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

GSW game was enjoyable

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

  • GSW game was enjoyable

    Yes I think that pulling George for Rush on Ellis late was a mistake and yes I would have had Josh as the lob into guy for the final play.

    Sure there were other things I still don't like in general.

    But for all the poor plays by AJ and Josh, and to a lesser extent some of the other guys, it was nice to be concerned with whether Rush or George was who you needed at the moment, or whether AJ needed to come out for a bit or push through his struggles.

    I know Roy being out was part of it, but I just want to give someone, JOB or whomever, credit for putting the product on the floor I want to watch. After getting to a point where I almost root against the team for fear of having things limp along just enough to stay the same, it was nice to feel the emotional pull back into the team and get a bit vested in the action.


    It was nice to be really upset that Ellis hit the shot and wish that Rush could have stopped him. To just be pulling for the kids because that's who was playing.

    I really would like to think that this is a sign of things to come. Who cares if AJ, Roy, Rush, Tyler, Josh or PG24 crap out in 2-3 years, you gotta take that ride with them and find out. For me that's always been the sales pitch for this transition team.

    Watching to see the fluctuation and hopefully the improvement of the games from these guys is what keeps me still tuning in. I sure hope JOB realizes how much fans like myself appreciated it.

  • #2
    Re: GSW game was enjoyable

    I think it was the 4th quarter when George drove into the lane, stopped, and knocked down a fadeaway bunny with a hand in his face. That is the kind of stuff I like to see from him, a no fear "I'm going to get my shot no matter what" kind of attitude. It's the confidence from George, or playing like a wildman in Hansbrough, or Hibbert swatting a shot in the lane that gets me pumped. It's a much better high than watching Posey set up a tent and hibatchi at the 3 point line, or watching Solo do something great and then go invisible for long periods of time. Nothing makes my head hurt more than seeing that stupid look on Ford's face when he does something boneheaded which is about every other play on average.

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: GSW game was enjoyable

      I'd rather watch the Pacers win a defensive struggle.

      I just can't enjoy a loss.

      Not at this point.

      Not where we are now.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: GSW game was enjoyable

        I really hope JOB doesn't jerk Josh and AJ around again. They played badly..but let them get out their cobwebs. Confidence and not knowing how to fit in was a major reason for it. Let them play through it.

        And for as bad as they were, they still did have some good moments. Josh had some good dunks and AJ scored 5 points in the 8-0 run that gave the Pacers the lead in the third quarter.

        Let them play, let all the young guys play and grow as a unit. Plzkaythx.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: GSW game was enjoyable

          I feel the same way, I felt better yesterday about the team than when they won that NO game, I just wish people understand what we really want to see, is not about wins anymore, it should be about letting the young players grow and find out what we have.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: GSW game was enjoyable

            I agree for the most part...

            except I really do care if they crap out or not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: GSW game was enjoyable

              Originally posted by Merz View Post
              I agree for the most part...

              except I really do care if they crap out or not.

              You mean like the guy in your avatar?....
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: GSW game was enjoyable

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                I sure hope JOB realizes how much fans like myself appreciated it.
                Should a coach even consider who the fans want to play. I sure hope that never enters a coaches mind. I sure would never hire a coach if that thought ever entered his mind.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: GSW game was enjoyable

                  OB played them because he thought it was his best chance to win. The vets the Pacers have, other than Danny, are not very good.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: GSW game was enjoyable

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Should a coach even consider who the fans want to play. I sure hope that never enters a coaches mind. I sure would never hire a coach if that thought ever entered his mind.
                    I agree, UB. I just think it goes a little bit more "big picture" with the coach's decisions. These kids are going to be the ones that if you continue coaching for two or three years, will be your rotational players. If you don't get them acclimated sooner than later, you will have those "deer in the headlights" moments like we saw out of Price's ball handling two nights ago, just two years from now.

