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

Well you knew I would bring this up

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

  • #16
    Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

    I see where you're coming from Peck but Unclebuck and Rimfire summed it up best.

    Against Dirk or Duncan the Pacers are screwed either way. I even think the Pacers would've lost both games with Artest playing so I'm not surprised by the 0-2 Dallas trip. They should've and could've won in Cleveland if not for multiple meltdowns from Tinsley and Jack but overall, I'm not surprised by any of the three losses.

    I prefer Austin starting too but against Dallas and San Antonio it doesn't matter much which way you go.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
      I should add that I haven't watched the 4th quarter in either of the last two games - the level of play wasn't good enough to keep my interest.

      Truth. I believe that the Croshere/Foster debate had very little to do with the
      last 3 losses. The team(I use the term loosely) is just plain bad right now.
      Rebounding is pathetic. JO needs to learn to box out, along with several
      other Pacers. A new mix of players is needed.


      owl
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

        I couldn't disagree with you more about Foster, but that's nothing new. With Artest gone, Jeff is now our best overall defender, and has always been our best big man defender. There are statements by Rick, and Duncan that they would agree with me. Before his injury last year, Jeff was putting up better numbers then Dale did during his all star year. We need a healthy Jeff Foster on this team.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

          Originally posted by naptownmenace
          Against Dirk or Duncan the Pacers are screwed either way.
          I'm sure you would agree - most teams are.
          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Peck, Croshere started the Dallas game.

            Foster started against Duncan and against Z. And if you read Rick's comments about it. You'll see he's well aware that of the Pacers good record with Cro starting. Even though they aren't 11-3.

            My point is Croshere will be back in the lineup based on matchups.

            So just calm down

            But look at the overall minutes & you will see that Croshere is now playing sometimes less than half the min. he was playing before.

            Also, once again this is where I will disagree about the entire Carlisle thing. He is attempting to adjust to other teams, not making them adjust to us.

            Our offense was horrrid last night & the reason is simple, two of the five starters gave you nothing on the offensive end.

            When Croshere is in at least he facilitates ball movement if nothing else. As to those saying there is no differance well I respectfully disagree.

            Foster is giving us nothing & on the offensive end he is a liability. The man cannot hit open layups.

            So since Carlisle refuses to play either of our real Centers (Foster is a powerforward) then I would much prefer someone in there who can help J.O. on both ends of the floor.


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

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

              Originally posted by Kegboy
              Well, Austin started against Dallas, and we got killed on the boards.

              I've come to the conclusion that neither is the answer.
              We need to trade Ron for a Big, pure and simple. Even a 3/4 hybrid like Al or Odom would be better, because they can both score in the post. If we trade for someone smaller than them, I'm gonna freak.
              Huzzah
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                Originally posted by Peck
                But look at the overall minutes & you will see that Croshere is now playing sometimes less than half the min. he was playing before.

                Also, once again this is where I will disagree about the entire Carlisle thing. He is attempting to adjust to other teams, not making them adjust to us.

                Our offense was horrrid last night & the reason is simple, two of the five starters gave you nothing on the offensive end.

                When Croshere is in at least he facilitates ball movement if nothing else. As to those saying there is no differance well I respectfully disagree.

                Foster is giving us nothing & on the offensive end he is a liability. The man cannot hit open layups.

                So since Carlisle refuses to play either of our real Centers (Foster is a powerforward) then I would much prefer someone in there who can help J.O. on both ends of the floor.


                One of the main reasons why Croshere has played fewer minutes is because of Granger. The Knicks game and the Cavs game, Granger took Cro's minutes

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                  I thought Foster defended Duncan pretty well.

                  I think that neither one of them (Foster, Cro) should start on a team that has aspirations of winning anything other than a marginal playoff seeding.

                  Both have holes in their game you can drive a truck through. Rick can tolerate some types of holes more than others.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                    Lets be honest about both of these guys. IMHO, no team is going to win a
                    title with either of these two as your starting PF or C. Right now Jeff is just awful period. Whether it is conditioning or whether Jeff will not be the player he was, Jeff really should not be on the floor right now. Jeff's asset to any team is his huslte, Off rebounding and the ability to guard people like Dirk to Tim. Jeff right now has very poor lateral movement and seems hesitant to really throw his body around.

                    Austin could be a very good bench player but as we know Austin does not play well when coming off the bench. Austin has to many liabilites to be a starter on a contending team. There are some night's when Austin has a favorable mathup that he really contributes, but other night's he gets abused.
                    Austin is a great guy, a great teammate but there is nothing special about Austins game. He is an average shooter, an average rebounder and an average defender. As I said good player off bench, bad as starter.

