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

IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

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

  • #91
    Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

    Honestly, I'm just really not sure what Vogel saw from Watson to keep him out there. Hill was the only starter playing particularly well and that sub seems like a no brainer to me. Oh well.


    Comment


    • #92
      Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Honestly, I'm just really not sure what Vogel saw from Watson to keep him out there. Hill was the only starter playing particularly well and that sub seems like a no brainer to me. Oh well.
      I think he just figured that those 5 were the ones that got us back in the game, so he didn't want to break up the chemistry.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

        Vogel tried getting Hill back on the floor, for CJ Miles, and quickly went away from it. Vogel said those 5 deserved to end the game, win or lose. I understand the sentiment, I just wish there was more emphasis on the winning part. It was very Popovich-esq, too bad the reserves couldn't be more Spurs-ish, and actually come out on top.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Vogel tried getting Hill back on the floor, for CJ Miles, and quickly went away from it. Vogel said those 5 deserved to end the game, win or lose. I understand the sentiment, I just wish there was more emphasis on the winning part. It was very Popovich-esq, too bad the reserves couldn't be more Spurs-ish, and actually come out on top.
          I know, but I'm not sure why he didn't get Hill back out there for Watson. *shrug*


          Comment


          • #95
            Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

            You expect more from West and Hibbert. They just haven't been doing their job.
            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

              Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
              Point guards do not spend their time making baseline cuts, they run the offense. They make sure the ball gets where its supposed to be, make sure the hot hand gets it, try to get people that need to be involved involved, stay in FRONT of their man on defense, push the tempo, attack the basket and penetrate and dish. They are a coach on the floor. They are the engine that makes the team run. I just don't see any of that with GH. That doesn't mean he is not a plus to the team or valuable but he is just not that type of player. He played aggressively for 1 quarter and got good results but he wasn't even necessary when the team made its run. There is not much difference between him and Watson. JMO
              All well and good but Hill was clearly not being used as the PG for the first part of the game and was just as clearly NOT lazing the ball up the court, throwing it to the first person he saw, then standing in the corner. Therefore, your statement that it was the same ol' same ol' when it most definitely was not confuses me.
              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


              • #97
                Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                Are you serious? We are 11-21. Bird and company are going to have to think long and hard about giving any more 4 year contracts to serviceable players. He gave Miles a 4 year deal and so far he has only been consistent at one thing. Taking bad shots. We are 10 games under and our record hasn't drastically improved since West and Hill have come back into the fold. This team with out PG should still be a .500 team, and so far they are not.

                If the Pacers don't give LaVoy a 4 year deal, some other team will. Miles wouldn't sign with OKC, b/c they wouldn't give him but a 3 year deal. He found a team that would give hiom 4 years, and so will LaVoy. Just remember Walsh gave Mahinmi a 4 year deal, and most on this board had no problem with it. You sign LaVoy ASAP b4 you lose him.



                I wasn't one who liked Mahinmi's contract with 4 guaranteed years, and I'd expect a LaVoy 4 year deal with a team option.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                  Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                  You expect more from West and Hibbert. They just haven't been doing their job.
                  Slow, unathletic and surprisingly not physical either.

                  West reminds me of a German Tiger 2 tank built during ww2. Tough, strong, great fire power but it's lack of speed left it vulnerable to lighter faster moving tanks. If it could get in a direct fire fight it was no contest but when faced with lateral moving flanking maneuvers it was very vulnerable. Sound familiar?

                  Roy on the other hand is just Roy. Some nights he is superb, other nights he is okay and then there are nights where he actually hurts you on the floor. Last night I would say that he was just okay, I never felt like he was hurting us but I didn't feel he was doing a whole lot to help either.

                  I think Frank is getting more and more comfortable with the idea of not having rim protection be the single most important trait to have on the floor at all times.


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

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                    Originally posted by sav View Post
                    I think we can resign Allen at any time. I'm not sure I would want a 4 year deal. I would like to see a 2 year deal, let him back up West next year and then figure out if he is good enough to start or be a backup the year after that. Then we sign him for 4 years at an appropriate salary.

                    I don't think I want to see Stuckey return and I don't think he will want to return. Next year, when we are healthy, Solo and PG will probably be our starting wings. They will most likely play 32 and 35 mpg respectively. That will leave 29 mpg for the backup wings. Miles will get 15-18 mpg. That leaves 11-14 for the other backup wing. Stuckey wouldn't be happy with only 11-14 mpg.

