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

Pacers/Nuggets postgame

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

    Yeah, I thought that Dj was a good player being severely misused and that was his main problem. I think it is still a huge part of it, but it doesn't really matter. He plays bad for us and the way we try to play basketball with the second unit. I really hope Jarrett Jack will come back to us sometime for a reasonable deal or really anyone else that wont have their career ended by the Pacers. Like others have said I would be ok having Lance play the position since it doesn't really matter what he is or is not, if he can do better than DJ and still play some SG that is what counts. Then we may have another hole at the SG. Ultimately, we need DG back and possibly make another move in the offseason or this season if we can.

    Does anyone have a good feel or history of Pritchard/Walsh in season strategies? Do they like to trade a lot then or is it mostly in the off-season? I feel like it is more in the off-season, but that is honestly just a guess.


    • #92
      Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

      The Pacers defense was bad today they let Denver score at will inside, I thought Denver was going to kill them from outside but it was the opposite.

      I wonder how their D is going to be Sunday against OKC?
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


      • #93
        Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

        Denver shot 44% from the floor. Not great defense, but average defense. Limiting them to 92pts was huge, just didn't work out.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.


        • #94
          Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

          I always liked Augustin and when the Pacers got him I thought he'd be a good b'u PG. I'm throwing in the towel. The Pacers need to find another b/u PG whether it's someone on the roster or somewhere else. You can't let Augustin continue just so it keeps his morale high. He can wave a towel on the bench just like Eddie Gill did.


          • #95
            Originally posted by DemonHunter1105 View Post

            Does anyone have a good feel or history of Pritchard/Walsh in season strategies? Do they like to trade a lot then or is it mostly in the off-season? I feel like it is more in the off-season, but that is honestly just a guess.
            Pretty much polar opposites I think. Walsh is a stay the course guy. He's made some midseason deals but not many. Pritchard's a wheeler dealer, but mostly around draft time.


            • #96
              Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

              @TheRocketGuy: Pacers looking for their first 3-game winning streak....starting to put it together despite road-heavy early schedule.

              He just posted this
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


              • #97
                Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                George Hill at this point has to be tired by the 4th qtr bc our b/u PG is playing so bad. Outside of Ian our bench is just atrocious, meanwhile Pietrus is doing well on the raps. We def shoulda looked to sign him bc we are just running PG and GH into the ground. Making these guys play 37,38 min a game EVERY game.


                • #98
                  Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  George Hill at this point has to be tired by the 4th qtr bc our b/u PG is playing so bad. Outside of Ian our bench is just atrocious, meanwhile Pietrus is doing well on the raps. We def shoulda looked to sign him bc we are just running PG and GH into the ground. Making these guys play 37,38 min a game EVERY game.
                  Dude should've made a better decision at the end of the game though.

                  Being such a mediocre team sucks. Right when I got used to winning games and being good again lol


                  • #99
                    Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                    If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?



                    • Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                      It's simply shocking how bad our bench is. I thought at first it might be a wash with last year which would be criminal considering how much Walsh had to work with, but it's far far worse. Ian is the only player worth bringing in, and he isn't close to being worth his contract. It makes me sick when he takes a shot from beyond 3 feet. Foster knew enough not to take that shot and his shot was way better then Ian's.
                      To think that anyone thought it was a good idea to dump DC when we didn't have to, just so we'd be able to go after DJ Augustin is insane. Walsh and Pritchard are supposed to know what they're doing. What in the hell made them think that was an upgrade. DJ will not be in the NBA next year.
                      I'm not saying the sky has fallen, we'll still be a better team when Granger returns and I see us as a playoff team but our goals should be higher then that. It's just sad that we had so much to look forward to last spring. Money to spend to upgrade our weaknesses. Now here we are, money squandered on less talent then what we had last year.
                      Before we consider any changes to the roster, Simon needs to make a front office change.
                      Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                      Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.


                      • Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                        I'm still trying to rationalize how bad DJ Augustin is. What has he played? Like 5 good minutes of basketball total this entire season?


                        • Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                          Miller leads Nuggets past Pacers 92-89
                          INDIANAPOLIS (AP) Denver's old man, Andre Miller, can still deliver a decisive knockout punch when needed.

                          Indiana found out the hard way Friday night.

                          The 36-year-old guard played like a revitalized All-Star, scoring eight of his 15 points during a decisive 10-0 run to send the Nuggets past the Pacers 92-89. Miller had a hand in all of the points during the late flurry - making three baskets and two free throws and dishing out an assist on the only basket he didn't score.

                          ``He knows how to get shots down the stretch better than some of our other guys, some of our younger guys,'' coach George Karl said. ``He was running the pick-and-roll actions better than anyone all game long, and he just has that old-man knack, that old-school knack.''

                          For one night, at least, Miller rekindled images from the days he was one of the league's most feared guards.

                          This time, the oldest player on the league's third-youngest team, showed his teammates that a combination of poise, leadership and clutch play will trump big names and flashy plays every time.

                          No, Miller didn't produce the biggest numbers for Denver (10-10).

                          JaVale McGee had a season-high 20 points, 16 in the first half, and eight rebounds. Corey Brewer matched his season-high with 20 points, too, on a night only two Denver starters reached double figures - Kosta Koufos with 12 points and Andre Iguodala with 10.

                          But Miller delivered the scoring punch when Denver needed it most.

                          ``We just want to keep providing some stability, some energy, so hopefully, it can carry over into the games,'' Miller said as he walked out of the locker room.

