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 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

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

  • #16
    Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

    Putting West back in for Scola, despite his horrid passing decisions, in the fourth made me grumble pretty loudly. As did burning those timeouts so quickly.

    LG33 is right. West has played like the entire west coast has been blowing in his ear. He needs to start acting and playing like a professional, or he should come off the bench.
    You Got The Tony!!!!!!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

      Chef has certainly struggled the last few games, though his numbers since moving to full-time backup center have surprised me. His assists and rebounding have actually suffered a little, though his shooting and defensive rating has been better. Unsurprisingly, his usage has mostly dropped playing next to Scola/West rather than Ian. It's worth noting that the losses haven't been quite as abundant since getting some of the injured players back. It's tough to control for Miles' shooting and the samples are very small, but the bench has been much better since Ian's major () injury.
      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

        Really brief developmental news.

        Solomon Hill played outstanding defense, for the most part, on Hayward. Got to the line and did not force bad outside shots. So for him this was a decent development night, not great but good solid steady production guarding the other teams best wing, this only helps next year when he can help guard one of the wings while Paul doesn't have to spend the entire game chasing the most dynamic wing player around the court.

        Lavoy Allen pretty much sucked. Eight freaking shots? Really? I mean if he would have hit 3 at least maybe but he was 1-8 and Derrick Favors made him look like the low motor low first round pick he was. Did his usual good passing and solid screen setting but we are way beyond those basic skills for him, we expect a lot more. I'm just really hoping he is slumping right now because as it stands the moment Ian comes back he will be relegated to the deep bench again and it will be impossible to argue against it. So not a good development night for Allen.


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

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

          Man, we struggle in the 4th quarter. I know, we do not have a go to guy and blah, blah, blah, but why can't we keep attacking the paint like we did in the first 3.5 quarters?

          This game further cemented my position on two fronts though:

          1. Sit Cope and play Rudez if you must.
          2. Donald Sloan gives us more than CJ Watson. I like CJ, but I do not get how anyone who has watched a majority of our games can see otherwise. This point is becoming crystal clear.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            I don't think that Frank was saving Roy due to foul trouble. Roy looked very tired at the end of the 3rd. That said, I'd like Frank to put him in at the 6 minute mark.
            I tend to think we play him too much to start the game. Start him and play him 7-8 minutes and take him out instead of playing him all first quarter.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

              Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
              I tend to think we play him too much to start the game. Start him and play him 7-8 minutes and take him out instead of playing him all first quarter.
              Barring foul trouble, injury, serious slump or the backups being hot, Roy should play the first 7 minutes and last 7 minutes of each half. He struggles with stamina, so keeping him around 28 mpg and available for the end of the game would be a good move, in my opinion.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                2. Donald Sloan gives us more than CJ Watson. I like CJ, but I do not get how anyone who has watched a majority of our games can see otherwise. This point is becoming crystal clear.

                I do not agree with you.

                Watson is a better defender, better long range and mid range shooter. Sloan is a better ball handler, better junk player (I don't mean that as a bad thing) Sloan is much better at making something out of nothing - he pulls a lot of shots out of nowhere.

                One big problem with him is, the way he plays makes our transition defense beyond bad. early in the season I was trying to figure out why our transition defense was so bad. Same coaches, same coaching. Different players. It isn;'t so much that Sloan doesn't get back on defense. It is he is very unpredictable on offense, his teammates are not sure what he is going to do, which causes poor floor balance which makes it difficult to get back for the whole team.

                My biggest problem with Sloan and why I hate when he starts is he is bad at running our offense, he isn't good at playing within a system - he is a freelance player, but horrible at getting us into our plays and organizing the team, and worst of all he is not good at calming the play down when things get too hectic.

                Watson is just a lot more solid, better at getting us organized. I just think Watson is steadier and better.
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-06-2015, 11:10 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I do not agree with you.

                  Watson is a better defender, better long range and mid range shooter. Sloan is a better ball handler, better junk player (I don't mean that as a bad thing) Sloan is much better at making something out of nothing - he pulls a lot of shots out of nowhere. The way he plays makes our transition defense beyond bad.

                  My biggest problem with Sloan and why I hate when he starts is he is bad at running our offense, he isn't good at playing within a system - he is a freelance player, but horrible at getting us into our plays and organizing the team, and calming the play down when things get too hectic.

                  Watson is just a lot more solid, better at getting us organized.
                  I don't disagree with your assessment of either guy. Watson is a slightly better shooter and much better defender. Sloan, however, is great at creating. As bad as we are in the 4th quarter offensively I would much rather have Sloan's playmaking ability out there. He has bailed us out of bad shot clock management and offense a bunch lately. He is also capable of going off and being the best player on the court on a given night. I am not sure CJ has that capability.

                  I guess I am ok giving up defense and some long range shooting in the name of play making. Last season CJ would have been my choice. This season I am taking Donald.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                    I tend to think we play him too much to start the game. Start him and play him 7-8 minutes and take him out instead of playing him all first quarter.
                    Yeah, that's a good point. Roy usually plays the whole quarter during the first and the third one and only plays 4-5 minutes in the second and in the fourth. That's probably one of the reasons why he looks winded at the end of the first and third quarters. Frank does need to balance it out a bit.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                      Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                      A win is a win, but damn that was hard to watch at the end.

                      [Rant] Mr. West, please stop being a 6"9" shooting guard and get your *** in the damn paint more. Stop whining like a little ***** when you've clearly fouled someone, you're suppose to be a leader. [Rant/]
                      Nothing new he has been doing this for quite a while now. I agree completely. His leadership skills are way overrated.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                        Watson is a better passer than Sloan too at least when it comes to keeping the ball moving. That being said, Donald is great for a 3rd PG, he's filled in well.

                        A win is a win right now for this team, especially when it is on the road without George Hill


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                          BTW, if we play like we played in the 2nd half over the last 2 games against the Warriors on Wednesday.....we will lose. The Warriors feast on momentum, lazy passes and creating turnovers.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                            Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                            LG33 is right. West has played like the entire west coast has been blowing in his ear. He needs to start acting and playing like a professional, or he should come off the bench.
                            I blame LG33's avatar change.
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                              I blame LG33's avatar change.
                              Maybe, but your lack of an avatar hurts just as much. Easily could charge you with aiding and Abeding.

                              EDIT: This new avatar is going to be confusing whilst paired with my negative game thread posts.
                              Last edited by LG33; 01-07-2015, 12:47 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Post Game Thread 1/5/2014 - Pacers @ Jazz

                                I'm laughing at the thought of Sloan being better than Watson. Watson is simple better in every phase of the game except one. Willingness to attack the rim and making lucky shots.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X