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

12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: M. Davis, S. Conner, S. Corbin

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Portland Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / Comcast SportsNet
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / KEX 1190 AM & 102.3 FM
    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: 4-2
    West: 5-4
    Away: 4-7
    East: 3-5
    Dec 07
    Dec 09
    Dec 12
    Dec 14

    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)

    Victor Claver - right elbow contusion (questionable)
    Elliot Williams - left Achilles tendon (out)

    So why is Roy Hibbert having a less than stellar season? Slow offensive start?

    HA! That's what they want you to believe.

    Tonight we're going to have conclusive evidence of what I consider to be a
    systematic sabotaging from within. Keep an eye on Roy Hibbert's offensive and
    defensive output tonight. A poor statistical performance combined with allowing
    Portland's frontcourt to have their way with the rim will obviously, unquestionably
    illustrate once and for all that Roy Hibbert's so-called 'slow start' is really just
    Hibbert passive-aggressively lashing out and punishing the Pacers organization
    for matching Portland's contract offer last July.

    Don't believe me? You can find all the information you need by Googling
    "Portland + Rim Job".**

    **Maybe don't actually Google that

    Or take a look at the stats. No, of course, you won't find the right stats on They say these stats are "false" or "unsubstantiated" or
    "completely, entirely fabricated". Yeah, like that's not the first move by any
    organization trying to hide a conspiracy: deny, deny, deny. But a graph exists,
    so how can they deny that? Witness this statistical truth:

    As you can see, Roy has been systematically allowing points to be scored on
    him by teams he wishes he could play for. It couldn't be any clearer than that,
    my friends. He's been attempting to make his intentions less obvious by
    making sure that at least five sections of the floor are well defended while
    leaving a whopping five other areas of the floor shooting above 35.7%.

    And if that wasn't enough to blow your mind, take a gander at this:

    An insane 90% of Hibbert's pouting has taken place below the blocks. It's not
    entirely clear why Hibbert has been pouting less around 17 feet from the
    basket. I can only assume it's meant as a diversion. This would explain why
    perimeter oriented bigs (titans like Matt Bonner and Troy Murphy) haven't
    faired well against Hibbert's suspect performance this year.

    Have I connected enough dots for you people? Can't you see what's
    going on? Am I the only one who gets it?

    Eric Freeman: Damian Lillard is afraid of historic statues

    After only a few short months of play, Portland Trail Blazers rookie point guard Damian
    Lillard looks capable beyond his years. While his defense still needs work, Lillard has
    shown himself to be a dynamic offensive talent and the current frontrunner for Rookie
    of the Year honors. He'll be a building block for the Blazers for a long time to come.

    However, Lillard has a lot of growing up to do. Like, say, not being afraid of "historic
    statues." From two tweets on his Twitter account (via TBJ):
    I like DC. I wana come back and visit the memorials even though
    I'm scared of statues

    People I'm only scared of historic statues. Abraham Lincoln , MLK,
    etc. Had a bad experience at the wax museum lmao

    Later, Lillard explained his fear to USA Today's Jeff Zillgitt:
    He has trouble pinpointing the exact time he fretted seeing
    statues and monuments but said the uneasy feeling was palpable
    during a visit to a wax museum two summers ago before his
    senior season at Weber State.

    "The last room was Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Martin Luther
    King, Malcolm X, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln — all
    these big-time historic people, and it looked just like them. Same
    size," he said. "They had music playing in the room to set the
    mood, and it just threw me off."

    "Ever since then I've done. Even at Lake Oswego (near Portland),
    I drive past the cemetery, and there's a statue of ***** with his
    hands up. That even scared me. I don't mess with statues no more.

    "It's the idea that they're from so far back, and so big in our
    history. Just to see something that looks so close to them, it's
    weird. It freaks me out."

    Driving through D.C. Tuesday night with monuments lit up, "was
    crazy. All I could think of was Abraham Lincoln getting killed,"
    Lillard said.

    I would really like to know which mood-setting music the wax museum played to throw
    off Lillard. My guess is that it was not Paul Anka.

    Now, it bears mentioning that Lillard is not the only young basketball player to hold on
    to childhood fears or habits. LeBron James, for instance, still bites his nails, and everyone
    pretty much agrees that he's now an adult winner who really understands what it takes to
    be a true professional. Lillard can still succeed despite being scared that the statue at the
    Jefferson Memorial will detach itself from its base and start terrorizing the nation for not

    Fran Blinebury: Blazers Face the Aldridge Question

    It’s getting late early in Portland.

    Of course, the shadows can’t get much longer and the outlook much bleaker than when
    you’ve become the first team all season to lose to the Wizards.

    Still, these things happen. If it were a one-game pratfall, it would be easier for the Trail
    Blazers to move on up the road and try to work out their frustrations on the soon-to-be-
    Rondo-less Celtics.

    But the trouble is that 15 games into this season, it is already beginning to look a lot like
    last season. And the one before. And the one before.

    “Inexcusable,” is the way guard Wesley Matthews described the loss at Washington and
    nobody was really sure if he was talking about the way the Blazers shot the ball,
    rebounded, defended or got off the bus.

    Intolerable for their fans is the knowledge that over the past decade, the Blazers have
    done more rebuilding than FEMA and still have little to show for it. They have the longest
    current Western Conference drought without winning a playoff series (13 seasons and
    counting) and are giving little indication that it’s about to end. Enthusiasm for new coach
    Terry Stotts’ up-tempo, move-the-ball offense is leaking like air from a flat tire.

    All of which quickly brings up the question of what to do with LaMarcus Aldridge?

    The Blazers official stance is: nothing. That’s what general manager Neil Olshey told
    Aldridge in an October meeting, asking for patience and promising that the power
    forward would not be traded.

    But how wise is that...CONTINUE READING AT HANG TIME

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

    Jason Quick @jwquick
    Ben Golliver @blazersedge
    Joe Freeman @BlazerFreeman
    PDX Roundball @pdxroundball
    Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 12-05-2012, 06:12 PM.
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

    Picked up my tickets from BLF after work, a lot of Blazer fans waiting at 5.


    • #3
      Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

      It's been 4 years, Ken Beckley. If people don't know about Indiana Members Credit Union by now they probably never will. Please go away.


      • #4
        Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

        What the hell was Green doing? hahah


        • #5
          Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          What the hell was Green doing? hahah
          I said the exact same thing.


          • #6
            Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

            When you're 7 foot-a-million, don't you basically have to try to miss bunnies?


            • #7
              Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

              We're commiting a lot of unforced turnovers out there.
              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.


              • #8
                Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

                Good cut by Lance...too bad he fumbled it.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


                • #9
                  Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

                  Lance is struggling
                  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.


                  • #10
                    Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

                    Why are we such a bad shooting team?


                    • #11
                      Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

                      Lance hasn't started well...
                      "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.


                      • #12
                        Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

                        Good God.......Liliard is going to kill us tonight.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


                        • #13
                          Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          Good God.......Liliard is going to kill us tonight.
                          Yeah, hopefully we can avoid ever having Augustin on him...
                          "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.


                          • #14
                            Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

                            Did PG really think that West would go up to catch a lob?
                            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.


                            • #15
                              Re: 12/5/2012 Game Thread #19: Pacers Vs. Blazers

                              They look tired.