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--A Tale of Two Games

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

  • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

    I'll just let you continue making flippant remarks that are either untrue, things not said, or can't be proven.

    Also, I never said Teague was irreplaceable, I said we "realistically" could not upgrade or replace his production if he went down with injury. This is backed by his EWA.

    The point was, for the 5th time, that he is vital to this 6th seed playoff team.

    Comment


    • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I think, like I've thought for years, that they're the same level of player. I'm saying that your argument that Teague being on the Pacers is what is keeping the Pacers afloat is ridiculous.
      From what I've gathered, this is somehow downplaying Teague's greatness as a player.

      Comment


      • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        From what I've gathered, this is somehow downplaying Teague's greatness as a player.
        Yes, to say that the Pacers would have been fine if Teague went down with injury is absolutely downplaying him as a player.

        He has been vital to this team and whatever you consider "keeping afloat."

        Comment


        • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

          Besides the head coach, how much has the team changed since last season.

          Out:
          George Hill
          Ian Mahinmi
          Solomon Hill
          Budinger
          Jordan Hill

          Replaced by:
          Jeff Teague
          Thad Young
          Al Jefferson
          Kevin Saraphin
          Aaron Brooks
          Georges Niang

          Obviously the two players listed at the time of each category are most important. Hill - Teague. Teague IMO is better offensively - overall everything on that side of the court he is better. Hill is better defensively.

          Thad vs Ian - little bit more difficult to compare. I wish Ian was here this season and I think he would have helped Turner a lot. Is Thad better than Ian - yes probably.

          Just looking at this list, I am not sure why we should have expected this years team to be much better than last year. Sure we added some key players, but we lost some key players. It wasn't like we were adding Teague and Thad to what we had - if that was the case, then yes we should have expected more from this team.

          Coaching - I know many will suggest we took a big step or even a small step back here. Assistant coaches are almost the same as last season. I am not convinced there has been a significant downgrade here. Is Vogel better than Nate - OK, I can say yes. But it isn't like we went from Pop to some rookie coach. Nate is not a bad coach - no one can convince me he is.

          I think expectations were too high for this season. Turner is not ready to be a top flight NBA big man. Thad is what he is. Teague is a very good point guard, overall slightly better than Hill IMO when you take everything into account.

          This years Pacers team will likely win 43 games give or take 1 game either way, so that is basically similar to last season.


          Vegas over/under win total for this season 43.5 - we will be within a couple of games of that at least.

          So IMO this season is what this team is right now - we should have expected this.

          Comment


          • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            From what I've gathered, this is somehow downplaying Teague's greatness as a player.
            At least it's fitting that pointing out that they've barely managed to stay above .500 all season to the point where their best player is looking for the exit also downplays the wild success this season has been. Consistent downplaying is the key.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

              It's funny, Teague has a good game in an important win and I posted about the conversation about him being vocal and hoping it carries over into playoffs and into the rest of the season.

              Then the conversation quickly devolved into he's streaky, we'll get what we've seen and we already had GHill.

              I think we're a middle of the pack East playoff team with the potential to be much better if PG goes into playoff mode, and Teague and Turner step it up. Ithe rotation tightens up and we can play Turner 40 minutes, I think we can beat any East team not the Cavs healthy.

              Something not talked about, Turner played the entire 1st quarter last game and came in early in the 2nd. I wonder if we start tightening the rotation a little now.

              Comment


              • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                At least it's fitting that pointing out that they've barely managed to stay above .500 all season to the point where their best player is looking for the exit also downplays the wild success this season has been. Consistent downplaying is the key.
                Wild success? PG just brought up only signing if we're a contender? You're in your own world man.

                Comment


                • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                  Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                  Wild success? PG just brought up only signing if we're a contender? You're in your own world man.
                  I think this team can be epic next season if we go 'shooter shopping' in the off-season. The starting SG needs to be a scorer/shooter who can also create their own shot. Doesn't need to be an "Iverson" out there with the handle, but needs enough ball-tricks and handle to create for himself when the clock is running down. Or enough to run a play through them in the closing seconds. While CJ is a terrific shooter, we can't run anything through him because he can't handle the ball very well or create his own shot through any sort of ball handling sequence.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                    If playoff PG shows up (which judging by his recent play, he seems to be getting into that mode), this team has a shot at beating any non Cavs eastern conference team. We saw that last year. That has a lot to do with the Eastern Conference. But PG going all out is only second to LeBron in this conference. What this team does in the playoffs will determine a lot of it's future. Quite frankly not progressing to the second round spells trouble for us and keeping PG.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                      If playoff PG shows up (which judging by his recent play, he seems to be getting into that mode), this team has a shot at beating any non Cavs eastern conference team. We saw that last year. That has a lot to do with the Eastern Conference. But PG going all out is only second to LeBron in this conference. What this team does in the playoffs will determine a lot of it's future. Quite frankly not progressing to the second round spells trouble for us and keeping PG.
                      I agree. The other side of this is if Teague or PG don't show up in the playoffs, we have more questions. If Nate struggles with rotations or Turner takes a step back that would also be concerning.

                      I think we'll step up assuming we make the playoffs, but I would be more optimistic if we can finish the regular season strong.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        Wild success? PG just brought up only signing if we're a contender? You're in your own world man.
                        Well it is a world that has sarcasm so that's a plus.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Well it is a world that has sarcasm so that's a plus.
                          That's not sarcasm. It's just stupid. Nobody is saying anything close to what you're saying.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                            Take the stick out your butt man and relax a little bit. This isn't serious.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Take the stick out your butt man and relax a little bit. This isn't serious.
                              Lol, this isn't stressful. But if what I'm saying is being misrepresented I'm going to correct.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Post game--A Tale of Two Games

                                I'll make sure to make 100% accurate facetious comments in the future.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X