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

12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls



    Game Time Start: 8:00 PM EST
    Where: United Center, Chicago, IL
    Officials: B. Salvatore, T. Brown, M. Lindsay

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Chicago Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / WGN
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WMVP 1000 AM, WRTO 1200 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

    Away: 4-7
    East: 3-5
    Home: 5-4
    East: 4-2
    Dec 05
    Dec 07
    Dec 09
    Dec 12

    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)

    Richard Hamilton - torn plantar fascia in left foot (day-to-day)
    Derrick Rose - left knee (out)

    Ricky O'Donnell: Kirk Hinrich - One of the worst players in the NBA

    The Chicago Bulls' problems are bigger than Kirk Hinrich, but no one player personifies
    them more succinctly. SB Nation Chicago's Ricky O'Donnell looks at what went wrong for
    the Bulls' prized free agent signing.

    How's this for a kick in the stomach: when Gar Forman and John Paxson decided to make
    signing Kirk Hinrich the Chicago Bulls' top offseason priority this summer, they were
    thinking about you. I swear it's true. The decision to bring back Hinrich was, in the most
    mangled sense of the term, good publicity for a franchise in desperate need of some. In
    the warped minds of the people who call the shots for Chicago's pro basketball team,
    signing Hinrich amounted to throwing the fans a bone. I know.

    There's no denying the fact that Hinrich is the type of player fans like, and the Bulls have
    great fans. The Bulls have sold out nearly every home game for over two decades, and
    the people who buy those seats are the type of customers who can appreciate the less
    tangible aspects of Hinrich's game: grit, toughness, ability to persevere through obvious
    physical shortcomings. All of those things sell to the public. In this sense, signing Hinrich
    was almost a slam dunk. He was familiar, likable and safe. He would work hard, stay out
    of trouble off the court and toe the company line through and through. Did you hear he
    kept a house in area the last two years while battling injuries and fumbling his way
    \through underwhelming campaigns in Washington and Atlanta? It's true! There's a lot to
    like about Kirk Hinrich, I suppose, save for his ability to play basketball. Kirk Hinrich is
    terrible at playing basketball.

    There's a reason Forman and Paxson have their job, and they've largely done well in
    turning the Bulls into something of an agile beast the last two seasons. Give them credit
    for choosing Derrick Rose over Michael Beasley, give them credit for hiring Tom
    Thibodeau, give them credit for drafting Taj Gibson and Joakim Noah. But when it comes
    to roster construction and team makeup, the decision makers are supposed to be smarter
    than the people who buy the tickets. There was almost no analytical way to argue
    procuring Hinrich to a two-year, $8 million contract, and saddling the team with a hard
    cap for the rest of the season, was a smart move. Through 14 games this season, Hinrich
    has already proven that without a doubt.

    You could see the headline coming from the moment Hinrich's signing was announced. I
    laughed audibly the first time I read it:

    Kirk Hinrich evaluated by more than numbers

    Well, that's good. Because Hinrich's numbers are atrocious.

    Hinrich has an offensive rating this season of 92. For players that have started at least
    12 games this season, only four players are worse. You don't even need to dabble in
    advanced metrics to tell Hinrich doesn't have it anymore, the numbers on the back of a
    basketball card do the job fine enough. Take a look at those numbers:

    Points per game: 6.2
    Field goal percentage: 32%
    Free throw percentage: 62%
    Three point percentage: 29%

    Kirk Hinrich's PER this season is 9.03. Here's how that stacks up on John Hollinger's
    scale, via Wikipedia: just above "Definitely renting" (9.0), with "Next Stop: D-League"
    (5.0) as the lowest hurdle to clear. Hinrich isn't going to the D-League, you can bet on
    that. He'll be bricking jumpers with the Bulls all season long.