                    You're kidding right? West should be dealt to a contender for assets now or before the deadline. LaVoy can then be resigned and start as the new PF.

                    Comment


                    • Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                      Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                      You expect more from West and Hibbert. They just haven't been doing their job.
                      You expect more from Hibbert. West is 34 and he's barely been able to play half the season. He is whatever he can give you at this point.

                      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

                      Comment


                      • Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        All well and good but Hill was clearly not being used as the PG for the first part of the game and was just as clearly NOT lazing the ball up the court, throwing it to the first person he saw, then standing in the corner. Therefore, your statement that it was the same ol' same ol' when it most definitely was not confuses me.
                        Are you really surprised at this point? Hill could score 10, 20, or 30 points and the statements will be the same in spite of the realities that may take place during the game.

                        Just one casual posters observation of course.

                        Comment


                        • Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                          You're kidding right? West should be dealt to a contender for assets now or before the deadline. LaVoy can then be resigned and start as the new PF.
                          Come on Grimp, you know Bird isn't going to trade West. Despite what some people think, West still has a couple of decent years left. No, not playing 32-35 mpg, but starting and playing under 30 mpg he can help. Also, keeping West gives him the opportunity to mentor Allen for a couple of years. Hopefully, we could ease Allen into the starting role.

                          Hibbert is the one that should be moved, the question is, who would replace him? We sure don't have anyone on the team now that I would want to use as our starting center.

                          Comment


                          • Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                            You ever look at Lavoy's stats per year? There is solid improvement every year. Check it out.

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/...allenla01.html

                            His Off/Def Rating is fantastic this year. 116/101. +15?! Wow.
                            Last edited by Guardshock; 12-30-2014, 01:53 PM.
                            Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

                            www.jjhughesracing.com

                            Comment


                            • Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                              Originally posted by sav View Post
                              Hibbert is the one that should be moved, the question is, who would replace him? We sure don't have anyone on the team now that I would want to use as our starting center.
                              What about Mahinmi? He's faster. Stays on his feet better. Blocks shots. His offense was really working for him when he was starting.
                              Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

                              www.jjhughesracing.com

                              Comment


                              • Re: IND/CHI post game: Refs take game away from Pacers

                                Originally posted by sav View Post
                                I think we can resign Allen at any time. I'm not sure I would want a 4 year deal. I would like to see a 2 year deal, let him back up West next year and then figure out if he is good enough to start or be a backup the year after that. Then we sign him for 4 years at an appropriate salary.
                                IMHO.....this 1 year contract that we signed him for told me enough about what he can and can't do.

                                Lavoy's not a "back to the basket" low post player ( he only has that really good looking jumpshot and most of his offense comes from put backs and tip in )....so his Low Post game is very limited. It's entirely possible that Lavoy can develop his low post game, but I think that we know what he is right now and for the near future. It's been said before....and I think that some would agree......I think that his best role is as a "Solid Backup PF that can serve as an Emergency Starting PF in a pinch" Frontcourt Player and to sign him as such. What's the going rate for a Player like that....basically a Backup PF that has some potential to develop into something more? maybe $3 to 4 mil a year for the next 3 to 4 seasons?

                                It's entirely possible that he develops his Low Post Game and becomes a solid starter.....but I'd rather sign him to a good 3 to 4 year contract as a "Backup PF" and then hope that his game can develop to the point where he exceeds the value of his contract.

                                Originally posted by sav View Post
                                I don't think I want to see Stuckey return and I don't think he will want to return. Next year, when we are healthy, Solo and PG will probably be our starting wings. They will most likely play 32 and 35 mpg respectively. That will leave 29 mpg for the backup wings. Miles will get 15-18 mpg. That leaves 11-14 for the other backup wing. Stuckey wouldn't be happy with only 11-14 mpg.
                                I really want to to re-sign Stuckey....cuz I think that he's a solid backup SG that can is aggressive, can penetrate defenses, draw fouls and gets to the Foul line. But I think if we do re-sign him....that we won't go after a new Starting PG ( via the Draft, Trade or Free Agency ) while shifting GH over to the Starting SG and IMHO the backup PG. We are already committed to a GH/PG13/Solo/Miles Wing rotation......add in Stuckey ( which I would like if we were to keep GH as the Starting PG ) and we don't have room for a new Starting PG ( which I prefer over keeping GH as the Starting PG ).

                                JMHO....
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X