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

Quick thoughts...

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

  • Quick thoughts...

    Ok, I've stayed up late (even for me) because I had an extra hour due to the time change so I will make this very very short.

    Pull all of the negatives you want out of this (sloppy offense, Jamaal with questionable play, lack of p.g. defense, Harrison being Harrison, etc., etc.) and it still adds up to a win for the Pacers.

    Look it is in my nature to find fault. In fact what I do for a living (well one of the things I do for a living) is try and find an underlying problem and correct it. So that is why often times I come on here and see a win and go "yea, but".

    However this is a new year and a whole new set of rules.

    There is something to be said for this, winning is contagous. We are finding ways to win games which, IMO, is a hell of a lot differant than the last few years when we were finding ways to lose games.

    Does it matter what the opponets record is? No, it does not. You play who you play. Yes I realize that we have yet to face a great team or even a great player (Arenas aside) but these are the same types of teams that we have had real trouble with over the past few years.

    Remember from games 1 & 2 "never surrender" because that held through on game 3 as well.

    That's not to say there may not be some trouble. It will be interesting to see how both O'Brien and Harrison react to that little incident.

    BTW, for the record LA you were not getting flamed by an entire room. There was one person in the room who had your back. Roaming Gnome immediately stood up when he read what you had to say and yelled at the top of his lungs "Damn straight, J.O. has got to learn to control this crap." He then went on about a 5 min. lecture on why Drew Gooden really isn't that much worse of a player and frankly in retrospect comparing J.O. to John Koncack was an insult to Koncack.

    We were all stunned, but hey what could we say it was his house and he has a viscous man eating dog that was ready to tear us up if we even dared to offer a rebuttal.

    Anyway, back to the game.

    This is a real and honest question that I thought about on the way home.

    Have the Pacers in their history ever had two wing players at the same time be dynamic scoreres? I know Mikey Johnson and Ricky Sobers for one season but they were not traditional wing players at all, then did Adrian Dantley ever play with John Williams here? Even if they did it was less than a season.

    Honestly, is this the first time that we have had this?

    Ok, crap I forgot Artest & Reggie. But I will argue that by the time Ron was here Reggie was way past being a dynamic scorer other than on rare occasions.

    Help me out here guys, I am drawing a blank.

    We need to pick up the rebounding a little bit, hopeing Troy's return helps with that.

    12 players played? Not in a blowout? Unheard of?

    Not anymore, this is the New Indiana Pacers.

    Look please don't anybody think I'm being a pollyana here. I just have low expectations going into the season and so far they are far and away going above what I expected.

    Oh one last thing about the small gathering.

    There was one person in the room who believed all night long that the team would win.

    Just call me the new Sally Sunshine.

    Maybe I better talk about Walsh or something so that way I can make my posts more balanced.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Quick thoughts...

    Originally posted by Peck View Post

    Have the Pacers in their history ever had two wing players at the same time be dynamic scoreres? I know Mikey Johnson and Ricky Sobers for one season but they were not traditional wing players at all, then did Adrian Dantley ever play with John Williams here? Even if they did it was less than a season.

    Honestly, is this the first time that we have had this?

    Ok, crap I forgot Artest & Reggie. But I will argue that by the time Ron was here Reggie was way past being a dynamic scorer other than on rare occasions.

    Help me out here guys, I am drawing a blank.
    er, do reggie and jalen count?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Quick thoughts...

      "Man eating dog" LOL. It takes her 10 minutes just to stand up and about 5 for her to make her way over to you - plus all the mooing gives you plenty of warning she's on her way.


      Peck, I agree with you that Granger and Dunleavy right now are making a lethal combination (you are forgetting Reggie and Jalen - 40 pts a piece in a playoff game is impressive)

      Right now the two greatest assets for the Pacers are Dun and Granger as a tandem, plus the excellent depth.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Quick thoughts...

        Besides Reggie and Jalen, Reggie and Mully were a good combo for the first year (Mully's later decline helped erase the first year from people's minds) but before that you go back to Reggie and Chuck.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Quick thoughts...

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          BTW, for the record LA you were not getting flamed by an entire room. There was one person in the room who had your back. Roaming Gnome immediately stood up when he read what you had to say and yelled at the top of his lungs "Damn straight, J.O. has got to learn to control this crap." He then went on about a 5 min. lecture on why Drew Gooden really isn't that much worse of a player and frankly in retrospect comparing J.O. to John Koncack was an insult to Koncack.

          We were all stunned, but hey what could we say it was his house and he has a viscous man eating dog that was ready to tear us up if we even dared to offer a rebuttal.
          Oh I'm over it. The best part of the whole scene is that when a collection of our most lucid and thoughtful posters get together, they end up sounding like Dat Dude and Joneal7's love child.

          See what I did there? I flipped it. It's about quality posting, not my crackpot ideas. DEFLECT! DEFLECT!






          You'll never catch me!
          “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


          • #6
            Re: Quick thoughts...

            OH and by the way. I very much like that the Pacers are beginning to play the right way.

            But I want to hold up another standard: I want them to ACT the right way too. Just because other star players act like 3 year olds doesn't mean it's acceptable behavior from OUR star.

