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

2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

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

  • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

    Originally posted by Ransom View Post
    I have no particular investment in the Warriors but the Steph Curry 'haters' coming out of the woodwork irritate me.
    I mean in "their" defense, the guy has received pretty much unanimous acclaim and affirmation for the last two years. And deservedly so. But if you're going to generate and receive that much praise when you play well, you're going to generate and receive just as much hate for playing poorly.

    He has time to save face and make anyone "hating on him" eat their words. All he has to do is bring his team back from the 3-1 deficit. Lol no big deal

    Comment


    • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      You can only play who is on the schedule and GS deserves obvious accolades for being the last team standing in 2015, but let's face it, their road to the title was relatively easy. I mean the Rockets somehow made the WCF's lol. They were able to avoid SA and LAC, plus OKC was nowhere to be found because of the Durant injury. Then in The Finals they played a one man show Lebron team. This Oklahoma City team with Durant and Westbrook firing on all cylinders is light years better than any team they had to face a year ago.

      The Durant/Westbrook duo has lost to veteran teams every time they've been in the playoffs: 2010 Lakers, 2011 Mavericks, 2012 Heat, and 2014 Spurs. All of those teams had more experienced players. Well now all of the sudden Durant and Westbrook have experience and are in the prime of their careers. It's all working out so beautifully.
      I'll give it to you, you told me to believe!

      Even when I wanted to think that Russ was too stubborn to play to win, you told me to believe!

      It seems that their experience has finally caught up to their talent level. It's been very fun to see.

      Comment


      • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        He had 40 in his first game back, 17 in the O.T period.
        He had 29 in the close out game, shooting over 50% from the field. He closed out that game in the 4th with daggers.
        He had 28 in game two of this series, again shooting over 50% from the field. He had 17 in the 3rd when they put OKC away

        So that's 3 out of 5 games that he's looked more than fine. If he's going to receive praise for performing well (which he deservedly received after these games) then he should receive blame when he doesn't show up. His lack of defense is inexcusable for a guy that's supposed to be the greatest player in the league.



        Ohh I agree. OKC doesn't care. And nor should they. Asterisk's don't make rings any less shiny. And there's nothing that should take away the incredible feat they have the chance to pull off. EVERYONE was saying this was the best team ever (Golden State) and OKC has a chance of not only knocking them off, but doing so in almost a dominating fashion.

        For those of us not a fan of the Dubs style of basketball, it's very fun to see. For fans of the Warriors, I'm sure it's a bit of a shock. But there's still hope. It ain't over until it's over. But Kerr needs to make some adjustments and fast
        Curry had a couple good comeback games, just as Ibaka had a couple great comeback games in Games 3 and 4 in the 2014 series vs. the Spurs. He was able to deliver in those games and, for a brief moment, it appeared he would totally shift the series in OKC's favor, but it was obvious he was hobbled and he couldn't sustain that level. Curry was supposed to have a minutes restriction in his first game back, but he played through big minutes because the team was lagging and they needed him.

        There really aren't a lot of adjustments for the Warriors left, just as there weren't many adjustments for the Spurs back in the 2012 WCFs. Sometimes there isn't an answer for a monstrously talented team like OKC that all of a sudden figures a few things out and gains some swagger.

        None of this comes as a total shock to me because of 1) Curry being hobbled 2) the Warriors not so great showing vs. the Blazers and 3) OKC being healthy for the first since 2012 and the confidence they gained from running the Spurs out of the gym in Game 6.

        The shock for a lot of people is that OKC somehow came out of nowhere when it was supposed to be a 3 team league this year between the Spurs, Cavs and Warriors. But people forgot how OKC was potentially supposed to own the league after their showing in 2012, but they've had bad luck with injuries every year between then and now.
        Last edited by d_c; 05-25-2016, 09:59 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          It seems that their experience has finally caught up to their talent level. It's been very fun to see.
          You could argue that happened in 2012, when they backdoor swept a Spurs team that had won 20 games in a row to end the regular season and had looked absolutely machine like before Game 3 of the WCFs. They just ran into a bad matchup with Lebron and the Heat at the peak and have had a key injury every year since.

          Comment


          • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

            Originally posted by owl View Post
            Small ball I do not believe is a long term league trend. With better bigs, you can beat small ball. I sure hope Bird and company is watching. The Pacers need a point but I think a quality big man is maybe more pressing. The Pacers got beat up a little inside this past year.
            Golden State is not losing because of small ball. They are losing because OKC is better. Russell Westbrook is outplaying Curry, and Kevin Durant is better than anybody else on the Warriors. OKC has 2 of the best players in the world, which is why they are winning. Not because they are playing big, or GS is small
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

              Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
              Golden State is not losing because of small ball. They are losing because OKC is better. Russell Westbrook is outplaying Curry, and Kevin Durant is better than anybody else on the Warriors. OKC has 2 of the best players in the world, which is why they are winning. Not because they are playing big, or GS is small
              Correct. It's not as if Adams or Kanter are doing anything extraordinary. This is about OKC having two Top 5 players who are hungry with something to prove and are playing like it. The only real revelation out of this is that it should shut up the Westbrook haters who claimed Durant needed to get away from him in order to succeed.

              Spurs and Warriors have great teams with great systems and coaching. But sometimes it's not about that. Sometimes sheer talent trumps all that, and it's been the case this series as it was with the OKC-Spurs series this year and in 2012.

