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

1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

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

  • 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

    ILYASOVA! PACHULIA!
    ANTETOKOUNMPO
    INCORPORATED!



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 8:30 PM ET
    Where: BMO Harris Bradley Center, Milwaukee, WI
    Officials: M. Davis, P. Fraher, JT Orr

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Milwaukee Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / FOX Sports Wisconsin
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM, 107.5 FM / WTMJ 620 AM
    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


    12-21
    Away: 5-12
    East: 7-10
    17-16
    Home: 7-6
    East: 11-10
    Jan 04
    Jan 05
    Jan 07
    Jan 09
    9:30pm
    9:00pm
    10:30pm
    7:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    HILL
    STUCKEY
    HILL
    PACHULIA
    ANTETOKOUNMPO
    O'BRYANT
    MIDDLETON
    KNIGHT


    PACERS
    Paul George - Fractured Right Tibia/Fibula (out)
    Ian Mahinmi – Torn Left Plantar Fascia (out)

    BUCKS
    Jerryd Bayless - Sore left knee (Probable)
    Ersan Ilyasova - Concussion (Out)
    Damien Inglis - right ankle (Out)
    Jabari Parker - ACL injury (Out)
    Larry Sanders - Illness (Out)



    Jeremy Schmidt: The struggle at the hoop is real for Larry Sanders

    Honestly, there was no need to worry. There was only about a 50/50 chance he was going
    to make that shot anyway. Heyyoooo.

    But really, that’s the problem with Larry Sanders right now, and his biggest problem is a
    problem for a team that could be counting on his development going forward.

    There are a handful of youngish players on the Milwaukee Bucks. To varying degrees, the
    development of these players is crucial to the success of the Milwaukee Bucks in the
    coming years. Regardless of how well the likes of Jared Dudley, Jerryd Bayless and Zaza
    Pachulia play over the next few months, they won’t be the players that decide if the Bucks
    will be prosperous or poor when the team rolls the ball out for the first time in the yet to
    be located, yet to be financed, yet to be named new Milwaukee Arena.

    If we’re ruling those guys out as potential contributors, it’s at least fair to wonder about
    guys like Sanders and Brandon Knight and just how attached to their respective futures
    the Bucks are. Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. It’s not hard to imagine either of them
    playing with a different team as early as next season.

    For now, let’s assume the $33 million owed to Larry Sanders after this season will be paid
    by the Bucks. If that’s the case, how can he start to show more return on investment?

    It’s difficult to judge whether or not Sanders is having a “down” year right now. His PER is
    a league average 15. He’s only playing 21 minutes a night, but still averaging 7.3 points,
    6.1 rebounds and 1.4 blocks per game. All of these numbers are down – per game and per
    36 minutes – from his breakout seasons in 2012-13, but they’re at least comparable to
    slightly better than his numbers from last season. And while he’s still a difference maker
    defensively, he hardly seems like the barrier he proved to be two season ago.

    Among regulars who are defending at least five shots per game at the rim, he’s 11th in
    defensive field goal percentage, allowing opponents to shoot 45.8%. Despite last year’s
    mess of a season, Sanders finished second in defensive field goal percentage with the
    same variables applied, allowing opponents to shoot just 41.5% at the rim. Among those
    who qualify for the blocks per game leaderboard this season, Sanders ranks 16th in
    defensive rating, helping to limit opponents to 100 points per 100 possessions while he’s
    on the court. Last season, one that seems more and more to have been without much of
    a defensive strategy, his defensive rating was 107.

    So he’s probably fallen off a bit from his peak in 2012-13 as a defender, but he’s still
    definitely a plus there. If he can maintain this level of defense over the next three
    seasons, it’d be difficult to complain about that.

    But it’s easy to complain about Sanders on the other side of the ball.

    Among the 48 players who attempt at least five shots within five feet per game, Sanders
    ranks 37th in field goal percentage, converting on just 56% of his shots. Why so low? The
    best explanation is simply that Sanders can’t finish in traffic. Let’s compare Sanders
    numbers when he’s closely guarded this season to some of his athletic, shot-blocking,
    finishing big man brethren. I’ve pulled numbers for Sanders, Tyson Chandler, DeAndre
    Jordan and Andre Drummond, three other bigs with comparable money and skillsets:


    Each of these players shoots the vast majority of his shots within five feet of the hoop
    and typically each player is well guarded when he’s trying to finish whether he’s fighting
    off defenders as he’s trying to putback an offensive rebound or trying to loft in something
    inside the charge circle. Basically if someone’s right up on any of these guys, it’s a 50-50
    chance – a little better in Chandler’s case – that he’ll finish.

    But when they have some space, Chandler and Jordan are almost automatic, hitting
    roughly 75% of shots when defenders are not within two feet. Sanders and Drummond
    are still working to master the open finish, though Drummond’s numbers indicate he’s
    getting more looks than just putbacks.

    Sanders was even worse with defenders “very tight” on him last season, making just 34%
    of his shots. So at least he’s showing progress? But right now, it isn’t enough. He’s just
    getting putbacks and rim runs and he isn’t finishing anywhere near enough of them to be
    a contributor, even at the most basic level... READ MORE AT BUCKSKETBALL


    Pacers
    Candace Buckner @CandaceDBuckner
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows
    Ian Levy @HickoryHigh
    Whitney @its_whitney

    Bucks
    Charles F. Gardner @cf_gardner
    Jeremy Schmidt @Bucksketball
    K L Chouinard @AnaheimAmigos
    Frank Madden @brewhoop
    Dan Sinclair @dan_sinclair
    Steve von Horn @StevevonHorn

    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

    I hope we win. In order to so so, we've gotta do it... our way. Yes, our way.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

      Anyone going to this game in Milwaukee? I'm down to catch a beer before the game.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

        George Hill is not playing tonight and CJ Watson is questionable

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

          I would have made the 5 hour drive to Milwaukee for this one were it not my Mom's birthday.

          I'll be catching this one on DVR tonight. Shame we're going to be woefully shorthanded again. Getting a road win against a surprisingly not-awful division opponent would be really good for us right now.

          Hopefully we revert back to our early season next-man-up mentality.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

            Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
            George Hill is not playing tonight and CJ Watson is questionable
            Blehhhhh. Donnie Sloan time.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

              GHill with a sore groin.

              What are these guys DOING on their off days? Back in my day, we were supposed to stay away from that kind of stuff during training and the season
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

                Injuries for all!


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

                  Sweet Lavern & Shirley reference......


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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

                    Donald Sloan will do just fine.


                    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

                      Why is the board so dead?
                      There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

                        Good Win! Sloan really came up big with G.Hill and Watson out. I'm really starting to like Miles, don't tell anyone.
                        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

                          Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                          Why is the board so dead?
                          Lots of folks probably could not connect to the board due to the DNS server issues earlier in the day.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

                            I thought they outplayed us throughout the first half (and I was definitely feeling a blowout after the 1st quarter), so, needless to say, I'm very happy with the win.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 1/2/15 Game Thread #34: Pacers vs. Bucks

                              Are are tough as nails. That 4th quarter was about as gritty as you can get.

                              You can really tell Jason Kidd is the coach of this team by how much they ran. Kendall Marshall really feels like a Jason Kidd type point guard.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X