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

4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

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

  • 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

    David (Stern) told me,
    "This is the stupidest f---ing idea
    I've ever heard."



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 6:00 PM ET
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials:

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Brooklyn Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / YES Network
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM, 107.5 FM / WFAN 660 AM, 101.9 FM
    NBA Feeds: NBA Audio & Broadband League Pass (subscription req'd)


    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


    42-37
    Home: 24-15
    East: 27-21
    21-58
    Away: 7-33
    East: 12-37
    Apr 12
    Apr 13
    Apr 16
    Apr 18
    7:00pm
    8:00pm
    T B D
    T B D

    MAHINMI
    ALLEN
    GEORGE
    ELLIS
    HILL
    ROBINSON
    McCULLOUGH
    BOGDANOVIC
    ELLINGTON
    LARKIN


    PACERS
    None reported


    DRAGONS
    Jarrett Jack - torn ACL, right knee (out)
    Brook Lopez - rest (out)
    Willie Reed - personal reasons (out)
    Thaddeus Young - rest (out)






    The New Jersey Swamp Dragons? It almost happened
    Zach Lowe


    Over the summer, I enlisted several design experts, including Tom O'Grady, the NBA's former
    creative director, to help me rank all 30 team logos. O'Grady sifted through his archives, and
    unearthed a treasure: mock-ups of all the proposed uniforms, court designs, logos, shooting
    shirts, and warmup jackets -- most of which have never been made public -- the New Jersey
    Nets conjured when they nearly changed their name to Swamp Dragons two decades ago.

    Yes, this happened. It was a flashbulb moment for any NBA geek growing up in the Tri-State
    area -- a goof only the sad-sack Nets would try. Recovering O'Grady's trove of lost designs
    was the only excuse we needed to take a trip down memory lane with all the key players.


    JON SPOELSTRA, FORMER NETS PRESIDENT: We had no redeemable history. We had never
    won anything, and our name -- it was like calling the Yankees the "New York Second Bases."
    The team never had a chance with that name.

    JERRY COHEN, ONE OF THE NETS "SECAUCUS 7" OWNERSHIP GROUP: We were always
    asking: "How could we get more fans?" It was tough just getting to our games. We hired
    Jon Spoelstra to change our whole marketing effort.

    DAVID GERSTEIN, CO-OWNER: New Yorkers just didn't come out to New Jersey.

    SPOELSTRA: We were dead last in merchandising sales. Some manufacturers weren't even
    making our stuff.

    O'GRADY: They were like a minor league team. Jon was selling the opponent: "Come out
    and see Shaq, or MJ, and not us!"

    SPOELSTRA: My first idea was to change the name so New Jersey wasn't even in it. We
    played in East Rutherford. It was a small town, with a tax base of something like $10
    million. We went to officials there and said, "We want to change your name, here's a couple
    million bucks for the rights." And we could turn around and sell the naming rights to Nike,
    and become the Nike Nets.

    It just ended up being too much government.

    DAVID STERN, FORMER NBA COMMISSIONER: I always appreciated Jon's originality. He was
    always trying. He cared.

    In 1993 and 1994, the expansion Toronto franchise was choosing its name. Dragons was
    among the finalists, along with Huskies and Raptors. Spoelstra liked the "Dragons" name,
    provided Toronto went another direction.


    SPOELSTRA: The Dragon came up right away, but we needed something to identify it locally.
    I was sitting in my office with Jim Lampariello, our vice president, and I just said, "Every
    time I look out the window here, I see this swamp. And every time I think of swamps, I
    think of swamp rats. What about that?"

    He just said, "I don't think that's very nice. What about Swamp Dragons?" I loved it. Dragons
    are mythical, and fun.

    BILLY PAIGE, FORMER NETS DIRECTOR OF MERCHANDISE AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:
    Everybody likes dragons. Dragons are cool. They always will be.

    ALAN AUFZIEN, CO-OWNER/CEO: I thought it was a very good idea. It was different.

    Spoelstra's next step: get O'Grady and the league's creative team on board.

    O'GRADY: I thought he was kidding. We were totally off the map. It was off the charts wacky.
    But Jon was persistent. He would say, "We're the Nets. What is a net? It has no intrinsic
    value." And in the 1990s, this wasn't so insane. It was all about bright colors, and bold
    fashions. Alexander Julian designed those teal jerseys for the Hornets, and they took off.

    DICK SAKAHARA, DESIGNER OF SEVERAL TEAM LOGOS: It was the era of cartoon logos.

    PAIGE: This was the time of the Raptors, Grizzlies, and Hornets. Everyone wanted to change
    their logos because of the Hornets. Kids loved it. I knew if we wanted to appeal to kids, we
    had to do something with the logo -- at least.

    SPOELSTRA: I wanted kids wearing Swamp Dragons T-shirts to Knicks games.

    Step 2: Get the commissioner to back the change. Spoelstra and O'Grady pitched the idea
    in Stern's office.


