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/Warriors postgame thread.

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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

    Would have been a much closer game if Jack didn't turn into MJ for a quarter, but sometimes players get hot. Can't complain about it.

    Biggest problem I'm seeing for PG is that he's over thinking everything he's doing on the court. He needs to get the ball, take two dribbles and shoot, or make a hard cut and commit to it. Everything he does starts with a soft step. Really needs to hit his spots harder and with the idea of a shot or drive. Long term I'm not worried. A lot of that comes with experience and building confidence.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

      Originally posted by Diamond Dave View Post
      Paul George has been a total dissappointment this season. He cannot score against any defender. His only points come off of uncontested breakaways or open threes. Absolutely cannot drive, create seperation and hit a midrange shot. The way he double clutches in traffic to avoid drawing a foul resulting in getting blocked or his idiotic scoop shot makes me want to go on a shooting spree.
      this is a good, concise description. he never attempts a drive and yes, 95% of his points are probably open 3's and uncontested breakaways.
      if someone is actually guarding him- he will pass since we know he will never attempt to drive.
      of the 7 shots he took, 5 were from downtown. who does he think he is- posey?
      he is far too quick for posey-ball. i wish frank would challenge him to attack at least once in a while.

      but anyways, on the bright side- 2 of 3 on the road is something i can live with.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

        Paul George is a human shoulder shrug out there.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

          Just got home from the game. Pacers actually didn't look too bad, but the Warriors clearly had more energy and yes they are a better team this year than in years' past. Jarret Jack (!) was giving them great ball movement and on the defensive end they were clogging the lanes and seemed like they were able to frustrate whatever interior game we tried to get going.

          Also I could have sworn I had an El Pacero sighting. I tried to get a pic but wasn't quick enough. Whomever it was had the whole blue-and-gold wrestling mask going on with a Pacers windbreaker jacket. Whomever that was, kudos!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

            Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
            I think Donnie and KP and have the guts to trade Paul.
            KP was at the game.....watching the game in the row behind me. I should have looked over to see what his reaction was to the game...but my hope is that he is not too happy with the performance.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

              It is naice to see Ian having some naice games in a row and the Warriors announcers
              noticing one of them.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                Originally posted by 2minutes twoa View Post
                Disappointing loss but a 2-1 west road trip I can take.

                Evidence is starting to point toward PG being a good player that doesn't have the drive to be great.
                Is "drive" different than "killer instinct"?

                "Drive" to me means the willingness to put in the hard work to be a good Player. Whereas "Killer instinct" refers to wanting to be "The Man"...the guy that wants to take over a game while taking that last shot to win the game. I think that GH, Granger and West fits that description. I haven't seen that at all on a consistent basis coming from PG or Hibbert.

                I mentioned it in another thread....I think that PG has the skill, talent and potential to be a much better player ( as many have pointed out....TMac at the height of his game ) but doesn't have the "killer instinct" or willingness to take over a game...whereas Granger has skill and talent to be a good "Pippen" level player ( as in a clear ceiling ) and the willingness to want and take the shot.

                Until he figures it out...if he does.......I think that PG is more of a Complementary Player that is far more effective as a priimary 4th / backup 3rd scoring option on the Team.
                Last edited by CableKC; 12-02-2012, 04:11 AM.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                  Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                  I didn't want to say anything because of the Tyler lovers but Tyler has been useless lately.
                  After Mahinmi got his 5 fouls....I was afraid that he'd foul out and Vogel would be forced to play Hibbert/West with Hansbrough.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    The Pacers can also use some of those guards Golden state has, they can shoot, dribble and pass the ball well, the pacers don't even have one.
                    I'll keep on saying this til we re-sign DJ in the offseason , but I really hope that the Pacers make a serious run at Jarrett Jack to be the backup PG. That or just make Lance the backup PG. Seriously, Lance is not supposed to be a SG that is waiting for the ball as a Spot up shooter....he's WAY better at creating for the 2nd unit than any one else is.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                      Originally posted by Goyle View Post
                      Its definitely time we start seeing Ian/Roy. Tyler played way too much to start the 4th.
                      For some reason.....Roy sat a lot longer than I thought he should have especially in the 4th QTR. I don't think that he was in foul trouble. I really wonder if Vogel just wasn't confident in him or preferred to play Mahinmi.

                      As for why Hansbrough played a lot more than he should have....DW can only play so many minutes.....that and Mahinmi was in foul trouble.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 12-02-2012, 04:12 AM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                        Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                        It's a really weird way to use George on defense. He's a lock-down on-ball defender and a roamer. He just isn't mobile or focused enough to chase those kinds of guys around. Any of Young, Lance or Green would have made more sense. Shift PG onto Curry or Barnes. I don't know what Vogel is thinking with these kinds of matchups.
                        I don't think that any of them were a good matchup for Curry and Klay when it comes to running around those screens. I think that it's a combination of Curry and Klay being really good at moving without the ball and the Warriors setting good screens ( something I wish the Pacers could do ).
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                          Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                          Also, Landry had 16 points off the bench. Quieter than Jack's, but still deadly.


                          Watching a lot of Warriors games....I knew that they would beat us cuz of our inconsistent scoring ( whether it comes from our Starters or Bench Players ) because of their bench Players like Jack and Landry. They close out games with Curry, Klay, Lee, Landry and whoever else is doing good in teh game. 4 of their Closers are very efficient scorers that can kill you on the offensive end that are good at scoring on their closing possessions. Given that PG was a HUGE GOOSE-EGG on the offensive end.....I'm not surprised in the least that we lost. As someone here pointed out....this Warriors Team is actually a good Team.

                          If Lance is out of the equation as backup PG next season ( I don't want him to be anything other than that ), then I really hope the Pacers make a run at both Jack ( UFA ) and Landry ( Player Option ) to improve the 2nd unit.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 12-02-2012, 04:19 AM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                            Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
                            Just got home from the game. Pacers actually didn't look too bad, but the Warriors clearly had more energy and yes they are a better team this year than in years' past. Jarret Jack (!) was giving them great ball movement and on the defensive end they were clogging the lanes and seemed like they were able to frustrate whatever interior game we tried to get going.

                            Also I could have sworn I had an El Pacero sighting. I tried to get a pic but wasn't quick enough. Whomever it was had the whole blue-and-gold wrestling mask going on with a Pacers windbreaker jacket. Whomever that was, kudos!
                            Yes, it was El Pacero. Who else would be dressed up in a Blue and Gold mask carrying a Gold Wrestling belt?

                            You should have come over....Seth, Gnome, Mrs. Gnome ( Lisa ) and I were sitting in the same section with him ( but in different rows ).
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                              Move in for a ****ing 17 footer already. This obsession with every open perimeter look needing to be from deep is driving me crazy. We don't have those type of shooters (i.e. Curry & Thompson profile).
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers/Warriors postgame thread.

                                Exactly. They have bench guys who are legit, proven scorers. Pacers bench has 0. Big issue for us. Low experience, low leadership, horribly inconsistent offense (if any).
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X