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 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

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

  • #76
    Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

    I was calling for Vogels head last year but I would not fire him right now, the team did not quit on him, its the situation and I think a lot of them are punching a clock until PG gets back.

    Now maybe a better coach would get them to snap out of it, I dont know. I think if Vogel were to hire an assistant that really understands offense (Mark Jackson?) he would be a much better coach than he is now. So I would vote to keep him just make him hire an offensive minded assistant.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

      Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
      Yes absolutely they have been doing that since the beginning of time. How do you explain a far less talented team beating a team most people think they have no chance against. They put together a game plan and execute it to perfection.
      Didn't we already do that from time to time early in the season but it was fools' gold?

      But it all comes down to the question you refuse to answer. Your statement is that Pop could definitely win more games than Vogel with this exact roster, but you won't say if it is one or two (an insignificant number), 5-10, or even more. I'd be willing to say he might get a couple more wins but that's not a slam on Vogel's coaching ability that the very best coach could squeak out a win or two more, nor is that alone the thing that proves how much Pop is head and shoulders above Frank.

      But, whatever. This team sucks except if Pop were coaching them they wouldn't suck. I guess then we should trade everyone to San Antonio.
      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


      • #78
        Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        I wasn't expecting a win but simply hoping for effort. Unfortunately, what we saw was careless passes and a lazy offense.
        When has this not ever been an issue since Vogel took over?
        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


        • #79
          Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

          This team needs to get more athletic. I'm not saying a complete rebuild, but changes have to be made. This team has to be one of the most unathletic and it's showing.
          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


          • #80
            Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

            Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
            I was calling for Vogels head last year but I would not fire him right now, the team did not quit on him, its the situation and I think a lot of them are punching a clock until PG gets back.

            Now maybe a better coach would get them to snap out of it, I dont know. I think if Vogel were to hire an assistant that really understands offense (Mark Jackson?) he would be a much better coach than he is now. So I would vote to keep him just make him hire an offensive minded assistant.
            I am a big fan of Mark Jackson. My only worry would be he isn't considered a X' and O's guy. Maybe he does understand and just didnt use it on Golden State. Maybe he could blend the X's and O's and his positive words together. It would be interesting to see if Jackson would take a lesser role.


            "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
            "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              yes that is my point. Waiving Josh Smith changed the team drastically. Teams get into a rut and it takes something drastic to change the momentum. That is why a coaching change often jump starts a team for awhile at least.
              Or trading West!
              Danger Zone

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                I still stand by my statement that no other coach would have a better record coaching this team, regardless of doctor-h's unique ability to know how fictional coaching scenarios would play out.
                But you are making a fictional scenario that no other coach would have a better record. Both you and doctor-h are arguing fictional scenarios.
                Danger Zone

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  So your claim is that a good coach can manufacture wins out of thin air?
                  No, he's arguing they manufacture wins by coaching better.
                  Danger Zone

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                    No, he's arguing they manufacture wins by coaching better.
                    And I'm arguing that coaching better isn't going to help if you don't have something to coach.

                    The irony is that by arguing a better coach could get a significant number more wins from this depleted roster, doctor-h is praising the roster and saying they are better than they seem and are losing because of the coach.
                    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


                    • #85
                      Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      And I'm arguing that coaching better isn't going to help if you don't have something to coach.

                      The irony is that by arguing a better coach could get a significant number more wins from this depleted roster, doctor-h is praising the roster and saying they are better than they seem and are losing because of the coach.
                      For gods sake will you stop putting words in my mouth. That is not in the least what I said and it is useless trying to say it again because it just plain goes over your head. If you have ever played, coached or participated in any sport you should absolutely know there are differences between coaches and some of those differences are huge. For the last time I never said how many more wins I thought Pop could get with this team because that is a complete waste of time to guess just like it is for you. I said he would win more with this same group than Vogel because he is just plain a better coach and everyone knows that. Someone else said he wouldn't and I responded to that. Why is it your mission to try to disprove that? And you think I take it too serious are you kidding. This from the guy who has said all along that this depleted roster will still make the playoffs. You must be the one who is saying the roster is better than it is not me, I have said all along that they won't make the playoffs and even if by some miracle they do it WILL be because the East is so pitiful. There is no doubt about that.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        And I'm arguing that coaching better isn't going to help if you don't have something to coach.

                        The irony is that by arguing a better coach could get a significant number more wins from this depleted roster, doctor-h is praising the roster and saying they are better than they seem and are losing because of the coach.
                        We have nothing to coach huh? Well we have 2 guys who are making north of 13 million, healthy and playing. Shouldn't someone be held accountable for overpaying them then?

                        If doctor h posted he thought we had a horrible roster you would be right there asking dumb question after dumb question to try and build them up. But now someone criticizes Vogel (who has been HORRIBLE for a solid year now), and all the sudden our roster is horrible.


                        Doctor h is right, you would make a hell of a politician. Everyone on the team is above criticism, but they aren't any good either. Sounds like the government to me.
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          We have nothing to coach huh? Well we have 2 guys who are making north of 13 million, healthy and playing. Shouldn't someone be held accountable for overpaying them then?

                          If doctor h posted he thought we had a horrible roster you would be right there asking dumb question after dumb question to try and build them up. But now someone criticizes Vogel (who has been HORRIBLE for a solid year now), and all the sudden our roster is horrible.


                          Doctor h is right, you would make a hell of a politician. Everyone on the team is above criticism, but they aren't any good either. Sounds like the government to me.
                          Between you and Doctor-h we are the worst roster and worst run franchise in the league. Outside of Lance, I honestly do not recall either of you speaking positively of much of anyone on the Pacers the past two plus years (in spite of our success prior to this year)

                          I'm curious, what is your idea of what the team needs to do? I see you often post about holding people accountable, what exactly do you mean? Do you want these people fired, do you want them called out in the media?

                          No maliciousness or sarcasm meant. I'm genuinely curious. We know that you think this team, it's coach and the franchise in general are EXTREMELY flawed, so is this fixable or nah? And if so, how so?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                            Two players making $13M? Man, that team has to be good. Two whole players, out of 13.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              Between you and Doctor-h we are the worst roster and worst run franchise in the league. Outside of Lance, I honestly do not recall either of you speaking positively of much of anyone on the Pacers the past two plus years (in spite of our success prior to this year)

                              I'm curious, what is your idea of what the team needs to do? I see you often post about holding people accountable, what exactly do you mean? Do you want these people fired, do you want them called out in the media?

                              No maliciousness or sarcasm meant. I'm genuinely curious. We know that you think this team, it's coach and the franchise in general are EXTREMELY flawed, so is this fixable or nah? And if so, how so?
                              For starters, stop making excuses for EVERYTHING.

                              And stop trying to paint some picture that I haven't spoke up for this team.

                              At the start of the ECF last year I was one of the only people thinking we could win the series, even when we were down 3-1.

                              I am usually pessimistic during the regular season and optimistic once the playoffs start.
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Post Game Thread 1/21/2015 - Pacers @ Hawks

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Two players making $13M? Man, that team has to be good. Two whole players, out of 13.
                                Well why did we give them so much money, if they are no good and all?

                                Not a good question?
                                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X