            Considering the guys we're talking about were here on 11/19, I think I have plenty reason to want them to play with emotion but not let emotion take over. We've all seen what can happen. And no, once you're involved in something like that, you never ever ever get to live it down. Never.

            The pacers should play the right way and ACT the right way. Neither JO or Harrison behaved well last night. I suggested that JO as team leader deserved a little responsibility for Harrison's actions but then I recanted and I admitted that each man is responsible for himself.

            But in the end JO should at least be held accountable for losing his own cool, right?

            With JO the T worked - he immediately cooled it and the refs got their word in: "hey pacers, don't **** us off." So maybe Harrison didn't follow his leader and get the message. But then, has he ever?

            EDIT: I reserve the right to flip-flop on this issue all season long.
            Last edited by Los Angeles; 11-04-2007, 11:31 AM.
            “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: Quick thoughts...

              Originally posted by peck

              Roaming Gnome immediately stood up when he read what you had to say and yelled at the top of his lungs "Damn straight, J.O. has got to learn to control this crap." He then went on about a 5 min. lecture on why Drew Gooden really isn't that much worse of a player and frankly in retrospect comparing J.O. to John Koncack was an insult to Koncack.

              We were all stunned, but hey what could we say it was his house and he has a viscous man eating dog that was ready to tear us up if we even dared to offer a rebuttal.
              What?!? Like J.O. in Los Angeles....I was misquoted, but my dog is a man-eater....

              I personally didn't see what happened to get J.O. his tech. I figure if it wasn't anything so demonstrative that it attracted the attention of the cameras, it was no big deal.

              As for Harrison, since it is a new coaching staff and everyone started with the slate clean, I'd expect them to have a spirited talk with him that may cost him a little $$$, but in the end I expect what ever they do will be done in the coaches' office and not in the public eye. Anymore incidents I'm sure will be handled by means that are evident to the public, like not playing.
              ...Still "flying casual"
              @roaminggnome74

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Quick thoughts...

                I love JO. I was disappointed when watching the feed to hear him complain in the manner that he did. I was hoping that was something that would change as well.
                "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Quick thoughts...

                  So far Danny and Mike have been awesome. Just awesome.

                  However neither has scored like this for a whole season. So I don't know that I would count on them to do so.

                  I guess I never have thought of Mike as a big time scorer. A very good all around player though. But I guess I have always seen him being a 15 point scorer and doing all the little things to help. Not this 22 point scorer. Either way I don't see much wrong.

                  Danny can be a 20 point scorer. However, as with Dunleavy, he hasn't proven it. Off to a good start though.

                  Jermaine hasn't shot the ball a lot in his 2 games. So I think how much shooting he does will have a big impact on the scoring that Mike/Danny do.

                  Hard to say if Mike and Danny will keep this up the whole season. If they can, then wow that would be great. If they don't then i'm sure that we all would still be pleased with their production.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Quick thoughts...

                    Originally posted by rommie View Post
                    So far Danny and Mike have been awesome. Just awesome.

                    However neither has scored like this for a whole season. So I don't know that I would count on them to do so.

                    I guess I never have thought of Mike as a big time scorer. A very good all around player though. But I guess I have always seen him being a 15 point scorer and doing all the little things to help. Not this 22 point scorer. Either way I don't see much wrong.

                    Danny can be a 20 point scorer. However, as with Dunleavy, he hasn't proven it. Off to a good start though.

                    Jermaine hasn't shot the ball a lot in his 2 games. So I think how much shooting he does will have a big impact on the scoring that Mike/Danny do.

                    Hard to say if Mike and Danny will keep this up the whole season. If they can, then wow that would be great. If they don't then i'm sure that we all would still be pleased with their production.

                    I think O'Brien has a lot of confidence in Dunleavy. The Pacers run a number of very nice offensive plays to get Mike shots and it seemed especially last night that whenever we really needed two points the pacers ran a play for Mike. He's excellent coming off screens and curling around picks to get open 18 ft jumpers. But I've been extremely impressed how the Pacers execute the plays

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Quick thoughts...

                      It appears we have our own big 3 with JO,Dun and Granger. A little bit younger also. I like our support cast a little better than Bostons.
                      "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                      Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Quick thoughts...

                        I was thinking before I made my season predictions that if G&D averaged 18 & 6 we would win over 50 games. So far they have exceeded my expectations.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Quick thoughts...

                          Originally posted by aceace View Post
                          It appears we have our own big 3 with JO,Dun and Granger. A little bit younger also. I like our support cast a little better than Bostons.
                          Hey, I like our team but let's not get away from ourselves here. In terms of wins this season, I'd trade Jermaine for KG, Danny for Peirce, or Dun for Ray Allen. Our guys are younger, sure, but as for this season we lose in each one of those matchups.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Quick thoughts...

                            even thought JO lost his cool and got T'ed up - it was essential that he did. Once he got back in the game he managed to get a few favorable whistles go his way...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Quick thoughts...

                              Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
                              even thought JO lost his cool and got T'ed up - it was essential that he did. Once he got back in the game he managed to get a few favorable whistles go his way...
                              That's a good point...Neither of those charges he took in the 4th were actually charges, IMO. (One was Rudy's fifth foul, and I think the other one was Mighty Mouse.)
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X