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

3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

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

  • 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

    HOW HARD COULD
    IT BEEEZZZ





    Game Time Start: 8:00 PM ET
    Where: Spectrum Center, Charlotte, NC
    Officials: Tony Brothers (#25), Eric Dalen (#37), Brian Forte (#45)


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


    32-30
    Away: 11-20
    East: 17-19
    Series: 0-2
    27-35
    Home: 16-13
    East: 16-20
    Series: 2-0
    March 08
    March 10
    March 12
    ESPN - 8:00pm
    FSI - 8:00pm
    NBATV - 6:00pm

    TURNER
    YOUNG
    GEORGE
    MILES
    TEAGUE
    ZELLER
    WILLIAMS
    BATUM
    KIDD-GILCHRIST
    WALKER


    PACERS
    Lavoy Allen - questionable (sore left knee)


    HORNETS
    Frank Kaminsky - out (left AC joint sprain)
    Miles Plumlee - out (right calf strain)
    Ramon Sessions - out (left knee surgery)






    Pacers
    Nate Taylor @ByNateTaylor
    Scott Agness @ScottAgness
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows
    Whitney @its_whitney

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

    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

    I just noticed, Rodney Stuckey is shooting 34% from 3 for the season.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

      Pacers are 4.5 games back of Toronto for home court in the first round and still play them 3 times before the end of the season (2 road,1 home) and after looking at both of our schedules they are both favorable. But they are also playing without Kyle Lowry until the playoffs and we are starting to play aspiring ball. I believe home court is within reach and would love nothing more than to play either Toronto or Atlanta in the first round. Especially with home court advantage. I would even go as far as we would be favored in any match-up (outside of Wash, Boston, And Clev) in the playoffs even if we don't get home court. None of those teams have a player as good as Playoff PG. There is only one team in the east who does imo.

      Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

        I really wish Nate wouldn't draw up so many plays where CJ's shooting off a screen unless it's a decoy. Shooting off of screens are one of the worst parts of his offensive game.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

          Where do the Hornets go from this season? Clifford is certainly gone. Quietly they have to be one of the most disappointing teams of this season no?

          And yet we still can't beat them apparently.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Where do the Hornets go from this season? Clifford is certainly gone. Quietly they have to be one of the most disappointing teams of this season no?

            And yet we still can't beat them apparently.
            I don't know if I see them as disappointing. I think they overachieved in previous years.

            Their front office is incompetent. Their best big man is Cody Zeller. I mean, outside of Walker and Batum, how many of those players start on the majority of NBA teams? MAYBE MKG as a 5th option, defensive role player?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              I don't know if I see them as disappointing. I think they overachieved in previous years.

              Their front office is incompetent. Their best big man is Cody Zeller. I mean, outside of Walker and Batum, how many of those players start on the majority of NBA teams? MAYBE MKG as a 5th option, defensive role player?
              I mean however you wanna slice it or divy the blame, they were 48-34 last year and they're 27-35 now and just 2 months ago they were the 2nd hottest team in the East and someone (forget who, but someone who is an idiot king) wrote an article about how Kemba had become Steph Curry East. You also had the great debate on here sometime in early december about if people would rather have Kemba or PG haha


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I mean however you wanna slice it or divy the blame, they were 48-34 last year and they're 27-35 now and just 2 months ago they were the 2nd hottest team in the East and someone (forget who, but someone who is an idiot king) wrote an article about how Kemba had become Steph Curry East. You also had the great debate on here sometime in early december about if people would rather have Kemba or PG haha
                Not sure why you're hating on Kemba, he's far from the reason why they're struggling.

                He's obviously not Steph level, but he's easily top 6 or 7 PG in the league.

                The loss of Lin and Lee is really hurting their backcourt production. The fact that Kemba is able to still get it done in spite of not having much help in the backcourt is impressive... Least to me lol

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

                  Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
                  I really wish Nate wouldn't draw up so many plays where CJ's shooting off a screen unless it's a decoy. Shooting off of screens are one of the worst parts of his offensive game.
                  I wish Nate would resign
                  "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    I mean however you wanna slice it or divy the blame, they were 48-34 last year and they're 27-35 now and just 2 months ago they were the 2nd hottest team in the East and someone (forget who, but someone who is an idiot king) wrote an article about how Kemba had become Steph Curry East. You also had the great debate on here sometime in early december about if people would rather have Kemba or PG haha
                    Regardless of what they did last year or even earlier this year, to me, that was overachieving.

                    Their roster is not that good at all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

                      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                      I wish Nate would resign
                      What has he done that is so horrible? Or is it mostly because his name is not Frank Vogel?
                      Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 03-06-2017, 04:57 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

                        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                        Regardless of what they did last year or even earlier this year, to me, that was overachieving.

                        Their roster is not that good at all.
                        Besides Kemba they have no one who can score. They thought Batum would be able to provide an offensive punch, but he is pretty mediocre.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

                          Originally posted by immortality View Post
                          Besides Kemba they have no one who can score. They thought Batum would be able to provide an offensive punch, but he is pretty mediocre.
                          Yea, his FG% has been bad, he does help out in other ways though. Still averaging 6 APG which is outstanding for a wing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

                            This is the type of game we just have to find ways to win now for the rest of the year.

                            On the road. Against a team that we match up with poorly somehow, despite their bad record.

                            These are the games we were losing early on that have kept us hovering around 500. Now is the time to clamp down and win them.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 3/06/17 Game Thread #63: Pacers vs. Hornets

                              Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
                              I really wish Nate wouldn't draw up so many plays where CJ's shooting off a screen unless it's a decoy. Shooting off of screens are one of the worst parts of his offensive game.
                              He is a horrible shooter of threes when on the move. Now no player will shoot as well when moving but for CJ I suspect it is really bad
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X