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

Sonics postgame thread

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

  • #16
    Re: Sonics postgame thread

    Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
    And even though he's been playing well, Tinsley's matador defense is not helping.
    I hope you don't mean this game. 4/14 FG is bad bad bad
    Yours truly,
    Israfan, former Lithfan

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sonics postgame thread

      Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
      This is what makes tonight's outcome so difficult. We had Win #3 there for the taking and now we could easily go 2-4 on the trip. Recently, Denver has had there way with us, so I'm hoping we can at least beat the Lakers and come out 10-9 through the tough 19 game opening.

      Very tough loss, but at least we're starting to see different guys hit big shots this year.
      I concur. Not to mention if memory serves correctly we have never been all too successful against the Lakers in their building(s). So the last two games look ominous. If we just do just one of the things UB identifies in the initial post here better throughout the game, we win at Seattle.

      I hope your'e right about the win streak, too. Originally, I thought 10-10 would be acceptable through 20 given the new guys and the early schedule. For me, any notable improvement would come sometime after that if it does.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sonics postgame thread

        Originally posted by ajbry View Post
        But you don't just give the ball to a streaky shooter and expect him to make it if you have Jamaal Tinsley shooting the damn ball like a maniac and not giving your SG any ample opportunities for basically the whole game.
        I don't think they gave him the ball expecting him to even take it, let alone make it. Jack had other ideas to be the 'hero'.

        The king of that mentality tonight was Tinsley; God he had a lot of horrible shots.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sonics postgame thread

          We had no business winning that GS game, sorry. We should have won this one. It's ok. You win some, you lose some. They're still meshing (though that excuse has about one more month before it gets old).

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sonics postgame thread

            What confused me in last night's game was the amount of playing time of Tinsley vs. Sarunas. I know the defense is bad with Runi, but Tins isn't that much better, let's be honest. And, there will be someone point out that Runi got caught in a 8-second violation. But Tinsley couldn't make a shot and was turning the ball over like crazy, while Runi really had his offense going in his short time. In a game that turned into a shootout, we really could have used Runi's offense, not Tinsley's turnovers.

            Jack took a couple bad shots, but his defense was outstanding on RayRay last night.

            JO went out with a hammy tweak, I'm not sure if anyone answered that for the poster who questioned where he was. He played well when he was in, I thought--making the tying basket with 6 seconds left.

            Another great game from Al, though we could have used some rebounding.
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sonics postgame thread

              Hey, I didn't get the chance to see the game last night, so I was hoping you guys could answer some of my questions. First off: Why didn't Sarunas get more PT? According to the box score he was 3-4 for 7 pts, 3 assists, yet only got 16 minutes of floor time. Was it a prime example of Carlisle having more patience with other players than Cabbage's shortcomings, or was there a legitimate reason for his being "benched?"

              Secondly: I really wish people would get off Jack's back. Once again, I didn't get to see the game in question last night, but the guy takes so much flack from people on here, you'd think he was responsible for everything bad in the world. With the possible exception of Danny Granger, he is the best perimeter defender, and to date this season his shot selection has been much better than last year. Also, everyone needs to remember he's got one thing very few (if any?) of the other Pacers can boast of, and that's a Championship ring on his finger. A championship that he had no small part in at that. I really think if we want to win these tight games, he has to be in at the end.

              That's about all I can conjure up from watching the highlights. I wish J'O wouldn't settle for that 16-foot fadeaway in the final seconds, but when it drops there's really nothing to say. The D' was solid on that final shot by Ridenour. Complements to Danny G. It sucks to see that shot go in. Great looking shot though, from an objective stand-point. Go Pacers.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sonics postgame thread

                Tinsley only played 28 minutes - whoch isn't a lot for him. As to why Saras didn't play more - he had a lot of trouble with the Sonics pressure in the first half, so you had to take him out and put Tinsley back in. In the second half Saras was playing pretty well and it looked to me like maybe Rick wouldn't bring Tinsley back in but he did with about 6 minutes left.

                One other point, to start the 4th quarter the Pacers started with DA and Saras in the game and Saras was on Ray Allen and Ray hit two shots, so Rick had to get Jackson back in there. Jackson played great defense on Ray - I cannot stress that enough. Granger defended Lewis very well also.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sonics postgame thread

                  Couple more thoughts here. Despite the frustrating loss, as in most of our losses this year, it was not heavily due to a lack of effort. A good sign. We generally played hard, with the exception of the slow first quarter start. The execution was not good in many areas of course.

