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

1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

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

  • 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

    CARELESS (& SENSUAL)
    WHISPERZZZZZ



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM EST
    Where: Time Warner Cable Arena, Charlotte, NC
    Officials: S. Corbin, L. Richardson, D. Taylor

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Charlotte Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / SportsSouth Charlotte
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM, 107.5 FM / WFNZ 610 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


    15-26
    Away: 7-15
    East: 9-12
    15-25
    Home: 8-13
    East: 11-11
    Jan 19
    Jan 21
    Jan 23
    Jan 25
    7:00pm
    5:30pm
    7:30pm
    7:30pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    HILL
    MILES
    WATSON
    BIYOMBO
    ZELLER
    HENDERSON
    KIDD-GILCHRIST
    ROBERTS


    PACERS
    Paul George - Fractured Right Tibia/Fibula (out)
    George Hill – Left Groin Strain (out)

    HORNETS
    Al Jefferson - Left Groin Strain (Out)
    Gary Neal - Hamstring Soreness (Questionable)
    Jannero Pargo - Low Back Soreness (Out)
    Kemba Walker - Knee Inflammation (Out)



    Chris Barnewall: Hornets better without Jefferson and Stephenson?

    The Hornets have reached an unexpected five straight wins without Al Jefferson, and are
    one of the best defenses in the NBA without Lance Stephenson. Are the Hornets better
    without their two best players?


    Entering the season, the Hornets were expected to be right in the thick of the Eastern
    Conference playoffs. Preseason predictions had them as low as seventh, and as high as
    third. The general expectation was the improved talent across the roster, the signing of
    Lance Stephenson, and building off of last year would lead the Hornets to a successful
    season with a possible playoff run. Leading them on this run would be big Al Jefferson,
    point guard Kemba Walker, and the newly signed Stephenson. General belief is that
    Jefferson and Stephenson are the team's two best players and they would be the key to
    this success.

    Instead, the Hornets started out of the gates slow and had a hard time putting things
    together. The offense hadn't improved at all and last year's 6th ranked defense had fallen
    all the way to 24th. After the slow start, there were rumors of tensions in the locker room
    and the Hornets were apparently open to trading Stephenson. While a report of
    Stephenson being the cause of the locker room dysfunction did come out, it wasn't hard
    for Hornets fans to put two and two together and notice that the reports of locker room
    tension and Stephenson trade rumors were coming out around the same time. After
    shopping around for a little while, the Hornets never did find a suitable trade partner for
    Lance Stephenson.

    Of course, things seemingly got worse for the Hornets. Stephenson went down with a
    groin injury. This was supposed to be their second best player, a solid perimeter defender,
    and a guy that could create with his dribble. How in the world was the Hornets offense
    going to get any better with Gerald Henderson taking his place? Well, the offense never
    did get better, but something else happened instead. Strangely enough, the defense is
    what got better.


    This begs the question, why are the Hornets better on defense without Lance Stephenson
    than they are with him? There is a few explanations for this with the major reason being
    familiarity. When Stephenson went down with injury, his replacement was long time
    Charlotte Shooting Guard, Gerald Henderson. A member of last year's 6th ranked defense,
    Henderson and other starters were familiar with each other. Right around the same time,
    Steve Clifford decided to put Cody Zeller into the starting lineup over Marvin Williams,
    another player already familiar with the rest of the starting lineup. A defense like
    Charlotte's that relies so heavily on timing and proper rotations needs chemistry or it
    can't thrive. The new starting lineup, full of players from last year's team, had that
    chemistry allowing them to succeed.

    While chemistry is important, everybody knows talent is a necessity to have a good
    defense. Around the same time Stephenson got injured, Michael-Kidd Gilchrist was
    returning from an injury that had been keeping him sidelined. Without Kidd-Gilchrist the
    Hornets defense just isn't the same, he's easily their best defender and probably their
    most important. While it's easy to say that the defense improving without Stephenson
    was because of Stephenson, it's more likely it has to do with Kidd-Gilchrist's return.
    After all, when Kidd-Gilchrist isn't playing the Hornets have a record of 3-11 this season.
    Charlotte has also been able to bring their abysmal defense all the way up from 24th in
    the NBA, to 14th.

    Is the Hornets improved defense without Lance Stephenson a case of Ewing Theory? No,
    it's largely due to early season chemistry issues and the absence of Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.
    Now, is their win and loss record a case of Ewing Theory?


    It's really hard to say, context is key but the Hornets are 8-5 without Stephenson. The
    kicker here is the way they reached that 8-5 record. After Kidd-Gilchrist's return the
    Hornets went on a four game losing streak, and Stephenson went down with his injury.
    Right after that the Hornets won four straight, lost five straight, and then won five
    straight. They've been very streaky but context is key here. Their earlier win streak
    without Stephenson was against only sub .500 teams, while their losing streak also
    featured sub .500 teams. What's been more impressive is the Hornets current win streak,
    featuring victories over... READ MORE @ AT THE HIVE


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

    Hornets
    Rick Bonnell @rick_bonnell
    Ben Swanson @CardboardGerald
    Brett Hainline @BrettQCHoops
    Derek James @DerekJamesNBA
    Joshua B. Priemski @HoopPlusTheHarm
    Spencer Percy @QCHspencer

    Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 01-17-2015, 02:27 PM.
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

    Kemba walker isn't playing tonight. Knee problems.

    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


    • #3
      Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

      No Kemba Walker means less chance of a Hornet's guard going for 30+ tonight against Watson and Sloan. But beware of their bench guard someone named Stephenson, who should play around 20 minutes tonight.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

        Further update on Hornets/ Pacer game tonight

        Injury Update: @hornets Walker (L knee cyst), Neal (R hamstring soreness), Henderson (upper respiratory infection) - all questionable vs IND


        2:09 PM - 16 Jan 2015 They may be forced to play Lance minutes at pg tonight.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

          Things are so toxic now in Charlotte I cannot imagine things turning around for Lance. But if they do, this would be a great night to do it. I'm rooting for Lance to get a triple double and the Pacers to win the game.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

            No Kemba means more ball handling and the offense running more through him. I suspect that the Hornets will do much better than we think. But given that the Team is so injured.....who knows what will happen?
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

              I just left the Charlotte team store and there is plenty of Lance swag for sale....

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                No Kemba means more ball handling and the offense running more through him. I suspect that the Hornets will do much better than we think. But given that the Team is so injured.....who knows what will happen?
                I think Lance will go crazy pounding the ball without Kemba.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

                  This team is depleted. Must-win.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

                    The G2 zone entertained the crowd in Charlotte by shooting half courters in the pre game.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                      The G2 zone entertained the crowd in Charlotte by shooting half courters in the pre game.
                      Seems to be a habit. Did this in Minnesota. Hit back to back half courters!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

                        This current losing streak could grow to close to double figures given this upcoming string of games

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

                          I hate when the away team wears white.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

                            Lance is trying too hard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 1/17/15 Game Thread #42: Pacers vs. Hornets

                              Lance is our best player tonight.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X