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

Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

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

  • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

    Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
    DJ is a rhythm player. He's used to playing 30 min a game and setting other players up, controlling the flow of the game, etc. DC is a sparkplug you can get instant offense from. They are two completely different players. I liked the DJ in Charlotte because he was the ultimate team player, and he kept his poise despite the horrendous work environment around him.

    The problem right now is you have a starter, a 30 min a game player trying to adapt to a limited role of about 10-15 min a game. He's just not used to it, he's not comfortable and you can tell. He's making passes he usually wouldn't make to compensate for his lack of playing time. He's pressing and he's thinking too much when he's shooting.

    As crazy as it sounds considering how awful he's played, DJ needs more minutes if you want him to play better. I'd probably cut some of Lance or Green's minutes and shift Hill to the two, playing DJ and Hill together. But for some reason, this coaching staff insists that Hill is solely a point guard. I guess they want to recapture that chemistry from last season, but that's long gone now.
    DJ Augustin is not a rhythm player. He is a guy who played 30 MPG on some really bad teams while shooting around 38% from the field. I bought into a lot of the crap the Pacers were shilling about him "being a better fit", but honestly that was a bad move on my part. Especially when I was always a DC guy while he was here. I got too distracted by the shiny tin foil instead of going with what I had been saying for two years and shame on me for that.

    DJ Augustin ultimate team player? Yeah...I don't know about that.


    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Maybe the Pacers should have kept bring HIll off the bench then. he was pretty happy in that role. I think it was a mistake to make Hill the starter when DC came back. Fine if you want to do it in the offseason, but I think it really forced our hand to do it how we did in season, it is a fairly unwritten rule in sports that a starter should not lose their spot over a short term injury. And the thing that was mised is that while we were good with Hill as the starter, it is not like we were bad with DC.
      We weren't bad with DC as our starter at all, but we really hit our stride and became REALLY good with Hill as the starter. Hill is probably playing the best out of anybody on the Pacers right now, and has been the closer for this team for quite some time. I'm kinda confused why you're hating on him when he's kicking a$$ and earning that contract right now.

      Hill MAY have been okay with coming off the bench, but if he's the better player, why continue to bring him off the bench? Just to appease DC? Collison is good, but he's not THAT good.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

        Who says I am hating on Hill?


        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

          I guess I took you saying "we should have kept Hill as the backup" a hating on Hill.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

            Listen Hill is slowly developing into probably the Pacers second, maybe greatest point guard ever. Seriously. He's the only player playing well right now. The last thing we need to do is moving him to the "2" so our garbage backup point guard DJ can get more minutes.

            The reason DJ isn't playing well is he NEVER played well. He isn't very good. I think once someone comes in and fixes this cluster***** of a team you'll see DJ play better off the bench once he gets acclimated to the role.

            Hill isn't a "traditional" point, but then again neither is every point guard outside of Deron, CP3, Nash, Rondo and that's about it. There's a few borderline guys like Mike Conley, but for the most part every point in the league is a shoot-first type point guard.

            I'm no fan of Hill's contract, but it isn't crippling and he could be a point guard for a championship level team. The problem with this team right now is EVERYONE ELSE. There is the problem. So, let's start a fire sale.

            Edit - anyone upset about the fact that the Pacers could of had Harden? IMagine Harden/Hill back court? man that'd be badass.

            Had we used Paul George as the main asset the Pacers could of landed Harden possibly. But people like me thought George was going to be a star. (har)

            Edit 2 - Real quick compare Hill's numbers against Mike Conley. I like Conley because he's essentially the perfect point. He's not a superstar taking up all your cap space, but he's a great defender, and then a willing and able passer thought not near the talents of guys like Rondo. He's also blossomed into a real good shooter which means he's a threat from nearly every aspect on the court. Just a real solid player.

            Well, Hill is creeping on Conley's abilities. Hill is averaging more points at 15.5 (vs 14.8) but less assists at 5.5. (vs 6.8) I'll like Hill's numbers and I like how he's running the offense. The nice thing is, while Conley has come out playing his best basketball that probably won't be sustainable, Hill is still a little rusty and is not shooting at the level we know he can.

            We'll most likely see Hill's numbers continue to trend upwards. Hill at the end of the season might make the case to being a top 10 point guard, and in a league of superstar point guards, that is saying something.
            Last edited by mattie; 11-14-2012, 08:29 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

              Originally posted by mattie View Post
              Listen Hill is slowly developing into probably the Pacers second, maybe greatest point guard ever. Seriously. He's the only player playing well right now. The last thing we need to do is moving him to the "2" so our garbage backup point guard DJ can get more minutes.

              The reason DJ isn't playing well is he NEVER played well. He isn't very good. I think once someone comes in and fixes this cluster***** of a team you'll see DJ play better off the bench once he gets acclimated to the role.

              Hill isn't a "traditional" point, but then again neither is every point guard outside of Deron, CP3, Nash, Rondo and that's about it. There's a few borderline guys like Mike Conley, but for the most part every point in the league is a shoot-first type point guard.

              I'm no fan of Hill's contract, but it isn't crippling and he could be a point guard for a championship level team. The problem with this team right now is EVERYONE ELSE. There is the problem. So, let's start a fire sale.

              Edit - anyone upset about the fact that the Pacers could of had Harden? IMagine Harden/Hill back court? man that'd be badass.

              Had we used Paul George as the main asset the Pacers could of landed Harden possibly. But people like me thought George was going to be a star. (har)

              Edit 2 - Real quick compare Hill's numbers against Mike Conley. I like Conley because he's essentially the perfect point. He's not a superstar taking up all your cap space, but he's a great defender, and then a willing and able passer thought not near the talents of guys like Rondo. He's also blossomed into a real good shooter which means he's a threat from nearly every aspect on the court. Just a real solid player.

