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

11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

    IT BEES?


    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM EST
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: M. Callahan, L. Richardson, H. Workman

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, New Orleans Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / FOX Sports New Orleans
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WWL 105.3 FM, WODT 1280 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: 3-1
    West: 2-2
    Away: 1-2
    East: 2-3
    Nov 23
    Nov 27
    Nov 30
    Dec 01

    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)

    Anthony Davis - stress reaction left ankle (doubtful)
    Eric Gordon - sore right knee (out)

    Small Market Mondays #3: 808s and Bobcats

    Buon giorno, friends! I'm in an absolutely ecstatic mood this morning, because two of
    my absolute favorite NBA-related things happened this week. First, the Pacers broke
    yet another record by showing those rambunctious big market Canadian rapscallions
    that there actually is another facet to this wonderful game called "defense". But that
    wasn't even the biggest news this week (and honestly, with the sheer number of
    records the Pacers break, when is it?) -- there was also a blockbuster trade which
    shocked both the championship picture and our entire beloved league to its very core!

    To summarize the trade that fantasy GMs across Arkansas are still talking about in
    hushed whispers, the Bobcats shipped out legendary sharpshooter Matt Carroll for
    2003 NCAA champion Hakim Warrick. Yeah, I know. You've probably been completely
    over-exposed to all the various in-and-outs of the Hakim Warrick/Matt Carroll trade.
    Happens. But kindly lend me your ears for a second, as I've fired up ye olde Synergy
    Sports machine to help you understand it even better. In case you're unfamiliar with
    Synergy, it's some sort of computer-internet wizardry where you type in a player's
    name and it tells you all these fantastical things about numbers and "statistics" and
    liberal mumbo-jumbo like that. Now friends, I have to give you a disclaimer: math
    isn't exactly my strong suit. But you're going to have to bear with me here.

    The first thing that stood out to me is Warrick's career 49.4% shooting percentage --
    that means if he take 10 shots then there is a very good chance that he'll make at
    least 2 of them. Cowabunga! However, something else caught my eye: when taking
    the opposing defender to the rack off his patented bicycle kick slide-dribble spin move,
    Hakim Warrick scores a sizzling 2.7 points per possession! On the other hand, Matt
    Carroll is a very respectable 38.4% three point shooter over his career. But you need
    to unskew those numbers, compadres! Because that's his three pointer percentage,
    you need to multiply it by 3 to get his "true" shooting percentage, which comes out to
    a super rad 109.7% true shooting rate! WOW! And how can we forget about his
    defense? In Matt Carroll's career as a lockdown defender, opponents who suffer from
    fatal cardiomyopathy while taking a shot against Carroll have shot 0-50 against him,
    and rumor has it that at least five of them tragically passed away after being faced
    with Carroll's bruising defense back in his no-good hooligan high school days.

    In the end, it's a style change for both teams, but one of those rare win-win
    blockbusters that everyone can feel happy about. Phenomenal trade.

    Where the Commish was Needed Badly

    In what is a recurring theme in the "Gordon-less" era of the Hornets, the team couldn't
    close out their opponent or complete their comeback because they lacked thet proverbial
    "end of shot clock" player. We have that, in theory. Problem is, he's (hopefully) rehabbing
    his busted knees in LA.

    After Anthony Davis converted two and-1s on consecutive possessions (one of them an
    awkward floater), the Hornets were able to creep to within two. Sadly, it was right around
    this time that the Hornets needed Gordon. The offense sputtered, and the team needed
    someone who could easily break down the defense create good scoring opportunities for
    the team.

    Vasquez wasn't going to be that guy -- he usually needs 2-3 screens just to get to the free
    throw line extended. Even still, he has to time his motion so that the second screen hits
    the defender exactly right to free him. Mason and Aminu certainly weren't going to be
    those guys. Neither of those players has any discernible weapons in half court sets.

    Ryan Anderson has shown a propensity to drive well to the rim following a shot fake after
    a flash to the three point line. Sadly, this really isn't a dependable "end of the shot clock"

    In all honesty, Anthony Davis was our best bet at creating a shot 1-on-1. He could take
    either Udoh or Sanders on dribble drives off the high post.

    What we saw however was Vasquez struggling to find space to drive. He would find a
    slivervof space (trailed by a stalking Udoh) where he flipped a high arcing layup that
    looked more like a pass to a wide open Anderson below than a shot attempt. Anderson
    saved the day with a two handed push tip to cut the lead to 2 again. This was after Ellis
    hit a 22 foot two point jumper, a win for the defense -- it's a 22 foot two point jumper,
    it's early in the shot clock, Ellis was making 33% of his shots from that range for the
    season and has been historically around that percentage for his career, and he was up
    to that point in the game, 1-4 from that range.

    Of course, Ellis went on to make another contested fade-away to the left, one footed,
    swishing it right through the rim. It was as if Ellis had suddenly activated the "closer"
    signature style (in NBA 2K) where his 17-23 foot shot attribute was supposed to be 70
    but sky rocketed to 95.

