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

2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

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

  • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

    On a random note, the Tyler Burns that article is from FT Wayne, and went to Ball St.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Right now Kobe is shooting 52.8% on the season. The best he's ever shot in a season is 46.9%. He's having a tremendous season so far.
      Did you watch the end of last nights game? From lip reading I got the gist of the FT line convo between Kobe/GWallace, but apparently Wallace was trying to get him to shoot the FT with his eyes closed, like MJ. He (Wallace) didn't say how much the bet was worth, but I thought in real time Kobe said 5G. I know Wallace didn't take it, and Kobe proceeded to call him "pussy" through the shot, and as they were walking to the benches following the TO called after he sunk it.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Did you watch the end of last nights game? From lip reading I got the gist of the FT line convo between Kobe/GWallace, but apparently Wallace was trying to get him to shoot the FT with his eyes closed, like MJ. He (Wallace) didn't say how much the bet was worth, but I thought in real time Kobe said 5G. I know Wallace didn't take it, and Kobe proceeded to call him "pussy" through the shot, and as they were walking to the benches following the TO called after he sunk it.
        Damn I missed that. That's great.

        Comment


        • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

          Not the article that I read earlier but this will do. (Has video but not sure exactly what it is since I can't see youtube) But looks like I got the 5G part right.

          http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-wallace-wager
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

            Dunlap uses the phrase "Smashmouth basketball" at the 1:35 point here. Not a perfect parallel, but here we have a new coach, working with a couple of talented young players, who is able to motivate his team as of this point. Wasn't sure about this hire initially, but I like him as an NBA coach:

            http://origin.nba.com/bobcats/video/mike-dunlap-111912
            Check out my autographed 1972-73 Topps basketball project

            Comment


            • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

              He's a good coach. Just don't know if he'll be around long enough to see the Bobcats become contenders. The yelling and screaming wears thin quickly.

              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


              • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                I like Dunlap for this Charlotte roster. Lot of creative zone trapping stuff, college style get in your face motivation stuff. I have major doubts about a style like that flying on a home court advantage team. Hopefully he can adapt because I think he's a good coach, but look at that Charlotte roster, it's basically a team of college All Americans.

                Comment


                • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                  interesting recap: http://deadspin.com/5962514/d+iii-pl...ated-by-anyone

                  Some things have been mentioned before, but some I wasn't aware of.
                  A non-NCAA team, and it was an exhibition game for them.... /sigh

                  D-III Player’s 138 Point-Game Is A Sham Record And Shouldn’t Be Celebrated By Anyone
                  Barry Petchesky

                  Jack Taylor, of the Grinnell College Pioneers, scored 138 points in a game last night, against Faith Baptist Bible College. It's a mindblowing number, shattering the old NCAA mark of 113, and it's being trumpeted as one of sports' all-time individual achievements. It is not. It is ********. It is just the latest incarnation of Grinnell's decades-old strategy of seeking media attention for records achieved through a complete *******ization of basketball.

                  David Arseneault is the man behind the plan. Since becoming Grinnell coach in 1989, Arseneault has focused less on putting together a successful team and more on getting his players' names in the record books. And, not incidentally, selling books and videos touting his innovative "system." At least three separate times a Grinnell player has set the D-III single-game scoring record, and each one has gotten national attention. In 1998, Jeff Clement went for 77 points, and received a story in Sports Illustrated. Last season Griffin Lentsch scored 89 points, and got a feature on ESPN.com. Today, Taylor's 138-point game is everywhere.

                  Arseneault describes his system:

                  94S + 47 3's + 33%OR + 25SD + 32 TO's = W
                  The ‘Formula for Success' has withstood the test of time. Since 1996, whenever the Pioneers have attempted 94 shots, with half of those shots from behind the arc, offensive rebounded 33% of their missed shot attempts, taken 25 more shots than their opponent and forced the opposition into committing 32 turnovers, they have won at nearly a 95% clip.

                  But it's much more than just taking a lot of threes, or winning the turnover battle. According to a former Grinnell player who took part in one of those record-setting games, the gameplan is designed from the outset to get a specific player the scoring mark, even at the expense of making a mockery of the game. The player told Deadspin:

                  "The strategy was to use a full court press after a made basket, with the caveat that [the player seeking the record] would not cross into the defensive side of the court. So, after our opponents broke our press, we were essentially playing four-on-five, which enabled the other team to take quicker shots and fall into our game plan.