                          Indiana (10-10) was looking for its first three-game winning streak this season and had a chance to force overtime when George Hill blocked Ty Lawson's shot from the left corner with 8.8 seconds to go. Hill grabbed the loose ball and sprinted up the court, but rather than call timeout to set up a play, Hill circled around and threw up an off-balance 3-pointer that bounced off the side of the rim as the buzzer sounded.

                          Hill finished with 15 points on a night all five Pacers starters scored in double figures. Paul George finished with 22, including four 3s. David West had 18 points and 11 rebounds, Roy Hibbert had 10 points and nine rebounds and Lance Stephenson had 12 points.

                          Afterward, Hill said perhaps he should have called the timeout. Coach Frank Vogel disagreed.

                          ``In a scramble situation, that's where you get your most open looks,'' Vogel said.

                          Either way, it wasn't good enough against the feisty Nuggets and suddenly revitalized Miller.

                          The Nuggets overcame Indiana's fast start, which put them in a 10-point hole less than four minutes into the game, took the lead early in the second quarter and stayed in control for most of the game.

                          But after leading for most of the next 2-plus quarters, Miller re-emerged when Indiana charged back.

                          ``He's drinking from the fountain of youth,'' point guard Ty Lawson said. ``He was coming down and getting buckets, getting assists, he's playing well for us. He's winning games for us.''

                          Exhibit A came Friday night in a city where Denver has won seven of its last nine and in a series in which the Nuggets have won 13 of the last 16.

                          Midway through the fourth quarter, it looked like the Nuggets would hold on again as they scored seven straight points to rebuild an 80-74 lead.

                          Indiana answered with Stephenson's layup, a three-point play from Hill and a free throw from Hibbert to tie the score at 82 with 3:52 to go. Twenty seconds later, George hit a 3-ponter, giving Indiana the lead and sending the crowd into a frenzy.

                          But after a timeout, Miller took control.

                          He started the run with two free throws, then scored on a layup and hit a 15-footer. After feeding McGee for a dunk, he closed the run with a 14-foot pullup shot to make it 92-85 with 1:01 to play.

                          ``They came out and really brought it up a level and it kind of took us some time to adjust to that,'' George said. ``By that time, they kind of found something, letting Andre Miller attack and find guys.''

                          George answered with his fourth 3 and Stephenson cut the deficit to three by making 1 of 2 free throws with 29.9 seconds left.

                          Miller and the Nuggets didn't let Indiana get any closer.

                          ``I've played with him for two years,'' Iguodala said of Miller. ``And I've seen that calm about him before when it's needed, especially for a team like ours with some youth.''

                          NOTES: Hibbert had three blocks and now has blocked at least two shots in 14 consecutive games. ... Koufos was 5 of 8 from the field and 2 of 2 from the free-throw line with five rebounds despite still being slowed by the flu, which kept him out of Wednesday night's game. ... Iguodala hurt his left hip late in the first half but continued to play.The Nuggets already have two players out with hip injuries - Wilson Chandler and Julyan Stone. ... Indiana and Denver now have an even split of the 168 games they've played since entering the ABA.
                          @si_nba: Miller keys decisive run in Nuggets win vs. Pacers
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                          • Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                            Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
                            We need to make a move. Trade DJ and Green or just let Ben and OJ play. They can't be any worse than DJ and Green.
                            We'd have to throw in Paul George and a 1st. while taking back a bad contract to move those guys.
                            Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                            Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.


                            • Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              To be fair to Lance, however, he did lead the team in +/- (and Young was the worst with -17). Vogel needs to stop yanking Lance so much. He clearly helps the team perform, and we lost a nice lead as soon as Lance was pulled for Sam Young. Those margins end up costing us at the end of games.
                              Quick run down of Young's 7 minutes after Lance was pulled:

                              - TO (turnover)
                              - clear path foul ( and didn't know it was a 2 shot foul )
                              - allowed a dunk off of our missed free throw...should never happen
                              - chucked and missed a contested 3
                              - chucked up another quick 3 (was open and made it but still quick + had PG wide open next to him for easier corner 3)
                              - chucked and missed a contested 3 (clock was at 3... thought he still had time to get a better shot then a deep 3)
                              - TO #2

                              Team scores 6 points...

                              Lance was bad tonight defensively, there's no denying that, but I don't understand why we didn't attempt to hide him on Iggy in the 4th. Especially after Miller abused Lance a few times in the first half. I was waiting for Frank to switch Paul onto him the whole 4th quarter, but it never happened. I don't mind the no timeout on the last play because Paul was wide open, but allowing Miller to nearly single-handedly beat us down the stretch while our best on ball defender sat in the corner guarding Iggy was not a good azz defense from Vogel.

                              Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                              Paul George the last 3

                              26 ppg

                              7.3 rpg

                              4.3 apg

                              54 percent from the field

                              over a block and a steal per game.

                              He's starting to show me something offensively. He took over in teh second half even though he was cold in the first. He keeps this up and coaches migth have to entertain theh idea of him as an all star reserve sometime in the near future.
                              Against 3 all defensive caliber SFs no less.


                              • Re: Pacers/Nuggets postgame

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Pacers out rebound them, have more assists, shoot a better percentage (0.005% but I'll take it), shot 43.5% from the 3 and lost the TO battle by 10. Kill ya every time.
                                I'm guessing I know that the answer...but I have to ask.

                                Did the Nuggets defense force the turnovers?


                                Did the Pacers just get careless and turned the ball over ( like normal )?
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.