    But even in a landslide loss, there has to be a measure of perspective. (In politics, that might be termed spin.) So here was Kyle Korver reporting in with a bit of analysis.

    "Obviously, tonight did not go the way we wanted it to go,'' he said. "But we're 3-1. If we had said at the beginning of the season we'd start off 3-1, we all would have said, 'All right, we'll take that and we'll go from there.' That's the way we've got to look at it.''
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Game reports rom Philly} Sixers lose control of Pacers house.

    http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/spo...l/15954801.htm

    Sixers suffer first loss of season
    By Joe Juliano
    Inquirer Staff Writer

    INDIANAPOLIS - All right, so the 76ers weren't going to go 82-0 this season. You knew they would lose a game sooner or later.

    But it's the way they recorded their first loss, a 97-86 decision last night at Conseco Fieldhouse that was more of a drubbing than the final score would indicate, that sent an alarm ringing inside Allen Iverson's head.

    Iverson did not think the Sixers (3-1) played as if they expected to win, a theory supported by the Pacers' 52-32 advantage on the backboards and the Sixers' 25-point deficit after three quarters.

    "I know that we didn't play as hard as we could have played out there as a team," Iverson said. "I don't want guys to feel like we have to lose games. You have to feel like you're a good team. It's all right to be a good team.

    "I know things haven't been going well around here lately, especially last year. But last year is over. You've got to feel like you're a good team and don't get paranoid, don't get antsy, just feel like you can win.

    "Don't think it's a big deal because you won basketball games. We can win. We've got the capability to win basketball games. We've got the personnel to win basketball games. You've got to approach games like that."

    Iverson, who averaged 34.0 points and 9.7 assists in the Sixers' 3-0 start, accounted for just 20 points and three assists last night while shooting 8 of 22 from the field.

    After a decent first quarter, the Sixers were drummed out of the building in the second, getting outscored by 31-13 and shooting a meager 25 percent (6 of 24) from the field. At halftime, the Pacers led by 51-36 on the scoreboard and by 32-16 on the glass.

    Life got no better in the third quarter. The Sixers made just two of their first eight shots and the Pacers extended their margin. It got as high as 25 points by the end of the quarter, with Indiana up by 80-55 and coach Maurice Cheeks clearing his bench for the fourth.

    Chris Webber, who managed just seven points and three rebounds, sat out the final 19 minutes, 39 seconds, as did Samuel Dalembert.

    Indiana's lopsided rebounding advantage marked the second time in four games that the Sixers have been beaten by 20 or more on the boards. And the distress signal is lit.

    "We've got to do a lot better job, obviously, rebounding the basketball," Cheeks said. "I thought our defense was OK at times. But offensive rebounding the way they did and getting beat by 20 on the boards, that's unacceptable."

    Webber, who has made just 33.3 percent of his field-goal attempts in four games, said he plans to "just stay focused, stay professional and play hard."

    On a night of few highlights, the Sixers got veteran Alan Henderson and rookie Ivan McFarlin (six points in seven minutes) into a game for the first time this season.

    Jermaine O'Neal and Rawle Marshall led six Pacers in double figures with 16 points apiece.

    Amid the extended fourth-quarter garbage time, Willie Green shot 6 of 8 and scored 12 of his 14 points. Up until the fourth, Green had been 3 of 20 for the season.

    "Willie and other guys got their rhythm back, and getting their rhythm is a good thing," Webber said. "I'm sure that'll help us" tonight in Toronto against the Raptors.

    Tonight's game will give the Sixers a chance to erase the foul taste of last night's performance.

    "It'd be crazy to think you're going to win all 82 games, but it didn't have to happen tonight, losing a game we could have won," Iverson said.

    "I feel like we can win every time we step on the basketball court... . We've got to approach every game like we approached the first three games, trying to win them."

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Game reports from Philly} Sixers lose control of Pacers house.

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/spo...l/15957652.htm

      Sixers lose control of Pacers' house By PHIL JASNER
      jasnerp@phillynews.com

      "I was just hoping guys weren't feeling like, 'Yeah, we're going to lose one sooner or later,' but it just definitely didn't have to happen tonight,'' Allen Iverson said after shooting 8-for-22 and handing out only three assists. "It'd be crazy to think you're going to win all 82 games, but it didn't have to happen tonight. It was a game we could have won.''
      And I say - this was the game they hadn't any chance.

      LoL Iverson is so funny.
      "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

      - Albert Einstein

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Game reports from Philly} Sixers lose control of Pacers house.

        The way AI was talking it's like they haven't won a game yet or you know they're going at least lose 8 of their next 10 games. Reminds me of our season last year, even when we won there was just the gloomy dark cloud that follows the team. Kinda feels good cheering for a team with exactly the same record without the internal turmoil for a change.
        http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Game reports from Philly} Sixers lose control of Pacers house.

          I actually like most of Allen's comments if I was a Sixer fan. Iverson wants, no, needs to win, period. He plays his *** off all game long, every game, and he expects the same out of his teammates.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Game reports from Philly} Sixers lose control of Pacers house.

            Originally posted by Isaac@Section216 View Post
            I actually like most of Allen's comments if I was a Sixer fan. Iverson wants, no, needs to win, period. He plays his *** off all game long, every game, and he expects the same out of his teammates.
            Amen. Iverson is truly a great player and a great competitor.

            Period.

            If a guard can survive 7 years of Larry Brown, Chuck Norris has nothing on him.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Game reports from Philly} Sixers lose control of Pacers house.

              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
              Amen. Iverson is truly a great player and a great competitor.

              Period.

              If a guard can survive 7 years of Larry Brown, Chuck Norris has nothing on him.
              Yes. AI is one of the few lucky men Chuck Norris decided not to roundhouse kick him in the face.
              "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

              - Albert Einstein

              Comment

              Previous template Next
              Working...
              X