    The Hornets would only score 3 more points -- Ryan Anderson's fadeaway cut the deficit
    to 2. More importantly, had Gordon been playing, we wouldn't have needed Anderson to
    create his own shot after the jumper from Ellis. Gordon could have answered right back.

    What can we pickup from this game?

    1.) Vasquez for all his ability to run an offense and to orchestrate a fastbreak cannot
    defend quick PGs. (Way to go Sherlock!). I think that was painfully obvious from the
    start, but it was made more apparent in the last 2 games. Russell Westbrook and
    Brandon Jennings were able to consistently get to the basket and wreak havoc.

    2.) Hornets will have a hard time playing against good 3 PT shooting teams. OKC and
    MIL rank highly in 3 PT% with OKC clocking in at 3rd with 41% and MIL at 13th with
    36.2%. Here is a breakdown of our last 8 opponents 3PT eFG% (rank), their average
    3PTA, their actual 3PTA against us and the game result.

    As you can see, in all 8 games, we forced our opponents to shoot more than their
    average amount of 3s. The point margin against teams that are above average in eFG?
    A whopping -9.5. Against teams that are below average? +3.25. Considering the fact
    that most (if not all) of the top tier teams - namely MIA, NYK, OKC, SAS, LAC, MEM and
    MIL - are all above average in 3 PT eFG, then I think this is a strategy that will make us
    lose a LOT of games against top tier teams, and it's pretty clear that this is not a
    strategy that should be in place when we decide to be contenders.

    3.) The Anderson/Davis tandem? It can work. I especially love the Vasquez/Anderson/
    Davis Screen-the-Screener action late in the 4th (especially if you replace Vasquez with
    Gordon). If I remember correctly, Anderson would get a down screen from Davis from
    the left baseline (facing the basket) and immediately set a screen for Vasquez. This play
    actually resulted in a quite a few scoring opportunities. It resulted in a good drive for
    Vasquez (ending in a wide open Anderson tipping the ball), it resulted in an and-1 basket
    for Davis at the baseline (after a screen), and it also ended with a 3 PT for Anderson. If
    Davis can bulk up without sacrificing precious agility, speed and leaping ability, hat duo
    will have more success than any other big man combination we have.

    4.) Anthony Davis is more polished offensively than defensively. I'll be completely honest
    - I'm underwhelmed by Davis' defensive contributions. He hasn't been the patrol man that
    I expected him to be. I expected our D with AD on the court to be stifling -- defenders
    track their assignments, they know where to go, and offensive players are funneled into
    the waiting embrace of Anthony Davis' pterodactyl arms. Sadly, this has not been the case.
    Anthony Davis has been more role player than leader on the defensive end. He's late on
    rotations, he gets caugh...CONTINUE READING AT AT THE HIVE

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

    John Reid @JohnReidTP
    Jimmy Smith @JimmySmithtp
    At the Hive @atthehive
    Hornets 247 @hornets247
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

    I was really hoping for Wicker Man for the Minimally Relevant Video.


    • #3
      Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

      Davis probably won't play with that ankle stress fracture.

      No Davis, no Gordon. It'll be so lame if the Pacers don't win big.
      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


      • #4
        Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

        No excuses for losing this game tonight
        Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck


        • #5
          Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

          The Hornets have garnered a lot of buzz this year, but if we lose to them at home, it's really going to sting.


          • #6
            Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

            another "we can't lose to that lineup, can we?" game.


            • #7
              Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
              The Hornets have garnered a lot of buzz this year, but if we lose to them at home, it's really going to sting.
              I'd be careful, LG33. PDers are likely to swarm if you drone on like that.

              But, phero my mone-y your puns are the apis mellifera's knees.
              This is the darkest timeline.


              • #8
                Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I was really hoping for Wicker Man for the Minimally Relevant Video.
                I live to disappoint.
                This is the darkest timeline.


                • #9
                  Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

                  Going to be out today and will miss the game live. Will definitely watch it over LP Broadband replay once I get home though!


                  • #10
                    Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

                    Oops thought this was guess the score lol



                    • #11
                      Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

                      Let's hope for a W and a nice performance
                      Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
                      Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.


                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.


                      • #12
                        This will be my first game of the season. Kinda bummed I'll miss seeing Davis in person, but pumped nonetheless.


                        • #13
                          Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

                          Kind of sucks I was too busy to go meet my guy Greivis Vasquez again
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                          • #14
                            Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

                            This NO team is not that bad either they have some nice young pieces, Aminu is finally looking decent, Vasquez, Davis, Lopez, Rivers, Anderson, etc.

                            Their offense is also pretty good, they run a lot of screens, they are fun to watch.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                            • #15
                              Re: 11/21/2012 Game Thread #13: Pacers Vs. Hornets

                              Hakeem Lite gonna miss this one with the bum ankle?