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/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

    Before, I call PG "LeBron-lite" because he can fill up the stat sheet with ease, just like LeBron, but not as consistent especially in terms of scoring. Right now, I would say it's only a matter of time before both meet as equals. If PG can do this at a consistent basis, I would dare say that he'll be the league's 2nd best SF this year. No offense to Durant but PG is just well-rounded on both sides of the court that makes him the biggest challenge yet to LeBron.

    It's still a long ways ahead but I feel that PG is banging on the gates of the elites this year. Just needs to show this for the majority of the season to be recognized.


    • #77
      Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

      poster from " back in the day"...dusting of my login.. Just saying hey... Was at the game.. and haven't been as excited foe a team since the Pre-Brawl team...

      Why Not Us ?


      • #78
        Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        As for the shooting, I'm not going to be hard on Jennings for his first full game of action in over a month. He was all over the place, but he should be.

        Our best shooter is probably Luigi, but given that he also played his first game this season tonight, he missed everything.

        We have better shooting on this team than it showed tonight. And I'm sick of josh smith getting the ball 30 feet from the basket with 5 on the shot clock. Enough.
        There were a couple of times when Josh caught the ball near the three-point line, clearly saw the shot clock, and had very little interest in anything but shooting the three. He's not a lazy player. He just loves to shoot it. Very curious to know what the coaches are telling him.


        • #79
          Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

          Originally posted by rabid View Post
          We were scary good in the 3rd quarter. Just dominant. Fun to watch.
          We were scary bad in the 2nd quarter. Just horrific. Not fun to watch.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


          • #80
            Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

            Where has Peck been during all of this? No odd thoughts


            • #81
              Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

              Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
              That is a BIG IF in my opinion....why? Well because Josh Smith is just a care free unmotivated player....all the talent in the world but will always be plagued by terrible shot selection and lack of effort too many nights. Another reason it is a BIG IF is because quite frankly I think Jennings is a BAD PG, he is way too inefficient and is just a guy that shoots you out of more games than into games in my opinion. I think they'd be better of if Bynum was their starting PG.
              I think that MoCheeks is a good enough Coach to get the Starters headed in the right direction. It just takes time for Teams like this to gel and build chemistry.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


              • #82
                Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                Great win...and I love what the Starters did....but I think that the Starters....especially West, Lance PG24 played too many minutes. West ( as vnzla81 would point out ) seemed to be "up and down" all game. I'd like to see Scola get more burn when West's game seems to be off.

                I'd like to see more of OJ and Solo...heck even Copeland getting some minutes.

                But I really want to get the 2nd unit more minutes to build some chemistry, familiarity and confidence in their game. We can't run West 33mpg, PG24 40 mpg and Lance 38 mpg.....they will get burnt out by the end of the season.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


                • #83
                  Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                  This game felt like the good old Pacers/Pistons rivalry games that we used to have. It was hard fought and fun to watch.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


                  • #84
                    Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    Yeah I still don't like the combination of players they need to trade somebody to make it work.
                    I suspect that Stuckey will be traded before the trade deadline for some 3pt shooter.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


                    • #85
                      Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                      KCP isn't playing because he's a rookie. That's really the only reason given. Mo Cheeks has a 4-guard rule in his rotation, and he said KCP has to wait his turn.

                      I'd echo that my dream trade is for a 3/D SG like afflalo or Brandon rush (if he's healthy). I think we have better shooters than people realize, but we could use one more.

                      Luigi datome is really, really good. He had a foot problem that caused him to miss the last month, so tonight was his first real nba action of any kind. He's a fantastic shooter with great range. He just couldn't get one to fall tonight.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 11-06-2013, 04:20 AM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004


                      • #86
                        Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                        I just don't think the combo of Smith/Monroe/Drummond can work offensively, they all need space (unless you want J Smoove out taking 28 footers), and there just isn't enough in there. Drummond and Monroe will be a nightmare for a while, I do enjoy them having Jennings though, he always seems to play at his worst against the Pacers.

                        And Paul George is beast mode.
                        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                        ----------------- Reggie Miller


                        • #87
                          Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                          The spacing was just fine the first 3 games. Indiana is a very good defensive team. That's really all there is to it.

                          Our shooters going ice cold was a major problem last night.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004


                          • #88
                            Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                            Remember this was the aftermath of the 2010 draft...And I pretty much always find Simmons draft reviews enjoyable.


                            5:31: I present two athletic perimeter guys for you, both freshmen:

                            • Xavier Henry (born March 1991), 2-guard: a top-3 college recruit in 2009, started on the No. 1 college team (regular season), averaged 13.4 ppg (27.5 mpg), shot 45.5 percent and 41.8 percent on 3s, didn't get a ton of touches on a veteran team, did everything he could to fit in.

                            • Paul George (born May 1990), small forward: not a top-100 college recruit, best player on a 15-18 team in the WAC, averaged 16.8 ppg (33.2 mpg), shot 42 percent and 35 percent on 3s, played inferior competition.

                            Whom did the Pacers take? Naturally, George. Did I mention that their best player (Danny Granger) is a small forward? I love the NBA.

                            5:32: Bilas just mentioned that George was 6-foot-8 with a 6-11 wingspan. According to the Google search I just did, the human wingspan is normally 1.07 times a person's height. So if George is 80 inches, and his wingspan is 83 inches, actually, that's a wingspan about 2 inches smaller than it should be. I'm glad I'm here.
                            "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                            ----------------- Reggie Miller


                            • #89
                              Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                              Drummond and Monroe gave Roy and David fits a few times, even though Roy continued to Mutumble all night. PG on the other hand pretty much destroyed Smoove (who is still underrated I think) on both sides of the ball each time. I can feel my expectations increasing, and I hope I can chill out when he has games like a normal human. Also, congrats to S. Hill on his first three; he could've gotten a few more minutes in the second half.
                              You Got The Tony!!!!!!


                              • #90
                                Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                                Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                                Where are the PG haters at now?
                                We had PG haters?
                                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion,

                                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion,

                                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up,