    SPOELSTRA: David told me, "This is the stupidest f---ing idea I've ever heard."

    O'GRADY: He did say that. It wasn't the first time he said something like that. I had an open-
    door policy on dumb ideas.

    STERN: If they say I said that, I'm sure I did.

    O'GRADY: David's a smart guy. He knew it was dangerous. There would be a backlash. The
    Nets weren't the Walt Disney Co., rolling out the Mighty Ducks name. They were the Nets.
    Did they have the people in place to really execute this properly?

    RICK WELTS, FORMER PRESIDENT OF NBA PROPERTIES: There was a moment in that
    meeting when I really wondered how thick the plate glass was, because David came very
    close to picking up Jon, and tossing him out the 15th floor of Olympic Tower onto 5th
    Avenue somewhere. He was enraged to have his brand subjected to such a terrible idea.

    Jon was a genius. He transformed our industry -- how teams handle ticket sales and
    broadcast rights. He just had one really bad idea.

    RUSS GRANIK, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER: None of us were thrilled with it. Our sense
    was to focus on the substance, and not the name. The Nets had a history that meant
    something -- with Dr. J, and the American Basketball Association. Maybe fix your
    marketing problems by making the team better.

    STERN: I decided not to stop it. I was confident the [Nets] owners would shut it down.
    They weren't a particularly daring group. And you know, the Meadowlands was an
    environmentally elite site, with wonderful wildlife. It was protected. It was a swamp.
    Swamp, to me, is not really a bad word.

    GRANIK: There was nothing vulgar about it. If David had opposed it, it wouldn't have
    gone any further. But we took the position that this was the Nets' choice.

    Stern told Spoelstra to get the backing of all seven New Jersey owners.

    SPOELSTRA: They rarely agreed on anything. It was amazing. You'd ask them whether
    the light was on, and two guys would vote yes, two would vote no, and three would
    abstain. But I made my pitch, and all seven voted yes. It was stunning.

    COHEN: I thought the idea was over the top, but I liked the notion of a new identity.

    AUFZIEN: It would spark publicity.

    With the Seven on board...CONTINUE READING ESPN


    Pacers
    Candace Buckner @CandaceDBuckner
    Nate Taylor @ByNateTaylor
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows
    Whitney @its_whitney

    Dragons
    Mike Mazzeo @MazzESPN
    Nets Daily @NetsDaily
    Devin Kharpertian @uuords
    Tom Lorenzo @TomLorenzo
    Jeremy Gordon @jeremypgordon
    Ohm Youngmisuk @NotoriousOHM

    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

    As we wind down the regular season, I would just like to thank ATC for another amazing year of game threads. Your time and hard work on these threads are much appreciated.

    Now let's go out there and whoop some Dragon ***!

    Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

      Game thread of the year easily


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

        I can't be the only one who needs an HBO Sports documentary on this topic narrated by Emilia Clarke.
        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

          Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
          I can't be the only one who needs an HBO Sports documentary on this topic narrated by Emilia Clarke.
          I would probably watch a documentary on dirt if it was narrated by Emilia Clarke.


          ...you know....or Morgan Freeman.


          ...or any Australian.
          Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 04-10-2016, 01:45 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

            I just wish I could be a fly on the wall in Stern's office where after all the time and money spent, the vote comes back and the Nets are the only team that voted no. Lol I bet that was a historic blow up


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

              If we lose this game man.....


              Something to look for tonight since Ty should be getting some quality minutes if we're up big (not likely) but is how well he does from inside 2 feet.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

                Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                If we lose this game man.....


                Something to look for tonight since Ty should be getting some quality minutes if we're up big (not likely) but is how well he does from inside 2 feet.
                If we lose this game I honestly would hope that we lose out the rest of the year and the Bulls win out.


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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

                  Even as an old school purist I think they should have become the Swamp Dragons. The concept art, colors, and theme were so well done that it is surprising when compared to some other franchise re-brands that have happened.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    If we lose this game I honestly would hope that we lose out the rest of the year and the Bulls win out.
                    Chances are we will make the playoffs, but have you ever felt this apathetic about a Pacers team in the playoffs? I haven't. I'm finding it hard to even want to watch the games this year.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

                      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                      Even as an old school purist I think they should have become the Swamp Dragons. The concept art, colors, and theme were so well done that it is surprising when compared to some other franchise re-brands that have happened.
                      100% Disagree it all looked very amateurish to me, more minor league than major league.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

                        US Masters is taking my attention for the first half at least.
                        https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

                        Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

                          Let's just get Mahinmi to take 50 shots tonight.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

                            Tony Brown with the quick full timeout. Let's see if he puts in any of the bench players for the Drags.
                            You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 4/10/2016 Game Thread #80: Pacers vs. Dragons

                              Originally posted by IrishPacer View Post
                              US Masters is taking my attention for the first half at least.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X