              Spurs fans (well, Spurstalk) blame Pop to no end for both those series losses vs. OKC, but the truth is there really isn't a lot of adjustments you can make against guys like Durant/Westbrook when those guys get on a roll. These fans think there is always some kind of magical coaching answer that Pop needs to come up with, but a lot of times it just amounts to reshuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

              Comment


              • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                You could argue that happened in 2012, when they backdoor swept a Spurs team that had won 20 games in a row to end the regular season and had looked absolutely machine like before Game 3 of the WCFs. They just ran into a bad matchup with Lebron and the Heat at the peak and have had a key injury every year since.
                I really think the biggest difference between then and now has been Russ fully embracing the role of a playmaker/initiator. He's looking like Jason Kidd after being injected with the super solider syrum.

                I also think they have a little bit better balance with Waiters in place of Harden. Harden was so good that he had to get his opportunities. Waiters on the other hand is balancing being the second team ball handler when Russ is on the bench and being an off the ball scoring option when he shares the floor with the stars.

                Comment


                • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  I really think the biggest difference between then and now has been Russ fully embracing the role of a playmaker/initiator. He's looking like Jason Kidd after being injected with the super solider syrum.

                  I also think they have a little bit better balance with Waiters in place of Harden. Harden was so good that he had to get his opportunities. Waiters on the other hand is balancing being the second team ball handler when Russ is on the bench and being an off the ball scoring option when he shares the floor with the stars.
                  Nah, okc shouldve never traded Harden. I think they did have won one by now. Their stupid. They decided to keep Perkins, and Sefolosha over him. I think Waiters sucks. He looks like he tries and cares but he sucks

                  Sent from my Nexus 5X

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                    They also got Steven Adams out of the harden deal. They're certainly way better defensively with centers that can play. Harden is obviously an elite talent but he's a flake. In his place they got toughness and interior defense/scoring.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 05-25-2016, 10:56 AM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      They also got Steven Adams out of the harden deal. They're certiBly way better defensively with centers that can play. Harden is obviously an elite talent but he's a flake. In his place they got toughness and interior defense/scoring.
                      They also got a better complimentary piece. It's hard enough to win with a 2-headed monster in the perimiter. Even Lebron and Wade struggled a bit with the adjustment. Adding a 3 piece makes it that much tougher.

                      Replacing Perkins corpse with Adams and Kanter's lively/physical bodies has probably been worth the tradeoff between Harden and Waiters. At least it is currently.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                        SBnation article sums things up:

                        Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook have grown up since coming together in Oklahoma City eight years ago, from the baby-faced days before the accolades, to the lens-less frames and backpacks, to the playoff disappointments and career-threatening injuries that hardened them, and now to a 3-1 lead in the conference finals over the best regular season team ever. Durant and Westbrook have been the best two players in this series. They are both also top-5 players in the world (or damn close). Sometimes, the incredibly complex game of basketball becomes as simple as that.
                        http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/...ICS?li=BBnb7Kz

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                          Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
                          Their stupid.
                          lol
                          https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

                          Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                            Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                            I have no particular investment in the Warriors but the Steph Curry 'haters' coming out of the woodwork irritate me.

                            That and people are going to question them going for 73 despite that being idiotic. Steph and Klay barely played in 4th quarters this year.

                            It's also funny given how much you could find people blaming the Colts lack of going for the regular season record for them losing in the Super Bowl. I had to stop from calling people in my family crazy.
                            I agree to a point: I do think that the Colts not going for it was going to come back and haunt the team but I figured they were going to lose before the SB not during the SB and yes I think it was a mistake to not go for it. The team was never really the same since. They are going to wonder what if? I still wonder about it had they won the SB I don't think people would be that upset over it.

                            So when the Warriors lose this series it won't be because they went 73-9 and it will be because they faced a team that was better than them. It happens but at least they didn't shortchange themselves along the way like the Colts did.

                            I say this as someone that doesn't really care for Steph Curry much. Besides he won last year so really you can't say he isn't capable you don't win every year(ask LeBron)

                            I really should've known this would happen with Steve Nash as a consultant the dude is the epitome of a jinx(and never made the Finals) the Mavs win after he leaves and all those teammates he had on the Suns won a ring elsewhere(except Amare and Frye)

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                              Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
                              Okc won't win the title. Lebron won't lose to Durant lol. Lebron won in Miami his second year against Okc. Second year back in Cleveland against Okc most likely. It's going to be a repeat.

                              Sent from my Nexus 5X
                              Which is why I hope the Warriors find a miracle here... sorry Thunder I have no faith in you vs LeBron.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                                Which is why I hope the Warriors find a miracle here... sorry Thunder I have no faith in you vs LeBron.
                                Ehhh, it might be different this year. Assuming OKC closes this out, they'll head into the Finals having beaten a 67 and 73 win team. If that doesn't give you confidence, I don't know what will. Plus the Cavs porous defense has kind of been exposed again in the past 2 games.

                                I realize a few don't like the Warriors style, but I'll repeat the reason you should root for them. Before the Warriors won last season, it was pretty much accepted that the only way you were winning the title is if you were one of 3 entities: Lebron, Durant or the Spurs. If you weren't one of these 3, you were on the outside looking in.

                                Warriors broke that mode. Did it without Superfriends free agents or high lotto picks to draft coveted blue chip players. People here hated tanking and they hated Superfriends, so you'd figure they'd like the Warriors for doing what they did, but then they hated the way the Warriors played and won. Oh, but they still want parity and competitive balance at the same time. At that point, it's just a situation where people who want to have their cake and eat it too.
                                Last edited by d_c; 05-25-2016, 01:00 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X