                    I loved seeing those guys out there. They are SO much more dynamic than the vets. I love Foster. Always have, so I don't mind because he is setting a great example. Same with Posey and Dun. But their minutes should stay limited. Posey shows great tenacity and Dun moves so well without the ball. They all play fundamentally solid basketball and are great to show the young guys how to play. McRoberts dunks and blocked shot early in the game were outstanding. Who else would we get plays like that from on this roster? Nobody. George is so long and athletic. He has a great feel for the game and gets to the rim with relative ease. Rush got beat on that last play, but the difference in his defense was that his back foot slipped. He still got a hand up in the shooters way, but would have made the shot more contested if he hasn't slipped. Ellis just made a great shot. It was what a game winner looks like. You remember what those look like Danny? Cause I have only seen bad fadeaway threes late in games from you recently. I did like Danny's play. He dogged it on several possession which gets under my skin a bit. He is our best player.

                    I watched the GS game last night after DVRing it. I really thought we played a much better game than they did. We just had a couple of really bad stretches of turnovers. Outside of about three runs on their part, one of which was spurred by 3 or 4 straight turnovers by Granger, we really outplayed them I thought. I loved seeing Hansborough and McRoberts playing together. You can see the youthful mistakes, but it was nice seeing them play through most of them. Then we went small down the stretch, AGAIN. I don't care what anybody says, there is no reason we should go small down the stretch. Maybe middle to late third quarter. Maybe start of the fourth. When you are playing backups, ok, but not in situations where you need big rebounds to seal wins. Sorry. I really like that we have gone to a more low-post-centric offense. We are establishing more possessions from the low post than we have all season. I think it helps with our ball movement and we are getting a lot more slashing/cutting going on around picks. We have had this, but doing so much of the work from the high post had gotten us too one dimensional and easy to defend on the perimeter. We are establishing Hans and McRoberts and even George in the post. It created a lot of opportunity for us by spreading the court low. It also opens up the driving lanes better which helps Collison a lot. I really like the changes that O'Brien has made to the offense. These were things that I (and many others) had been saying for a while. I love the high post offense capability. I lvoe our low post offense capability. Mixing it up more gives us less predictability, and keeps the defense on their heels. The changes have really helped Collison and I think it is easier on the young guys, who are more used to this type of offense.
                    "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: GSW game was enjoyable

                      I enjoyed the Golden State rotations more than any other game this season. I wish Roy had played.

                      The team played much better as soon as AJ entered the game. It definitely didn't show up in the stats but our ball movement was as good as it's been this season when he was playing. I think he might be the best point guard for this team, and like others have said, his absence in games is mind boggling.

                      Our problem was that we played terrible defense and then left several players in the game when they were gassed (Foster). I'm actually surprised we kept it close.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: GSW game was enjoyable

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Should a coach even consider who the fans want to play. I sure hope that never enters a coaches mind. I sure would never hire a coach if that thought ever entered his mind.
                        Isn't it a business..entertainment?

                        If we aren't going to win using players that fans don't want to see, wouldn't you play players that fans do want to see?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: GSW game was enjoyable

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          Isn't it a business..entertainment?

                          If we aren't going to win using players that fans don't want to see, wouldn't you play players that fans do want to see?
                          I agree with you here, the issue that some people are going to see with this is that in their minds you are not playing to win, is kind of like if you develop your young players and don't play your vets you are playing to lose.(that is how they see it)
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: GSW game was enjoyable

                            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                            Isn't it a business..entertainment?

                            If we aren't going to win using players that fans don't want to see, wouldn't you play players that fans do want to see?
                            That shouldn't be the motivation. If you aren't winning, it's time to try something new.

                            Lineup changes shouldn't come on the whim of emotionally invested watchers.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: GSW game was enjoyable

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I agree with you here, the issue that some people are going to see with this is that in their minds you are not playing to win, is kind of like if you develop your young players and don't play your vets you are playing to lose.(that is how they see it)
                              If your vets are terrible, you're not doing any harm playing the youth. However, you should be playing the youth because they're showing more competence than the vets, not because the dudes in row 106 just started a chant for one of the youngsters.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X