                    As far as our record with Austin in starting lineup, well you also have to consider
                    A. Who we played during those wins.
                    B. We had Artest playing during some of those wins also.

                    I would agree right now if the choice is Austin or Jeff, take Austin.
                    I do think the team would be better served to go with DH or Pollard over both
                    Jeff or Austin though.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                      I knew what this was going to be about before I even opened it, and I agree with you Peck. In fact, at this point, Foster should probably be behind Pollard as well in the rotation.

                      We desperately need to trade depth for quality.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                        Everyone keeps saying "we gotta trade for a big, we gotta trade for a big".

                        Let me throw a monkey wrench into the discussion.

                        I still maintain (and bear in mind I missed the Dallas and San Antonio games) that our lack of ability to score on mid-long range jumpers is what is killing our post and under-the-basket game.

                        As long as we can't hit the broad side of a barn from outside, teams are free to collapse in toward the middle, cutting off passing lanes (thus no ball movement except on the perimeter) and preventing easy lay-ins or dunks - not to mention blocking anyone who might accidentally be around for an offensive rebound.

                        This isn't double-teaming, just a lane-centric defense that challenges us to hit our outside shots, which we then oblige by bricking.

                        I would say that we need a consistent offensive presence in the 1/2/3 position to relieve the pressure on the inside and give our existing front men some breathing room.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                          Originally posted by BillS
                          Everyone keeps saying "we gotta trade for a big, we gotta trade for a big".

                          Let me throw a monkey wrench into the discussion.

                          I still maintain (and bear in mind I missed the Dallas and San Antonio games) that our lack of ability to score on mid-long range jumpers is what is killing our post and under-the-basket game.

                          As long as we can't hit the broad side of a barn from outside, teams are free to collapse in toward the middle, cutting off passing lanes (thus no ball movement except on the perimeter) and preventing easy lay-ins or dunks - not to mention blocking anyone who might accidentally be around for an offensive rebound.

                          This isn't double-teaming, just a lane-centric defense that challenges us to hit our outside shots, which we then oblige by bricking.

                          I would say that we need a consistent offensive presence in the 1/2/3 position to relieve the pressure on the inside and give our existing front men some breathing room.

                          It wasn't just on O that we needed the big tho BillS. Nobody came close to containing Duncan and when they did Parker or the their other BIGS would simply take the pass and do what they wanted. They had 0 fear of driving the lane becasue JO was so busy coevering for everybody he couldn't help with anybody. We simply do not have enough CAPABLE bigs to match up. It just was not last night either, Cleveland and Dallas had previously shown that they have no fear of our interior defense. We do not have enough inside presence to deter anybody right now.
                          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                            But wouldn't you say we had the same flaw with Ron? Or is it that Ron allowed us to team defend the four other players on the floor Ron wasn't defending, so we could afford to double the big and our lack of size didn't hurt us?

                            At this stage, especially when we're playing teams that have scoring monsters, I'm willing to give up some points. In fact, against Dallas we weren't allowing every single point to go in - 47% isn't a runaway offensive game for Dallas - we just couldn't hit our own opportunities. What is happening is that we aren't able to score the points we need to keep up because we can't hit outside shots and therefore can't drive to the basket because it's clogged with guys who have position. For instance, against SA we shot 11 fewer free throws - that tells me we weren't being aggressive.

                            We already have some big guys we can throw at teams like SA in order to keep them away from the basket - Rick isn't using them for whatever reason, possibly because they don't add anything on offense and we already hurt too much at that end.

                            Against Cleveland, it seemed like we were able to get stops but then we couldn't take advantage of them offensively. That's why I think we're focusing at the wrong end.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                              I've never really understood how Foster is a starter in the NBA.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Well you knew I would bring this up

                                Originally posted by indygeezer
                                It wasn't just on O that we needed the big tho BillS. Nobody came close to containing Duncan and when they did Parker or the their other BIGS would simply take the pass and do what they wanted. They had 0 fear of driving the lane becasue JO was so busy coevering for everybody he couldn't help with anybody. We simply do not have enough CAPABLE bigs to match up. It just was not last night either, Cleveland and Dallas had previously shown that they have no fear of our interior defense. We do not have enough inside presence to deter anybody right now.
                                If you have solid perimeter defense you don't need to deter anyone.
                                I guess the real question is what do you want?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X