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

1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

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

  • 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

    MAKE THE GREEN
    BLACK AND BLUE!


    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
    Where: TD Garden, Boston, MA
    Officials: J. Capers, C. Kirkland, M. Kogut

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Boston Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / Comcast *Sportsnet
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WEEI *93.7 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


    19-13
    Away: 8-10
    East: 10-7
    14-17
    Home: 9-6
    East: 8-10
    Jan 05
    Jan 08
    Jan 10
    Jan 12
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    AUGUSTIN
    COLLINS
    GARNETT
    PIERCE
    BRADLEY
    RONDO


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)
    George Hill - right groin strain (day-to-day)



    CELTICS
    Avery Bradley - shoulder surgeries (day-to-day)
    Chris Wilcox - sprained UCL, right thumb (out)




    Brian Robb: The Disturbing Decline of the Celtics Offense

    Itís been a slow disturbing decline for the Celticsí offense over the past four seasons.
    With a core of Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and a young Rajon Rondo at the helm,
    the Cís rode those horses to a top-10 NBA offense back in their championship 2007-08
    season. After the team peaked with a high-octane top-6 offense the next year, itís been a
    bit of a freefall as you can see in the chart below, as the teamís core offensive pieces
    aged and despite Danny Aingeís best efforts, there were very few effective
    reinforcements during each subsequent offseasons for a variety of reasons.

    Points per 100 possessions for Celtics offense:
    2007-08: 110.2 (10th)
    2008-09: 110.5 (6th)
    2009-10: 107.7 (15th)
    2010-11: 106.2 (18th)
    2011-12: 100.1 (26th)

    The bottoming out of the offense last year concluded with the Cís mustering just two points
    over the final 5:12 against the Miami Heat in Game 7, an almost fitting end for a team that
    struggled mightily with scoring droughts all year long. The offensive woes were as
    understandable as they were frustrating for the Cís over those past couple years however.

    Countless injuries (Jeff Green, Chris Wilcox) combined with underwhelming talent (Mickael
    Pietrus was the teamís leading scorer off the bench averaging 6.9 points per game in 2011
    -12) led to a burden on the teamís aging core that was incapable of handling on a night in,
    night out basis. Amazingly, the team fought its way to a Game 7 of the Eastern Conference
    Finals despite a bottom of the barrel offense, largely on the back of Rajon Rondoís
    increased aggression but there was no doubt work had to be done this offseason to correct
    the teamís offensive deterioration.

    In fact, when you look at the vast majority of Bostonís moves this offseason, thatís exactly
    the goal Ainge probably had as his first priority. Instead of bringing in defensive-minded
    players with a ďlimitedĒ to put it nicely, offensive upside (Marquis Daniels, Sasha Pavlovic,
    Jermaine OíNeal, Greg Steimsma, Pietrus are just a few examples), Ainge loaded up on
    players that had offense as their main asset. Jason Terry, Leandro Barbosa, Jeff Green,
    Chris Wilcox, Brandon Bass were all signings in which the scoring and/or spacing the
    player would bring the Cís was their biggest weapon. Even more defensive-minded players
    brought in (Courtney Lee) were thought of being consistent two-way players.

    On the surface, this made a lot of sense for Ainge. In giving the teamís core some support
    for the scoring load, it would not only improve the teamís offensive efficiency but take the
    onus off the likes of Pierce, Garnett and even Rondo, who still has not shown he can be
    counted on for significant scoring on a nightly basis when the team needs it.

    For the first month of the season, Aingeís plan was looking good, at least on the
    offensive end. The Cís were middling around the .500 mark record-wise, but sported
    an improved top-10 offensive rating.
    The defense was going through a number of
    somewhat expected growing pains (21st in defensive efficiency) over this same month,
    but that had to be expected to a degree with the variety of new personnel at all positions.
    Schemes needed to be learned, trust needed to be developed between teammates, and a
    commitment needed to be shown to playing ďCeltics defense.Ē

    The offense over the month of November was probably exactly how Ainge envisioned it,
    productivity-wise. The Cís had cut down remarkably on their turnovers (8th in league
    rate), were shooting a high percentage from the field and the arc, and also got to the
    line a top-10 league rate. The offensive rebounding problem remained, as it always will
    with Doc Rivers at the helm, but the Cís were showing signs of having enough firepower
    offensively to keep pace with their high-octane opponents on ďdownĒ defensive nights, a
    luxury they simply did not have in past years.

    Yet, that month of offensive production was short-lived, as for the past six weeks, the
    Cís offense has reversed course, falling the pattern of the teamís last four seasons...into
    an offensive free fall.

    How bad has it become? Since November 28th, (17 games) the Celtics have sported
    the second worst offensive efficiency (97 points per 100 possessions) in the entire
    NBA, second to just the Washington Wizards.
    That means November 28th, (17 games)
    the Celtics have sported the second worst offensive efficiency (97 points per 100
    possessions) in the entire NBA, second to just the Washington Wizards. That means
    theyíve been scoring at a worse rate than offensive juggernauts such as the Cleveland
    Cavaliers, New Orleans Hornets, and the Charlotte Bobcats for more than half the
    season now. The exact trend...CONTINUE READING AT CELTICS HUB




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


    Celtics
    Gary Washburn @GwashNBAGlobe
    Gary Dzen @GlobeGaryDzen
    Celtics Blog @celticsblog
    Celtics Hub @CelticsHub
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

    PG's bout to add Paul Pierce to the chain gang. clank clank

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

      Rebounds are the key.
      Oldness comes with a smile
      To every love given child
      Oldness comes to rile
      The youth who dream suicide


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post

        Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
        Where: TD Garden, Boston, MA
        Officials: J. Capers, C. Kirkland, M. Kogut
        Just a heads up...

        Since this game was initially scheduled for ESPN the start time is 8:00 PM

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

          Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
          Just a heads up...

          Since this game was initially scheduled for ESPN the start time is 8:00 PM
          Oh so I am watching these girl surfers for no good reason. Well, most of them are hot so I'll keep watching as I wait.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

            Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
            Just a heads up...

            Since this game was initially scheduled for ESPN the start time is 8:00 PM
            Speaking of...

            Weren't we supposed to have like 6 nationally televised games this season?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

              Hey at least the defense is dominating the game from both teams! No points allowed in the first half an hour!!!!

              P.S. We need to change the sarcasm color when we play the C's. Its almost like rooting for them( I just threw up in my mouth a little bit)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

                Got a bad feeling about this game. Hope I'm wrong...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

                  How could I forget, Peter Griffin is calling this game!!
                  Yay, we don't know what we're doing as a franchise! thanks PG!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

                    Who's the ref? Bennett Salvatore?
                    Yay, we don't know what we're doing as a franchise! thanks PG!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

                      Hills taking another game oFF?
                      "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

                        Wow, don't see the tech there...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

                          Quinn just said good defense by Augustin!

                          "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

                            Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post
                            How could I forget, Peter Griffin is calling this game!!
                            The original PG, tommy heinson.
                            "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 1/4/2013 Game Thread #33: Pacers Vs. Celtics

                              They're not letting PG get anything.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X