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

Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

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

  • #16
    Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
    I missed the game tonight. Why did Roy only get 7 shots?
    The ball movement was terrible. Danny Granger and David West spent the entire night trying to force mismatches they didn't have. It trickled down to the bench when guys like Amundson and Dahntay Jones started jacking up bad shots.

    Whether that falls on the players or the coach, I have no idea. It could have been part of the gameplan.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
      The only big picture concern I have for us at this early stage is the shooting issue. Not just the whole when are we going to start making some shots. But also, equally important, we honestly could benefit from a true, dead-eye jump shooter. That way, when most everyone else is off, there's someone who can hit an occasional shot...especially the open ones. Right now I've become much more focused on this issue than the backup 5 situation, despite no Foster or Pendergraph yet.
      I don't see it so much as needing a dead-eye shooter. I think we need an offensive creator. DC has gotten a little better and George Hill is adequate, but neither can really make things happen.

      Lance can. But it appears to me he is considered "good" when he plays cautious like those other two guys. I think he needs a longer leash, the freedom to make things happen, make some mistakes, and slowly grow into a role that creates offense for a team that otherwise cannot do so.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

        Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
        If Granger is going to shoot 30% from the field all season long we won't get too far.
        And only occasionally play defense. And turn the ball over. And practice his best Carlos Boozer imitations. And really only step up in the last two minutes.

        Granger's play drives me crazy. Theoretically, he should be more invested on defense this year because he has less pressure on offense but, no. His effort is half-there at best. This is why people wanted to trade him last year. This is why I think they should still try to trade him, provided they can get a good deal in return of course.

        As I've said several times, Granger is a clutch player. But he is not a particularly smart player, nor is he really playing up to the value of his contract.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

          I actually feel Granger's D and passing have looked better through the first four games. I think he looks more engaged in those areas. Rebounding is also important. He's done okay there. JMO, but that's been my observation. What I still can't stand is him leading the break. That's a recipe for a turnover every time. Find the PG and fill the lane or trail (unless it's an open breakout).
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
            I actually feel Granger's D and passing have looked better through the first four games. I think he looks more engaged in those areas. Rebounding is also important. He's done okay there. JMO, but that's been my observation. What I still can't stand is him leading the break. That's a recipe for a turnover every time. Find the PG and fill the lane or trail (unless it's an open breakout).
            He just doesn't seem to give that full game effort to me, ever. And he's not a smart basketball player. Nice guy. Clutch as hell. Great secondary option on a lot of teams...I just think the Pacers should look to trade him while his value's still high, if they get reasonable compensation. Not saying they would. I just wouldn't shed any tears if he was parlayed into, say, the kind of PG the Pacers really need.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

              The biggest difference between the two teams was that Detroit set up easier shots by moving without the ball (and then made them when they got them), while the Pacers all too often stood around waiting for the ball handler to find THEM instead of creating a passing lane - and, when they had an open shot, they bricked it.

              No one can say the Pacers are settling for outside jumpers or not getting into the paint - look at the FTs (which was the only thing that kept us within shouting distance). Trouble is that teams are happy to foul us down low all night because they know we couldn't hit the ground from a porch roof from anywhere outside 10 feet.
              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


              • #22
                Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                IMO we do not feed to post, or even the high post like we should. Roy has been very solid, but I feel a lot of his scoring has been on "cleanup" duty, not helping establish any type of post/ inside-out offense. In fact, other then attempting more P&R's (somethig I have not seen us do very affectively yet - at least on a regular basis), let me ask: What is our offense philosophy? What identity are we trying to establish on that side of the ball?
                (PS: Don't give me "Smashmouth", that's an overall attitude, not a style)
                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  What, no postgame thread when we lose?

                  Come on guys, let's learn to eat our spinach.

                  Well, it wasn't fun to watch, but those who've watched this sport long enough know some nights just aren't your night. Win streaks don't usually last very long and teams that haven't won in a while get desperate.

                  Jerepko seems to be some kind of super human creature on steroids. At least against us.

                  The next game will be instructive. Remember how many times Mark Jackson would say: We're a veteran team and we don't allow a loss to get us too low? (Or something like that).

                  Let's see how much better we've gotten by how we react to this loss.
                  I expected us to lose. One we had just played Detroit and it's very hard in the NBA to beat a team you have just beaten. We were playing at their place, and we didn't get in until late because our game against Cleveland went into overtime. Plus it was a back and back.

                  Looking at how the Pacers play it seems they are doing what they did last year. Most of the players being hot or cold at the same time. So far most have been cold but when they get hot they will hit 21-22 like they did last year. Hopefully they get hot soon.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                    Originally posted by ndcoltsnpacers View Post

                    Might help West a bit in these back to backs to get Foster back.
                    Yeah, it would be nice if Foster was earning his 3 mil gift from Bird. You can say what you want about Dahntay and his near 3 mil salary, but he's available to play every game. Personally, I'm tired of seeing Sir Foster in a suit, and not doing the job he's being paid to do.

                    Fresnko didn't sign a contract as reported he had. There is a reb'r and hardnose player to back up Hibbert who will cost less than 3 mil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                      Fresnko didn't sign a contract as reported he had. There is a reb'r and hardnose player to back up Hibbert who will cost less than 3 mil.
                      This.
                      Young, long, defensive, cheap.
                      "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                      (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post

                        we didn't get in until late because our game against Cleveland went into overtime. Plus it was a back and back.

                        Are you forgetting the Pistons played in Boston the night b4, and got into weather problems coming home so they didn't get any more rest than the Pacers?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                          Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post

                          Why did Roy only get 7 shots?

                          Thats a very valid question. Maybe Vogel has answer for it. What position players job, moreso than others, is it to get the ball to Hibbert?

                          Another thing was that Hibbert couldn't hold position when Wallace guarding him at times. This has always been a major weakness of Hibbert... lack of strength.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Are you forgetting the Pistons played in Boston the night b4, and got into weather problems coming home so they didn't get any more rest than the Pacers?
                            It just means that they had their own problems, but so did we and it appeared to bother us more for whatever reason.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              It just means that they had their own problems, but so did we and it appeared to bother us more for whatever reason.
                              I think the "smash mouth thing" is running guys into the ground making hard for them to recover quick in a back to back, Tyler is Tyler but his shots is not falling(tired legs?) Roy also looked tired and softer, Dwest who just started playing again few weeks ago played 39minutes againts the Cavs, I know Frank is telling him to post up more and play "smash mouth" but I still think he needs to call more pick and roll plays for him and playing him at center is not helping much either.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Postgame Thread Pacers-Pistons

                                I agree with Kstat and BillS - ball movement is far and away our biggest problem right now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X