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

Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

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

  • Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

    Once again I have to be somewhere in the morning so we are just going to do the bulletpoint version of Odd Thoughts tonight.

    But before I go there I just want to make sure I say this here in case I don’t say it later, our bench sucks.

    • For everybody blaming Lance for missing that one free throw let me remind you of the end of the first half blown layup by Paul George. There were two points left hanging on the board that I would like to have right now wouldn’t you?
    • Our bench as a unit is just terrible, for the life of me I do not understand why Frank thinks he has to play them as a group. I understand that you have to give the starters a break but even if he has to rotate them out one at a time he is going to have to change this.
    • If I never see D.J. Augustin play again it will be too soon for me. Since this was the 20th game I think we have enough of a sampling to say that this isn’t working. I’m not kidding when I say this; he is playing himself out of the league right now.
    • Great defense or not Roy has got to stop having 30% shooting nights. On occasion I understand but this is unacceptable. Some of his misses are put back attempts so he gets a little break there but if nothing else just rebound the ball and kick it out if you can’t go up strong with it.
    • This wasn’t George Hill’s strongest shooting night either but he did outplay Lawson significantly. I’m not thrilled he didn’t know we were down three but I can’t be upset with him for shooting that shot because time was gone. He can be blamed though for being to blatant in an attempt to draw a foul, refs are probably not going to call that on most nights.
    • Speaking of which, I wonder if Danny will hear from the league office for verbal abuse of the refs. After the game was over Danny went out on the court and berated them for a good 3-4 min before finally leaving.
    • Also on the foul called on Lance going against Miller I thought Frank was going to attack someone. He jumped up yelled very loud curse words that all of us on our end the floor are now going to have to go to church for and he even accidently kicked Dan Burke in the process.
    • If you have ever wondered allowed that Faried might be as good as David West you may now never ask that question again, ever. I did not realize how small he was prior to tonight either; David West dwarfed him in both size and height.
    • Our bench totally blows
    • Gerald Green played 12:33 and I have no idea what he did.
    • However as crappy as Green was let me give you this wonderful stat line by Hansbrough. 1 rebound (that was his positive contribution) 3 fouls 1 turn over and 1 humiliating shot that was actually blocked back in time by McGee. BTW Tyler was the only person in the fieldhouse who didn’t see that block coming.
    • But not to be outdone in the race to see which bench player sucked the most was D.J. Augustin who had as many turnover (3) as he did points (1) & assists (2) combined not to mention being played like a kettle drum by Andre Miller on defense.
    • Neither Sam nor Ian had good games but at least the two of them didn’t totally embarrass Dr. James Naismith the way the other three did.
    • Our bench is just horrid
    • Lance Stephenson had good and bad moments; more good than bad IMO but I know Seth wasn’t happy with his end of the game ball handling. I wasn’t as upset but I see his point. Still though I like it when he attacks the basket, he would have only hit that one free throw.
    • Paul had a decent game, I don’t think it was as good as his final stat line shows (he hit a lot of three’s tonight so IMO that always inflates things but hey he hit them so you can’t take that away from him) but I will also say that he was being defended by an Olympic caliber defender. BTW he was wide open in the corner if only West would have seen him for a shot to end the game.
    • David West was on pace to become all world in the first half. Didn’t miss and was hitting from everywhere. But in second half slowed way down and by the 4th quarter he not only was not hitting he was actually missing some defensive assignments. The Nuggets went small and I think it threw him off.


    Sigh, back to .500% with our next game facing the Thunder.



    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

    Good summary. If you just called for Donnie Walsh's head for squandering a huge amount of cap space on this down graded bench it would be perfect.
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

      I hate it when we play Gold Dust



      and lose.
      Attached Files
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        If I never see D.J. Augustin play again it will be too soon for me. Since this was the 20th game I think we have enough of a sampling to say that this isn’t working. I’m not kidding when I say this; he is playing himself out of the league right now.
        I was thinking the same thing after the 2nd quarter. I'm ready for Ben Hansbrough to try to be the backup, or let Lance run the point, or trade DJ with someone else for another backup. Anything but more DJ "the Troy Murphy of point guards without a shot" Augustine.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          Once again I have to be somewhere in the morning so we are just going to do the bulletpoint version of Odd Thoughts tonight.