              Well, Hill is creeping on Conley's abilities. Hill is averaging more points at 15.5 (vs 14.8) but less assists at 5.5. (vs 6.8) I'll like Hill's numbers and I like how he's running the offense. The nice thing is, while Conley has come out playing his best basketball that probably won't be sustainable, Hill is still a little rusty and is not shooting at the level we know he can.

              We'll most likely see Hill's numbers continue to trend upwards. Hill at the end of the season might make the case to being a top 10 point guard, and in a league of superstar point guards, that is saying something.
              Harden signed for $80 million dollars. The Pacers would never pay anyone that and that is one of the reasons they do not have and will not get a superstar....

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                Maybe the Pacers should have kept bring HIll off the bench then. he was pretty happy in that role. I think it was a mistake to make Hill the starter when DC came back. Fine if you want to do it in the offseason, but I think it really forced our hand to do it how we did in season, it is a fairly unwritten rule in sports that a starter should not lose their spot over a short term injury. And the thing that was mised is that while we were good with Hill as the starter, it is not like we were bad with DC.
                You know Joe, maybe we made the mistake of keeping PG over DC. Maybe we should have pushed DC/Hill backcourt as opposed to having a DC or Hill backcourt with PG. We've been force feeding PG minutes but maybe we should have regulated him to the bench, while maintaining a DC/G HILL backcourt....just a thought.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  You know Joe, maybe we made the mistake of keeping PG over DC. Maybe we should have pushed DC/Hill backcourt as opposed to having a DC or Hill backcourt with PG. We've been force feeding PG minutes but maybe we should have regulated him to the bench, while maintaining a DC/G HILL backcourt....just a thought.
                  That's a possibility too. I don't know that it would have fixed it. I'd be a big fan of having a DC, Hill, PG, 1-2-3 right now.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    That's a possibility too. I don't know that it would have fixed it. I'd be a big fan of having a DC, Hill, PG, 1-2-3 right now.
                    If that had happened, we would probably be 5-4 or 4-5 and the board would be complaining about our small lineup.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      If that had happened, we would probably be 5-4 or 4-5 and the board would be complaining about our small lineup.
                      I was expecting us to be 5-4 after this game when I went through the schedule before the season after we knew Danny was out. So I would have been OK with that.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I was expecting us to be 5-4 after this game when I went through the schedule before the season after we knew Danny was out. So I would have been OK with that.
                        I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but before Collison was traded it was pretty widely accepted that it was obvious we had to choose either Hill or Collison for our team if 1 was to be our starting PG. People by and large tend to forget when evaluating roster changes that the changes are made based on evaluation of talent and the speculation of how it fits together.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                          People by and large tend to forget when evaluating roster changes that the changes are made based on evaluation of talent and the speculation of how it fits together.
                          This is my biggest gripe right now with the front office and the moves they made. The new guys do not fit this teams identity. Which was smart "smashmouth" basketball. Not flashy plays with bad court awareness, or lazy defense.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                            This is my biggest gripe right now with the front office and the moves they made. The new guys do not fit this teams identity. Which was smart "smashmouth" basketball. Not flashy plays with bad court awareness, or lazy defense.
                            People claimed our starting five was the best unit in all of the NBA. Well, it wasn't true when they said it and you see the proof now. Granger is not a superstar and his being out is not causing all of these problems.....

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              Edit 2 - Real quick compare Hill's numbers against Mike Conley. I like Conley because he's essentially the perfect point. He's not a superstar taking up all your cap space, but he's a great defender, and then a willing and able passer thought not near the talents of guys like Rondo. He's also blossomed into a real good shooter which means he's a threat from nearly every aspect on the court. Just a real solid player.

                              Well, Hill is creeping on Conley's abilities. Hill is averaging more points at 15.5 (vs 14.8) but less assists at 5.5. (vs 6.8) I'll like Hill's numbers and I like how he's running the offense. The nice thing is, while Conley has come out playing his best basketball that probably won't be sustainable, Hill is still a little rusty and is not shooting at the level we know he can.

                              We'll most likely see Hill's numbers continue to trend upwards. Hill at the end of the season might make the case to being a top 10 point guard, and in a league of superstar point guards, that is saying something.
                              George Hill: 14.1 points on .407 shooting (.275 3pt %), 4.7 assists, 4.1 rebounds, 1.1 steals and 2.1 turnovers (Pacers are 3-6)
                              Mike Conley: 13.9 points on .473 shooting (.360 3pt %), 6.9 assists, 3.6 rebounds, 1.7 steals and 3.0 turnovers (Grizzlies are 6-1)

                              Statistically, you could probably argue that he's one of the ten worst in the league right now. Now you can blame most of that on our ****** system, but George Hill is still no superstar.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Raptors postgame thread

                                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                                George Hill: 14.1 points on .407 shooting (.275 3pt %), 4.7 assists, 4.1 rebounds, 1.1 steals and 2.1 turnovers (Pacers are 3-6)
                                Mike Conley: 13.9 points on .473 shooting (.360 3pt %), 6.9 assists, 3.6 rebounds, 1.7 steals and 3.0 turnovers (Grizzlies are 6-1)

                                Statistically, you could probably argue that he's one of the ten worst in the league right now. Now you can blame most of that on our ****** system, but George Hill is still no superstar.
                                10 worst? He's almost singlehandely won 2 more games for us, while hitting a clutch shot in 2 of our 3 wins. Last night( and the SA game) hurt his shooting %. He's been great. Yes he's had a bad game or two but he's a 3rd/4th option guy, not a 2nd option which he's been forced into and still done an admirable job. Hill isn't a part of the problem here, he'll be a part of the solution if we ever come to one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X