    This isn't hate-fueled, as I'm sure Hinrich is a nice enough guy. It's just: what does he
    do well on a basketball court...CONTINUE READING AT SB NATION CHICAGO

    Kelly Dwyer: Derrick Rose, according to one source, could be a few weeks away
    from practicing. This might not be great news for Bulls fans

    You can see this grain of salt from miles away. From wherever you pick up the Damen
    bus, number 50, in order to shuffle your way to the United Center. Some lone "NBA
    source" — a single person — is speculating that some members of the Chicago Bulls
    think star guard Derrick Rose "could" be a few weeks away from practicing. Which
    would then push Rose's return to live action closer to late-December, ticking closer to
    the "eight" in the "eight to 12 months" diagnosis he was given after tearing his left ACL
    in a playoff game on A.

    Someone's playing doctor, and the Chicago Sun-Times' Joe Cowley is reporting it. And
    because we've just as much insight as we guess from afar — like the source, like
    Cowley, like the players who might be watching Derrick cut and spin in individual drills
    every day but have no idea as to Rose's eventual return — we're going to play doctor
    as well.

    And point out that the sooner the Chicago Bulls push Derrick Rose into the lineup, the
    more worried you should be. Because the team doesn't have the greatest history of
    acting like the grown-ups in this situation.

    First, Cowley's report, which starts with the discussion that Derrick "could be just weeks
    away from practicing" with the team:
    ''That's the belief that a couple of [the Bulls'] players are under,'' the
    source said.

    Rose has been expected to be able to play in games by February, but
    that has been inferred more than actually stated. Even if the Bulls
    receive the ultimate Christmas present of getting him back on the
    practice court just before Dec. 25, it doesn't mean he's necessarily
    ahead of that February schedule — or behind it.

    Asked Monday if there was a specific timetable for Rose to start
    practicing, general manager Gar Forman answered in a text message:
    ''We're still taking the process step by step, and a date hasn't been set.''

    If that sounds tactful, coming from Chicago's GM, it's because he is on point with his
    on record patience. And while it's a jerk move for us to expect Forman and his
    franchise to do the inappropriate thing and let Rose play as soon as Derrick feels as
    if he's ready, it's worth pointing out that Chicago's history with these sorts of things
    isn't as tactful as Forman's comments appear above.

    No NBA team comes close to working its players through injury or fatigue like these
    Bulls. Former center Omer Asik limped around the court in a playoff series against
    Miami in 2011 with what wasn't initially diagnosed as a fractured fibula — the same
    malady that could keep Steve Nash off the court until January — but was later
    revealed to be a FRIGGING FRACTURED LEG-BONE once Chicago's season ended.
    Luol Deng was fielded in much the same way a few years back, as the Bulls hemmed
    and hawed over his willingness to play through injury during the 2009-10 season.

    Deng, it turns out...CONTINUE READING AT BALL DON'T LIE

    Mark Deeks: Nazr Mohammed and Trade Kickers

    Even though he signed a one year minimum salary contract using the Minimum Salary
    Exception, Nazr Mohammed has a 15% trade kicker in his current contract.

    Trade kickers in contracts are somewhat rare. They are particularly rare in small
    contracts, as becomes obvious upon a study of the current trade kickers in the league
    Ray Allen - 15% - $3,090,000
    Andrea Bargnani - 5% - $10,000,000
    Nic Batum - 15% - $10,825,000
    Chris Bosh - 15% - $17,545,000
    Jose Calderon - 10% - $10,561,982
    Vince Carter - 10% - $3,090,000
    Tyson Chandler - lesser of 8% or $500,000
    Pau Gasol - 15% - $19,000,000
    Manu Ginobili - 5% - $14,107,492
    Eric Gordon - 15% - $13,668,750
    Blake Griffin - 15% - trade kicker in extension, begins next year
    Udonis Haslem - 15% - $4,060,000
    Roy Hibbert - 15% - $13,668,750
    LeBron James - 15% - $17,545,000
    Amir Johnson - 5% - $6,000,000
    DeAndre Jordan - 15% - $10,532,977
    Brook Lopez - 15% - $13,668,750
    Robin Lopez - 15% - $4,899,293
    Shawn Marion - 15% - $8,646,364
    O.J. Mayo - 15% - $4,020,000
    Mike Miller - 15% - $5,800,000
    Nazr Mohammed - 15% - $1,352,181 (cap number of $854,389)
    Steve Nash - 15% - $8,900,000
    Derrick Rose - 15% - $16,402,500
    Josh Smith - 15% - $13,200,000
    Jason Terry - 7.5% - $5,000,000
    Jason Thompson - 5% - $5,250,000
    Anderson Varejao - 5% - $8,368,182
    Dwyane Wade - 15% - $17,182,000
    Deron Williams - 15% - $17,177,795
    Metta World Peace - 15% - $7,258,960