                  I was happy to see Baston get some time although sorry it had to come due to JO's absence for much of the 1st half and Foster's foul trouble. While I wouldn't say he really distinguished himself, he didn't hurt us either. He scrapped, ran the floor, and had a good block. I think he could do a decent job off the bench in a consistent 10-12 minutes. Well, I at least wouldn't mind seeing him get the chance to prove it.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sonics postgame thread

                    Baston in some ways reminds me of Foster a little bit (granted I still haven't seen anough of him to really understand his game yet) but he seems to have a nose for the ball and has a good understanding of how to play defense.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sonics postgame thread

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      it is a mixed bad with Jax
                      Couldn't have said it better myself.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sonics postgame thread

                        Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                        What confused me in last night's game was the amount of playing time of Tinsley vs. Sarunas. I know the defense is bad with Runi, but Tins isn't that much better, let's be honest. And, there will be someone point out that Runi got caught in a 8-second violation. But Tinsley couldn't make a shot and was turning the ball over like crazy, while Runi really had his offense going in his short time. In a game that turned into a shootout, we really could have used Runi's offense, not Tinsley's turnovers.

                        Jack took a couple bad shots, but his defense was outstanding on RayRay last night.

                        JO went out with a hammy tweak, I'm not sure if anyone answered that for the poster who questioned where he was. He played well when he was in, I thought--making the tying basket with 6 seconds left.

                        Another great game from Al, though we could have used some rebounding.
                        Saras played 16 minutes. When he gets less than 20 minutes, our winning percentage goes significantly down. (I spent way too much time figuring the stats on this the other day
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Sonics postgame thread

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          On that last play there was a switch and Granger was on Luke, but if you watch the replay Tinsley comes over and is in great position to seal off the lane which would have forced Luke to shoot it right over Granger flat footed or he would have had to pass the ball and I don't think there was enough time to pass the ball. But I don't blame Tinsley for the loss - the loss was a team effort.
                          I'm sure your "I can believe that dumb!@$ Tinsley got a blocking foul with .2 left on the clock" post would've been stellar......
                          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Sonics postgame thread

                            JO seemed pretty clutch from the highlights I managed to see. Scored 2 baskets in the last minute.
                            My Dream Team

                            PG - A.Iverson
                            SG - K.Bryant
                            SF - R.Artest
                            PF - J.O'Neal
                            C - D.Howard

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Sonics postgame thread

                              I watched the whole game on my high tech phone. A loss sucks no matter how you look at it. If we can keep those turnovers down and stay consistant on the D we would win a game like this. We still could've won last night though, Ridnour just hit a crazy shot.

                              Overall I like our confidense now and I love seeing Al play the way he is playing. We are keeping the games close now and on the road that is all you can ask for. I would love to see us win one tonight. Cleveland and Detroit are moving ahead and I so want us to keep up with them and pass them at some point.

                              One more thing, does anyone out there feel like we need to make any trades? Of course the Tinsley and Jackson haters will speak up. I feel like we need another defensive stopper, a Bowen type, someone who can get stops and hit some threes. I am sure there will be various opinions out there...

                              Let's win tonight! It will be tough, but we can do it.
                              Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Sonics postgame thread

                                Originally posted by odeez View Post
                                One more thing, does anyone out there feel like we need to make any trades? Of course the Tinsley and Jackson haters will speak up. I feel like we need another defensive stopper, a Bowen type, someone who can get stops and hit some threes. I am sure there will be various opinions out there...
                                Well, I don't know what we have to offer or who's available, but it we're talking a need for D, then Jack is not somebody who should be moving out. I think it's more a case of a coulple specific factors defensively. (See my thread on area of concern for more details.)

                                Quis, Jack, and Granger are solid wing defenders. JO is good on the interior. Jeff is decent and I honestly think Baston has some potential to contribute defensively. We need better D out of the PG spot as we all are aware. DA gives energy on the ball but is only good for limited spurts.

                                I'm not convinced we couldn't at least try to remedy this in house first by just giving Quis and/or Greene some looks at PG in certain situations or for shorter stints.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X