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

Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

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

  • Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

    Pacers 92
    Sixers 93






    Was busy during the game, so I couldn't watch the game live. I just watched the highlights on NBA GameTime. I can comment on the one thing that I have been really paying attention to.....the FT shooting. Prior to this game, we were hitting 86% from the Line over the last 5 games. Tonight? 30 for 42 from the FT Line for 71%. WTF is up with that? I am severely disappointed with that stat line.

    Oh....and more and more injuries. Eff Me.

    Sorry I can't comment too much on the game other than This is the effin Sixers......your thoughts?

    Last edited by CableKC; 01-11-2015, 04:56 AM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

  • #2
    Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

    Brought over from the Game Thread:

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    I hope CJ's eye injury isn't too serious. He's the only shooter we have right now.
    I noticed that Miles only played 4 minutes. I'm guessing he was taken out of the picture early in the 1st QTR.

    Question to all:

    How much do you think that this affected the Team's ability to score/defend/etc?

    Looking at the rotation, it looks like Vogel dipped into the Copeland / Rudez well for a total of 22 minutes. I'm not putting it all on playing both of them.....but given that our Wing and Guard rotation keeps on going down with injuries.....our defense ( especially on the perimeter ) must have sucked.

    Something that is often overlooked is what the absence of any combination of GH/Stuckey/Miles/Watson/Solo translates into.....more minutes for Copeland and/or Rudez and what it means to the offense/defense. I recall only seeing a brief glimpse of a healthy lineup....but I think that it was far more effective on both ends of the court.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

      Copeland, Scola, Allen were 3-20! That is awful and many were contested, bad shots.
      They were just much quicker at the end. Just ran handoffs, ball screens until they got the drive they wanted and attacked and SCORED every time. We had no one who could drive the ball vs their quickness. Had to settle for West trying to bail us out. Last play was a very poorly called, poorly executed mess (Have we seen this before?)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

        Good for Philly. They played hard and (relatively) smart, and deserved the win. They were really into it, which is more than I can say for any Pacer wing "playing defense". The tragedy of this game, however, if there is any, is how painfully illustrative it is of our season and injury-riddled team. We are an apocalypse on offense without strong three-point shooting and our defensive talent is bad. No Miles on offense and no Roy on defense makes for an especially ****** night.

        Ian Report: He only played four minutes and they were reluctant at that. He looked like a player coming off an injury with no practice time. He messed up a defensive assignment on a screen involving Rudez that led to those Noel free throw attempts. Other than that, he was Ian. He was hated on by the refs with the ******** foul on Sims, and he continues to be hated on by Chris and Quinn, who defend him about as well as Solo defended Covington tonight. It is what it is. It's odd to have his grade increased by making 1-2 from the line, but that's where his free throws are at. (By the way, he shot way better from the line than Scola did.) Whether he gets any time other than in emergencies remains to be seen, but I know he'll be ready to try going forward. 'B-'
        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

          Atorcius FG shooting, meh FT shooting. Seems like we are the epitome of a poor shooting team, poster boy for which has to be Solo. He's shown me a lot this year, but the jury's still out on his shooting. He's got to improve there. I'm hoping that's part of his evolution and struggling now is just part of the process.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

            Well, that sucks

            I'm with Aesop on this one. No Miles on offense and no Roy on defense sucks
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

              Philly had the advantage by being younger. This was the second night of a back to back for both teams, and late in the game we just looked tired.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

                Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                Atorcius FG shooting, meh FT shooting. Seems like we are the epitome of a poor shooting team, poster boy for which has to be Solo. He's shown me a lot this year, but the jury's still out on his shooting. He's got to improve there. I'm hoping that's part of his evolution and struggling now is just part of the process.
                Yeah I think the Pacers can play the situational/match-up thing with him and Miles next year with some success but in order to have the type of dominant two way line-up they put on the floor for so many minutes in 2013 & 14 they really need SHill to become a threat offensively.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

                  If we miss the playoffs by a game or two I know people will look back at this and the Laker game. We have really blown some games against bad teams lately.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

                    It is embarrassing to lose to the Sixers and there's no way to candy coat that. Our perimeter d sucked even worse then normal and having Hibbert in foul trouble limited our post defense. West looked another step slow on defense tonight and Allen wasn't much help either. The ball just didn't move tonight like it has in the past few games. It could be as simple as fatigue for most of this.
                    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

                      Philly played well and shot great. Pacers didn't and didn't. Stuff happens.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

                        Man I am taking my entire family to the game on Tuesday is anyone going to be healthy!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

                          Pulled from the Game Thread:

                          Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                          Even if we are completely healthy I view us as a good, but not great team. Outside shooting and slow bigs will ultimately be our demise against really good teams. Our lineups this year have had no Paul George, very little George Hill and lots of Donald Sloan and Chris Copeland. [/B]I am not going to evaluate the wins and losses with this crew. With our skeleton lineups I am more interested in seeing guys develop.[/B]
                          Yeah.....I totally agree with this....but still....this is one of those games where you can see a million opportunities where we could have scrapped up 2 points from anywhere. If someone could have made 2 frickin FTs out of the 12 FTA that we ended up missing , a missed FG or not even turning it over.

                          I know that this is more about development....but I just thought that we were better than this.

                          Of course, Hibbert being in foul trouble doesn't help
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

                            Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                            Yeah I think the Pacers can play the situational/match-up thing with him and Miles next year with some success but in order to have the type of dominant two way line-up they put on the floor for so many minutes in 2013 & 14 they really need SHill to become a threat offensively.
                            Do you mean this when it comes to Solo playing with the Starting Lineup?

                            If so, then I'm fine with him simply being a spot up 3pt shooter and then attacking the basket when given the opportunities....but I don't need him to be an offensive threat when we have 4 other offensive threats in the Starting Lineup that should be considered #1 to #3 primary scoring options that should be scoring before Solo does.

                            Having Solo become a much better Offensive Scoring Threat is a Plus....but IMHO....as long as he works on his 3pt shooting and continues to do the "Glue Guy" Stuff he currently does, then he's fine IMHO.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Post Game Thread 1/11/2015 - Pacers @ Sixers

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Do you mean this when it comes to Solo playing with the Starting Lineup?

                              If so, then I'm fine with him simply being a spot up 3pt shooter and then attacking the basket when given the opportunities....but I don't need him to be an offensive threat when we have 4 other offensive threats in the Starting Lineup that should be considered #1 to #3 primary scoring options that should be scoring before Solo does.

                              Having Solo become a much better Offensive Scoring Threat is a Plus....but IMHO....as long as he works on his 3pt shooting and continues to do the "Glue Guy" Stuff he currently does, then he's fine IMHO.
                              I seems to me that Solo needs to be a threat from the perimeter. Mostly his shooting from 3, but to some extent, his long 2's. Right now, he is like Lance was the last couple of years. He is the guy that other teams feel free to sag off of. That is a bad thing if you are a shooting guard. A shooting guard has to be able to shoot. If he does that, he will be a guy that can be an effective starter. If not, then he runs the risk of being a 3&D guy without the 3. He becomes Marquis Daniels.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X