    Furthermore, many of those trade kickers are in contracts that are already paying
    the maximum salary to the relevant player. As kickers cannot be used to increase a
    salary to an amount greater than the max, those kickers are thus pretty much
    redundant. [As for why anyone puts them in, then - well, why not? What if the max
    gets bigger? Unlikely, but plausible.] Very few trade kickers actually matter, then.
    Indeed, of all the contracts in the league today, only three contain already-enacted
    trade kickers. Of those three, one was partially waived in order to facilitate the
    trade (Hedo Turkoglu), and one was redundant for the aforementioned maximum
    contract reasons (Chris Paul). That leaves Luke Walton as the one example of a
    current contract that was increased by a trade kicker. In a bloviated way, the point
    is hereby made - trade kickers aren't very common.

    When they are given out, they are done so as leverage. If a team and a player
    cannot meet in the middle on contract negotiations, the inclusion of a trade bonus
    serves to bridge the gap; an increase in salary upon being traded gives greater
    incentive to accept perceived home town discounts. In Nazr's case, negotiations
    probably can't have gone on for too long, as there was surely no dispute as to the
    fact that he was a minimum salary contract calibre player.

    What Nazr's trade kicker...CONTINUE READING AT SHAMSPORTS

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

    K.C. Johnson @KCJHoop
    BullsBlogger @BullsBlogger
    Kelly Dwyer @KDonhoops
    Mark Deeks @MarkDeeksNBA
    Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 12-04-2012, 08:49 PM.
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls has this on wgn, but it is not on the tv guide. I really thought I would get to see this at home.


    • #3
      Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

      Belinelli looks a lot like Boozer.


      • #4
        Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

        Indiana need a great game by Paul tonight

        P.S: Hamilton looking like Belinelli xD


        • #5
          Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

          Ben Hansbrough not taking warm ups lightly... Slapped the ball out of PG's hands when PG was doing a turn around post move of him.


          • #6
            Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

            Originally posted by Phree Refill View Post
            Ben Hansbrough not taking warm ups lightly... Slapped the ball out of PG's hands when PG was doing a turn around post move of him.
            I believe he screamed "weight room!" right after too.


            • #7
              Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

              Life as a West Coast Pacers fan: If I'm going to watch the game, I usually have to wait until long after work and catch the replay later off of League Pass with friends. That means for the next 3-4 hours I'm on no spoiler zone. With 8pts9sec on my FB wall, that means total isolation until later tonight.

              Go Pacers, make it worth the wait!


              • #8
                Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                lmao .. feels like I am watching a bad chinese kung fu flick
                "They want to be famous. We want to be champions. They want to be rappers and backup dancers. We want to play football." - T.J. Ward, Denver Broncos


                • #9
                  Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                  Mavis Staples is awesome.


                  • #10
                    Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                    Need to be clicking on all cylinders tonight
                    Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck


                    • #11
                      Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                      I don't know what Boomer normally does, but I like how their mascot sits in a chair reading a paper for the opposing team intros lol
                      Time for a new sig.


                      • #12
                        Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                        The and 1 duo are together again.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                        • #13
                          Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                          Be nice to hear Jeff Foster be booed tonight.
                          Super Bowl XLI Champions
                          2000 Eastern Conference Champions


                          • #14
                            Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                            Belinelli will hit at least two complete garbage threes


                            • #15
                              Re: 12/4/2012 Game Thread #18: Pacers Vs. Bulls

                              that fireworks smoke lingering or did Slick take the short road trip?