                  "The rationale is to essentially trade off a quick two or more attempts at lower probability 3-point shots. Given the high pace required for the system, Grinnell shifts in five players every 30 to 45 seconds. Within each shift there is a primary shooter who will take the bulk of threes (or shots) during the shift."

                  This worked to perfection last night, and you can see it in the play-by-play. Grinnell would regularly sub out four players at a time, keeping Taylor on the court to continue chucking up threes—71 attempts from beyond the arc, to be specific. He also rarely bothered getting back on defense, with Grinnell content to let Faith Baptist score a quick two, if they didn't turn the ball over immediately. Taylor finished with just three rebounds, all off his own misses.

                  This, then, is how you score 138 points—a defense designed to get the ball back as fast as possible, even if it means letting the other team score. And the entire offense being funneled through one player, at the expense of turning down open shots. Tyler Burns rewatched the entire game, and had a few observations:

                  There were a LOT of possessions where Taylor would chuck up a shot, miss, and his teammate would get the rebound wide open under the basket. Instead of putting it back up, he would look for Taylor again and pass it out so he could chuck another three. There were many possessions where this happened three times each. Six three-point attempts in two trips down the court.

                  Literally 75% of [Faith Baptist's] points were full court heaves to get it over Grinnell's press, then a wide open layup on the other end. Oh, and David Larsen's "impressive" 70-point effort? Hardly. They were 90% wide open layups. He maybe took a handful of jump shots.

                  Wilt Chamberlain's 100 points were also achieved through a concerted effort to get him the ball, but at least it came against NBA competition. Grinnell may as well have been playing against five random guys thrown together at the Y. Faith Baptist Bible College is a school of 330 students, and isn't even in the NCAA. They're not even NAIA. They play in the National Christian College Athletic Association, and Division II of the NCCAA at that.

                  Last night's game counted as an exhibition for Faith Baptist, but was somehow a regular season game for Grinnell.

                  Why does the level of the opposition matter? Because Arseneault and Grinnell specifically plan their record-breaking games against inferior opponents. Tyler Burns again:

                  The announcer actually said that Grinnell will look on their schedule for their weaker opponents and do everything they can to run up the score and break records. This is all within the game plan. One tactic the announcer mentioned was called "The Bomb Squad". If Grinnell's opponent gets into the double bonus, Grinnell will sub in five freshmen players, foul their opponent immediately once the ball is in play, send them to the line, then sub the freshmen players out to put their scorers back in on offense. This takes almost no time off the clock, giving their starters as many offensive possessions as possible.

                  Jack Taylor set a record, but it's an empty one. Important records come naturally in the flow of competition, not as some freakshow designed to make SportsCenter. Taylor took 108 shots by himself, the same number as Indiana and Georgetown took last night combined. (They scored 154 points between them.) Taylor shot 49 percent from the field, 38 percent from three. These are the only figures that ought to matter when judging his evening, yet no one will remember anything but his 138 points. Because it's much easier to tout an inflated scoring figure than to actually watch the game, and realize just how empty and artificial the achievement is.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                    Marc J. Spears ‏@SpearsNBAYahoo
                    Celtics waive Darko Milicic.
                    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite



                    12m Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojYahooNBA
                    Evans is the first NBA player to be fined for flopping under the league's new guidelines.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                      Crazy ending in the Wiz/Hawks game

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                        Al Horford with a silly stat line. 15-10-9, with 1-10 from the free throw line...

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                          Asik and destroy!!!

                          Asik just blocked the **** out of Noah to finish off the Bulls

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                            Bulls, Pacers both one game under .500; Bucks leading the division.

                            Just as everyone predicted.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                              @basketballtalk: Video: Atlanta’s Kyle Korver drains game-winning three http://t.co/5Tc0gbto #PBT #NBA

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

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012-13 NBA Random Thoughts Thread IX: Ode to Joy

                                The main highlight of the Wizards-Hawks game: Al Horford's little brother

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X