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-Houston We Have A Problem

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

  • #61
    Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

    Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
    I only got to watch the first half of last night. Did Paul ever get himself together in the 2nd half? Looked like he was sleep walking in the 1st.
    I thought he had a good third quarter. And he made the game winning assist (a beauty) on a play that was actually drawn up for him to shoot.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

      I guess you could say this about a lot of teams over the years that never panned out, but it seems the Pacers have a good mixture of young talent maturing and a presence of talented, former and current stars and solid veterans finally gelling. Still I don't know if this team is going to make a finals run or get swept in the first round. The last game I watched is when we lost to the Cavs a few weeks back and we looked like a contender during the first half and the winning streak that preceded it. I fell asleep at halftime and woke up after we basically lost the game in a single quarter and it looked like the season after that. It's like I woke up in a new Pacers reality haha. 2 out of 3 since the break is a good start, but this team needs to compete for a title like they showed until that epic 3rd quarter collapse against Cleveland.

      We risk losing PG for nothing and our chance at a big 3 with Teague, PG, and Turner. We have the talent on paper it seems to me really, they just need to pull it together or risk setting us back 5 years trying to replace a superstar. If PG proves he is clutch and top 5 in the playoffs again, and Teague gels, and Turner takes the next step in stardom, we would theoretically have a core of 2 or 3 superstar talents usually needed to win it all. Or we could lose it all and Turner and Teague could just be solid and we are a middling team with no star. Crazy times indeed.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
        Grin, I'm actually not disagreeing about matchups with the Rockets.

        It's like watching the first 2 games of a 7 game series, and watching one team with two convincing wins. Odds are, they win the 7 game series.

        All I'm saying is that there's insufficient data at this point, and I've watched too many games where our squad craps the proverbial bed to feel confident about our team with... well, any game circumstance to start declaring them a better team vs. a legit championship contender.
        I am not using the wins against Houston as some sort of barometer on how the Pacers would do against any other good team.
        Frankly I do not think Houston is a contender. There style will suffer in the playoffs where the tempo generally slows down.
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

          Have to wonder if Paul didn't get ejected in Miami if maybe we are looking at a 3 game win streak?
          "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            Let's see - my PD Bingo card has "Western teams let down against the East". "No one takes the Pacers seriously", "Pacers got lucky to play injured teams", "Pacers benefitted from the easy schedule", and a free space.
            BINGO!!!

            Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

              It got a little nerve wracking at the end but that three by CJ was huge it really deflated the Rockets and they went into desperation mode which never ends well. PG played good D but limited by foul trouble, I am shocked Harden did not go off when PG was not on him.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                Originally posted by owl View Post
                Physical teams that shoot the three are tough for the Pacers. If the Pacers are going to have a turn around and compete in the playoffs rebounding will be the key and getting to the three shooter. I think Christmas with Lavoy is a good thing. Get more of that in the off season and another physical defender at sg or sf
                When Al returns he will play. He can score in the post which is a weapon. He also makes too much money to be left on the bench or waived. But you need a shot blocker and rebounder to cover his weaknesses. That's where Rakeem comes in.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  When Al returns he will play. He can score in the post which is a weapon. He also makes too much money to be left on the bench or waived. But you need a shot blocker and rebounder to cover his weaknesses. That's where Rakeem comes in.
                  If Al is out a few more games and that second unit continues to click like it is, Nate should be fired on the spot if he replaces LaVoy or Christmas with Al. You don't disrupt something that is clicking. I'm fine with Al getting some of LaVoy's second quarter minutes but that is it. No Al until Rakeem or LaVoy falls of a cliff

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                    Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
                    If Al is out a few more games and that second unit continues to click like it is, Nate should be fired on the spot if he replaces LaVoy or Christmas with Al. You don't disrupt something that is clicking. I'm fine with Al getting some of LaVoy's second quarter minutes but that is it. No Al until Rakeem or LaVoy falls of a cliff
                    I agree but Al is superior to Lavoy period. Al can score in the post, his size forces double teams he's another offensive weapon. Meaning the guards don't have to do everything. Rakeem is the athletic, shot blocking rebounding "4" we need next to Al.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      I agree but Al is superior to Lavoy period. Al can score in the post, his size forces double teams he's another offensive weapon. Meaning the guards don't have to do everything. Rakeem is the athletic, shot blocking rebounding "4" we need next to Al.
                      LaVoy actually plays defense and rebounds. He also doesn't ask for the ball. With the way Monta, Stuckey, and GR3 are scoring, we don't need another scorer. These 5 guys are moving the ball. Put Al in there, ball movement stops. LaVoy recently has provided more to the team than Al does. Al maybe a better scorer but there are other parts of the game. Let these 5 run while clicking.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                        I agree but Al is superior to Lavoy period. Al can score in the post, his size forces double teams he's another offensive weapon. Meaning the guards don't have to do everything. Rakeem is the athletic, shot blocking rebounding "4" we need next to Al.
                        I'd rather have the guards doing more and Big Al doing less, way less, something like bringing Monta some water when he gets gassed. Lavoy and Christmas is exactly what that second unit needs. Bigs who don't need the ball to be effective. Rebound the ball and set solid screens. Actually the starters could use a big like that also.

                        Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                          Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
                          LaVoy actually plays defense and rebounds. He also doesn't ask for the ball. With the way Monta, Stuckey, and GR3 are scoring, we don't need another scorer. These 5 guys are moving the ball. Put Al in there, ball movement stops. LaVoy recently has provided more to the team than Al does. Al maybe a better scorer but there are other parts of the game. Let these 5 run while clicking.
                          I disagree. Stuckey and Monta at times try and do too much with the ball and it leads to turnovers. Being able to dump the rock down to Al in the post for an easy two points at times gives a different dimension to the offense.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                            Originally posted by PaulGeorgeHill View Post
                            I'd rather have the guards doing more and Big Al doing less, way less, something like bringing Monta some water when he gets gassed. Lavoy and Christmas is exactly what that second unit needs. Bigs who don't need the ball to be effective. Rebound the ball and set solid screens. Actually the starters could use a big like that also.

                            Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


                            If your offense on the perimeter gets stalled you don't want Stuckey and Monta being forced into those jump-pass situations. Having Al down there to dump the ball in to will result in an easy 2 points or drawing a foul.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              If your offense on the perimeter gets stalled you don't want Stuckey and Monta being forced into those jump-pass situations. Having Al down there to dump the ball in to will result in an easy 2 points or drawing a foul.
                              The problem is with Al, is we won't be dumping the ball into the post in last minute situations. He'll need the ball a lot and often, meaning less ball movement along with making guys like Ellis and Stuckey less effective.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Post game-Houston We Have A Problem

                                Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                                The problem is with Al, is we won't be dumping the ball into the post in last minute situations. He'll need the ball a lot and often, meaning less ball movement along with making guys like Ellis and Stuckey less effective.
                                I'd feel a lot better about no AL on the floor if Monta and Stuckey were the Devin Booker / Patty Mills types. In that they could fire from long range at a high enough percentage. But they aren't, so defenses know they will try and get closer to the basket instead of hoisting a 3 pt shot. Which is where some of the careless turnovers happen.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X