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

11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM EST
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: S. Foster, M. Ayotte, M. Smith

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Dallas Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / FOX Sports Southwest
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / KESN 103.3 FM, KFLC 1270 AM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you

    Home: 2-1
    West: 1-2
    Away: 1-3
    East: 3-2
    Nov 18
    Nov 19
    Nov 21
    Nov 23


    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)
    David West - right sprained ankle (day-to-day)

    Shawn Marion - right sprained MCL (probable)
    Dirk Nowitzki - right knee surgery (out)

    Jonathan Auping: The Emergence of Darren Collison in Dallas
    “He’s done this in other stops. I don’t know how many games he started
    in Indiana, but he played well there as a starter. Then they made the
    switch, then they made the trade. They decided to go with Hill.”
    – Rick Carlisle on Darren Collison

    The early-season struggles of the Pacers obviously have a whole lot to do with the
    absence of Danny Granger. I am in no way trying to downplay anyone’s claim that the
    team would be playing better with Granger in the lineup. However, let us not forget that
    Granger is not the only member of last year’s Pacers who is not on the floor for them.

    By playoff time last year it seemed apparent that at some point in the offseason the
    Pacers would choose between either Darren Collison or George Hill. Hill was a free
    agent who might demand a decent pay raise and neither player seemed to thrive while
    having to split minutes. At times, it felt like Pacer fans had to be a part of either Team
    Hill or Team Collison and they had to be willing to defend their stance.

    And as you all know, the Pacers went with Hill. They gave him a $40 million contract
    and shipped Collison to Dallas (along with Dahntay Jones for backup center Ian

    The problem with Collison in Indiana seemed to be inconsistency and sometimes an
    inability to stay involved. He gave good effort and seemingly had a good attitude, but
    sometimes he just didn’t have a huge impact on the game. He was a capable scorer,
    but when he tried to play the role of facilitator he looked more like a bystander. Fellow
    8p9s writer Tim Donahue mentioned that this was always the case for Collison in
    Indiana. He said that when Jim O’Brien was around, his coaching schemes were
    blamed, but it remained the same under Frank Vogel.

    Rick Carlisle is not having the same problems with Collison, however. Of course, we
    are still working with a small sample size, but so far Collison is thriving in Dallas.

    Before the Mavericks played the Raptors Wednesday night, Carlisle talked about what
    he has seen from Collison since he’s been a member of the Mavericks. “(He’s) even-
    tempered. He’s been aggressive. He’s made good decisions. He’s developing a feel for
    attacking and being aggressive offensively.”

    The feeling around those watching Collison this year is beginning to be that the point
    guard is playing well because...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Travis Wimberly: Thermodynamics - Week 3

    Last week around this time, the Mavs were flying high. They carried a 4-1 record and
    possessed what looked to be one of the best offenses in the NBA. But after some poor
    performances and a 1-3 record this week—including the franchise’s first-ever loss to
    the Charlotte Bobcats—the Mavs have some work to do. But hey, at least they didn’t
    fire their coach five games into the season.

    Let’s take a look at the Mavs’ hottest and coldest performances from Week 3.
    (Spoiler alert: Cold wins this week.)

    F I R E

    1) OJ Mayo
    With a couple caveats, it was another strong week for the shooting guard affably
    known as “Juice” (alternate nickname: “That guy who temporarily ruined USC’s
    basketball program”). Mayo shot 29-of-61 (48%) in the Mavs’ four games this week,
    including 10-of-20 (50%) from three-point range. He was the Mavs’ most consistent
    and productive scorer by a considerable margin, averaging exactly 22 PPG. For the
    season, Mayo’s true shooting percentage (64%) and effective field-goal percentage
    (60%) both rank in the top fifteen in the league among guards who have played
    more than negligible minutes. Mayo’s turnovers (3.5 per game this week) and
    comfort within the offense both remain issues. But if the expectation is for Mayo to
    be the team’s second scorer behind Dirk Nowitzki, he’s currently showing why that
    expectation is entirely fair.