          But before I go there I just want to make sure I say this here in case I don’t say it later, our bench sucks.
          • Our bench as a unit is just terrible, for the life of me I do not understand why Frank thinks he has to play them as a group. I understand that you have to give the starters a break but even if he has to rotate them out one at a time he is going to have to change this.
          • If I never see D.J. Augustin play again it will be too soon for me. Since this was the 20th game I think we have enough of a sampling to say that this isn’t working. I’m not kidding when I say this; he is playing himself out of the league right now.
          I believe the above are the two most important topics to discuss.

          I am also baffled by the substitution patterns. I trust Ian and Tyler on the floor when they are playing with 2-3 starters. But 4-5 subs on the floor together is far more often than not going to end in disaster. I think Frank needs to always have West or Hibbert on the floor and to adjust his substitutions accordingly.

          DJ can't play in the half court for crap. He can get out on the break quickly, but big deal... so can Lance. So therefore, I don't believe there is anything that DJ adds that Lance cannot bring. He'll, at this point I would play Ben before DJ. Most of us have also surmised that the next time DJ plays good positional defense will also be the first time that we know of that he has attempted to play positional defense. I'm 60, 6-1 and 265 (I've dropped 40# thank you very much) and my still fat arse could do a better job of preventing lane penetration than DJ. Well, at least my fat butt would make someone pay a heavy physical toll with my 6 fouls when they tried to get into the lane.

          From my perspective, if Vogel is going to play his starters for 36 minutes or so, it shouldn't be all that hard to keep 3 of them, including one front court guy, on the floor at all times.

          Jeesh it will be nice to get Granger back. At least that will add one more player to the bench that can be trusted. And since that player will probably be Lance, maybe by then we will have seen the last of DJ. He just simply does not fit with our second unit.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

            As bad as DJ was tonight, (and he was AWFUL) I can still name three people on the court who did worse:

            Monty McCutchen
            Courtney Kirkland
            Derek Richardson

            NONE of these guys should be calling a high school JV game, much less a NBA contest.
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

              Honestly someone in the D-League has to be better than Augustin right now.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                Can we please stop complaining about the refs? Getting redundant...
                There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                  Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                  Can we please stop complaining about the refs? Getting redundant...
                  Normally I agree with you. McCutchen was OK. But Kirkland and Richardson were epic-ly [sp?] awful. Even given how bad they are normally.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    • If I never see D.J. Augustin play again it will be too soon for me. Since this was the 20th game I think we have enough of a sampling to say that this isn’t working. I’m not kidding when I say this; he is playing himself out of the league right now.
                    I was excited to get him, but wow what a disappointment. Cant shoot, cant defend, and cant even find an open man. Ben Hansbrough please.
                    If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                    @LetsTalkPacers

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                      Koufos, McGee, and Brewer putting up big scoring numbers kept the Nuggs in the game and Dre was beastly at the end. I'm not sure I'm upset about the loss, since it gave us an example of that one-man fast break brilliance that McGee will occasionally bestow upon us mortals.
                      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                        Originally posted by PD GameBattles 2k13 View Post
                        I was excited to get him, but wow what a disappointment. Cant shoot, cant defend, and cant even find an open man. Ben Hansbrough please.
                        I don't get it. I'm so baffled and confused at how bad he's been this year. It's like space jam, someone just stole his abilities and he forgot how to play. I dunno man...maybe he just doesn't wanna be here. Let him go back to the kitties then.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                          Where is the Augustin that we used to know?

                          That bench the Nuggets have, can I get one of those for Christmas?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                            It's so bad about Augustin that in today's star blog Mike Wells is now advocating Ben Hansbrough.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Blinded by Gold Dust

                              it is time i think we should all start campaigning it

                              #FREEHANSBOROUGH
                              Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X