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:
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

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

Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

    Yeah, links not working for me, but I'm guessing it shows that our bench was pretty much astronomically bad, which anyone with a pair of working eyes should have figured out from the playoffs.


    • #17
      Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

      Originally posted by Speed View Post
      What was the grade?
      I'll post the Pacer's analysis. He surprisingly gave the team a B-, so not horrible by any means.
      Originally posted by Chad ford
      Key additions: Roy Hibbert (re-sign), George Hill (re-sign); D.J. Augustin(FA), Gerald Green (FA), Ian Mahinmi (sign-and-trade), Miles Plumlee(draft), Orlando Johnson (draft), Donnie Walsh (team president), Kevin Pritchard (GM) Key subtractions: Darren Collison, Dahntay Jones, Larry Bird (team president), David Morway (GM)
      After experiencing a level of success that even they couldn't have predicted last season, the Pacers goal this offseason was to bring back their starting five and strengthen their bench. The Pacers achieved their first goal. The team was hit with a huge four-year, $58 million offer sheet from the Blazers for Hibbert on July 1. Hibbert has been a key part of the rebuild, but virtually everyone agrees that $58 million is a lot for him. The Pacers wisely agreed to pay Hibbert, but it cost them. In the meantime, the team overreacted a bit and threw a whopping $40 million at Hill. I'm a Hill fan and think he's still got upside, but again, the contract seemed a tad excessive.

      Whether they achieved the second goal is debatable. The decision to trade away Collison (who led the team in playoff PER) for the right to give $16 million to Mahinmi is a head-scratcher. Considering the Pacers could've re-signed Mahinmi straight up (he was an unrestricted free agent) for probably half the cost (Mahinmi wasn't getting two years, $8 million from anyone else) -- it's completely unclear why they had to give away Collison to do it. Did they really need to get Jones' $2.9 million off the books that badly? Mahinmi does give the Pacers a credible backup 5 when Hibbert is out of the game. But the cost (both in dollars and lost assets) was unusually high. The Pacers quickly countered Collison's loss by signing Augustin to a one-year, $3.5 million deal. Collison was statistically superior to Augustin by virtually every metric but one -- pure point guard rating. Augustin is a better passer than Collison and that is a need for the Pacers. Hill isn't a pure point guard and Augustin's specialty is getting everyone involved. But when you factor in that Augustin can't guard anyone and that they're paying him $1.3 million more than they were Collison, I'm not sure this is an upgrade. Green is, offensively, an upgrade over Jones. He put up some big numbers for the fledgling Nets last year. However he lacks the defensive toughness or maturity that Jones brought to the table. Finally, the Pacers' draft night call on Plumlee also felt a little off. Plumlee had wowed scouts (and apparently Bird) in workouts with his freakish athletic ability. But he rarely showed it during his four years at Duke. Workout wonders infiltrate the first round virtually ever year. They rarely pan out. None of these smaller moves should keep the Pacers from being a Top 4 team in the East. But the difference between good teams and great teams often is in the details and the Pacers, for the first time in a while, seemed to smudge them this summer. GRADE: B-


      • #18
        Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Here's both rounds 1 and 2... Magic and Heat. I had it hide everybody who played 12 or fewer minutes, so Lance/AJ/Penderwall are out.

        Pretty striking.
        I get it. Our bench stinks. That said, I am not sure about Vogel putting them all in at one time for the most part. That certainly did not help the cause.


        • #19
          Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
          Those numbers would mean getting Brand or Scola would have also helped quite a bit, as West was the glaring issue on the starting unit.
          His #'s look much more in line with the other starters versus Orlando, and why would I assume Brand or Scola is better than West? I don't. They're all close, I suppose.


          • #20
            Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

            I'm admittedly stupid to the situation because I didn't read the link but some things are obvious.

            A) Lou Amundson shot 43.0% on the season. Ewwwwww. Mahinimi, check out his percentage.

            B) Tyler Hansbrough is a black hole. He'll pass 1 out of every 10 times he gets the ball. I'm glad he believes he's a winner but damn.... it just looks selfish when you don't improve. He's amazing at drawing fouls but he's a poor rebounder that's a ballhog.

            I'm not trying to hate on our players. I like Amundson and Hansbrough but liking them doesn't change the fact that they're terrible for big men as far as scoring. They don't even have to score but don't waste possessions. That's all I'm saying.
            "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."


            • #21
              Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


              • #22
                Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                I imagine part of the problem with West's # is he spends some of his time as a backup C playing with Tyler.
                Yup, which is reflected in the minutes played. West played 24.7 more minutes than Hibbert in the series, which almost perfectly corresponds to Lou and Tyler's playing time (Tyler played 20.8 minutes more than Lou did).

                The Pacers 5 bench players in the rotation (Collison, Barbosa, Hansbrough, Amundson, Jones) played 405.4 minutes in the series. They were a combined -254 plus/minus.

                To think about it another way, if the whole team had played at the pace the bench did the Pacers would have lost by 30.07 points per game.


                • #23
                  Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Definitely says something about the "The starters are the problem" meme.
                  When I was making this argument right after the Heat series, a certain poster told me that it was still the starters problem, because they didn't outscore the Heat by enough to make up for the bench play...
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.


                  • #24
                    Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                    This had been an issue all season, by most metrics our starters were really good. Our bench has been crap.

                    When people said we had good depth that was a misnomer, we had good 'balance". There is a difference. Hopefully with the roster additions we can now say we have depth as well.
                    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                    - ilive4sports


                    • #25
                      Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                      Really is a shame we couldn't trade Hansborough for Augustin, then use the money to sign Brand or Scola. Psycho T is going to have to shape up


                      • #26
                        Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        His #'s look much more in line with the other starters versus Orlando, and why would I assume Brand or Scola is better than West? I don't. They're all close, I suppose.
                        Come to think of it, didn't he play a good bit of 5 with the second unit? If so, the would explain some things.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


                        • #27
                          Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          When I was making this argument right after the Heat series, a certain poster told me that it was still the starters problem, because they didn't outscore the Heat by enough to make up for the bench play...
                          Well, in their defense, if our starters were comprised of LeBron, Wade, and Bosh, it wouldn't matter how bad our bench played...


                          • #28
                            Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                            Wow. And, if I had to guess (and based off of five-man-unit stats), I would think West's PM is so low because he was in there with Tyler and Lou on occasion.


                            • #29
                              Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                              Its actually kind of surprising that Granger is still +14. He played just about the same amount of minutes as West and was stuck out there with the bench guys often too. Our starting 5 was damn efficient against the Heat. Glad the numbers show that too. I do think our moves will help this. Mahinmi will be nice to have in the middle over Lou. I like Lou, but he wasn't that great when people were attacking the basket, especially when paired with Tyler.
                              Last edited by ilive4sports; 07-13-2012, 05:06 PM.


                              • #30
                                Re: Have you seen the plus-minus from the Miami series?

                                Two things Vogel needs to work on this offseason

                                1 - Teach the guys how to run the zone, basically lets copy what Carlisle did against them
                                2 - Teach the bench not to give up huge runs. Be efficient slow the game down

                                If we can work on those and if the guys we have who should improve, 6 out of the first 8 off the bench, then we might have a chance against the Heat. I mean historically Wade or Bosh will be hurt next playoffs. We stand a chance.