    2) Chris Kaman’s Shooting
    Having watched Kaman miss his first nine million (loose approximation) shots
    against the Timberwolves on Monday night, my first inclination was that I wouldn’t
    be able to put his shooting on the hot list this week. Once I crunched the weekly
    numbers, however, Kaman made the cut even despite that bad outing. Kaman shot
    a combined 23-of-39 (59%) in this week’s games, including terrific shooting
    performances against the Knicks (86%) and the Wizards (83%). Only three starting
    centers have higher true shooting percentages than Kaman (63%): Samuel
    Dalembert, DeAndre Jordan, and Tyson Chandler. Along with Mayo, Kaman has
    been the Mavs’ most effective scorer this season.

    3) Uncle Ricky’s Temper
    Somebody ought to put Rick Carlisle on blood-pressure watch, because his
    numbers can’t be good after this week. First, he watched in Charlotte as his team
    turned in a comical late-game performance featuring mistake after bizarre mistake.
    When Carlisle reviewed the film of those final minutes against the Bobcats, one can
    only assume that he did so while blasting the Benny Hill theme in the background,
    driving around the room in a small plastic car, and sporting an oversized novelty
    hat. Carlisle’s frustration from the Charlotte circus boiled over to the Mavs’
    next game against Minnesota, a game that was less absurd but equally frustrating.
    With five minutes left...CONTINUE READING AT TWO MAN GAME

    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows

    Dwain Price @DwainPrice
    Ed Sefko @ESefko
    Brian Gutierrez @BallinWithBryan
    Kirk Henderson @KirkSeriousFace
    Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 11-16-2012, 04:57 PM.
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

    I am genuinely happy to be playing a quality team tonight.

    Look, the team's confidence (and apparently OUR confidence in them) is at an all-time low.

    If we lose this game, well then I guess "we saw THAT coming... *flame*flame*flame*"

    But if we manage to turn in a solid game and win tonight, it very well may be that spark we need for our confidence!


    • #3
      Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

      i think this will turn into a collison show.


      • #4
        Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

        Collison vs Hill will be interesting, regardless of whatever else happens.
        "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird


        • #5
          Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

          I'll be at the game and probably drinking heavily.

          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...


          • #6
            Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

            Marion is going to be back I'm not sure if he is starting though.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


            • #7
              Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

              I'm going to say what everyone else is already thinking: We choose the wrong guy this offseason, and it's going to hurt us big time tonight. It's as simple as that. I was right, and I was the only one on the board smart enough and brave enough to say it. Dahntay Jones is a much better hype guy than Jeff Pendergraph.


              • #8
                Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks


                • #9
                  Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

                  Pacers 96
                  Mavs 91


                  • #10
                    Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

                    Originally posted by cgg View Post
                    Collison vs Hill will be interesting, regardless of whatever else happens.
                    Yup, although Collison shouldn't have that much of a problem since Hill isn't strong or big like the point guards Collison has trouble with.


                    • #11
                      Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

                      I think Pacers win and a big game from Gerald Green i think 15 points, i can feel it, when did D-West sprain his ankle?


                      • #12
                        Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

                        I really hope the Pacers surprise tonight and play well, but nothing has shown that will happen, and you know DC has had this pinned on his calendar since he was traded to Dallas.
                        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                        ----------------- Reggie Miller


                        • #13
                          Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

                          Kaman is going to be a hard matchup for Roy, Marion is going to be a hard matchup for Paul.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                          • #14
                            Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

                            I expect absolutely nothing from this game so any positive signs from the team will be a plus,let alone a win.
                            Never forget


                            • #15
                              Re: 11/16/2012 Game Thread #10: Pacers Vs. Mavericks

                              I found the answer to this team
                              my gut feeling: ORLANDO JOHNSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                              On a serious note we need to give Augustin or lance a shot at starting PG, don't think Hill can run this team, he is more of a scorer