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

short thoughts from game 3....

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    short thoughts from game 3....

    It's gonna be short tonight because I have to get up in the morning & drive halway across the country. There will also be no post game 4 thoughts either because I won't have access to the net. I'll check-in in the morning for replies.

    Where is our Rasheed Wallace? Who on our team stood up in the locker room after the game & made it a point to make sure that everybody on our team knew we weren't going to lose?

    Now I'm not talking about doing a Sheed & guaranteeing to the press that we won't lose game 4. I'm talking about which player on our team would have the stones to stand up & proclaim we won't lose game 4 to our own players? My guess is nobody.

    ***** all you want about Rasheed & his bravado, but make no mistake. It was a game & quite possibly a series changer.

    If anybody watched the post game press conferance you saw the two faces of the Indiana Pacers with Jermaine O'Neal & Reggie Miller.

    Reggie looked as though he were filled with rage. When asked if he was protesting the lack of calls during the game by kicking the ball into the stands Reggie shot back very tersley that "I just wanted to give little Johnny a souvenir.".

    Reggie was short & very very politely rude to the press.

    J.O. seemed as though he & Sheed had already gotten together after the game for a dime bag. Talk about a lack of any emotion.

    BTW, I'm just using hyperbole about the dime bag. I'm not accusing J.O. of anything. It just seemed like I was watching a guy who had zero emotions about the game. To me he seemed more of a studio commentator than participant. (BTW, this takes nothing away from the game he played it's just the post that I had a problem with).

    We need leadership, vocal athoritative leadership. We need a player who is willing to lay it on the line publicly.

    Again, I'm not asking for a guarantee. I'd just like to see one of our players say we are going to change things in our favor & actually look like they mean it.

    Every post game interview I saw with a player last night seemed awfully defeated.

    Sheed (******* he may be) wasn't defeated after game one, was he?

    Moving on.

    Why Al Harrington isn't being universally praised as an American hero I don't know. This guy is down there in the trenches every night fighting with the Pistons & I think he deserves special credit for it. Sure his pullup air ball was embarassing, but other than that the guy fought & fought & fought. I could not believe after Al & the other bench guys brought the team back that Rick took him out in the 4th. It's a damn shame that next season the guy most likely will not be here.

    Anthony Johnson. Hey, the guy played great. He even ran the offense well. I thought he did a good job of defending Hamilton late in the 4th when the switches were made to him. Not much else to say about him other than he did exactly what we needed to do.

    Austin Croshere. Never has one man been such the target of so many B.S. calls. His sixth foul was complete & totall B.S. The reason I say that is because of everything else they were letting everybody else get by with. Other than that though I though Austin fought all night long as well. His three & dunk could easily have been game breakers for us, but it wasn't meant to be. But for a change it is nice to see him do something other than take up space on the floor during the playoffs.

    I'm going to stop with the individual breakdowns now because of lack of time.

    I'm just going to breakdown something pretty simple.

    The reason the Pistons are beating us is pretty simple really.

    So far all season long we have been able to live & die with two thing.

    1. J.O. being the best big man on the floor (or at least one of the best)

    2. Ron outplaying the other teams small forward.

    Right now J.O. by himself is the best, however he isn't better than the Wallace team combined & with not being able to count on Foster for offense that is hurting us.

    Prince is playing equal to (or IMO better than) Artest. This is a problem as we have not had a consistant third option all season long.

    Right now the Pistons are just outplaying us.

    I'm not writing off the series by any sense, but to have any real chance at pulling this series out game 4 is almost a must.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: short thoughts from game 3....

    Great post, Peck. Great post. 100% dead on. A couple of things:

    I could not believe after Al & the other bench guys brought the team back that Rick took him out in the 4th. It's a damn shame that next season the guy most likely will not be here.
    And he took them out after they brought the team back from a humiliating 1st quarter. I'm glad you said this because this was my initial thought about the game. I didn't say anything because everyone here was praising Rick's "adjustments" so I figured it would fall on deaf ears.


    Where is our Rasheed Wallace? Who on our team stood up in the locker room after the game & made it a point to make sure that everybody on our team knew we weren't going to lose?
    Again, spot on. A friend of mine met me at the bar where I watched the game. He's not even a fan of basketball, he just wanted to catch up. But he said, "That guy's a thug, but say what you will, what he said gets inside people's heads and goes to work on them psychologically."

    That's exactly what Sheed is doing. Getting inside our players' heads and beating us psychologically. And that's where our lack of maturity really starts to hurt us.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: short thoughts from game 3....

      Two reasons why they came out, and at least one was pointed out by the commentators.

      First is that you get that spark from the bench and then you get your starters back in the game to see if they've picked it up. By definition your starters are better than your bench, so you have to play them if you can get any kind of offense from them.

      Second is that most bench players simply aren't used to playing long minutes, especially given how long our bench is and how quickly folks get substituted when we run deep. You still need to rest people.

      Considering the fourth quarter, I think the substitutions were managed pretty well because everyone had the energy to start playing good ball by the end of the game.
      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

      • #4
        Re: short thoughts from game 3....

        Al was so much more effective than Ron in every way.

        I wanted him on the court as much as possible for the 4th quarter. I was actually happy when the double foul was called on Ron and Corliss Williamson, sending Ron to the bench.

        I love Ron's game, but he is in a funk right now.

        Main reasons we lost:

        1) Detroit got 15 layups and dunks. In a game where points are hard to come by, you can't overcome that.

        2) Ron is AWOL on offense

        3) Jermaine is NOT getting enough shots (call me Mr. Obvious)

        4) Tinsley isn't healthy enough to defend adequately or to push the ball

        5) Besides Jermaine, the two guys who can cause the most problems for Detroit are Al and Jonathan. They need more minutes and they need shots.

        6) Our starters cannot get us into that deep of a hole. When it got to 17-10 or so I wanted the bench to get in the game, even though it was only 7 minutes or so into the 1st. It got to double figures before they came in, and the second quarter boost could have come a little earlier if Rick had more confidence in Al, Jon, Austin, and Freddie.
        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

        • #5
          Re: short thoughts from game 3....

          I could not believe after Al & the other bench guys brought the team back that Rick took him out in the 4th. It's a damn shame that next season the guy most likely will not be here.
          Did anyone else here not notice that little run was wearing off just a tad and it was maybe time to bring at least some of the starters back in? No, the bench probably couldn't have done any worse, but the starters that were on the bench were getting VERY fired up. Maybe Rick saw that and thought the starters would respond well to what the bench had done. Also, how bad would have Rick gotten ripped for having his entire bench on the floor in the final minutes of a ECF playoff game?



          That's exactly what Sheed is doing. Getting inside our players' heads and beating us psychologically. And that's where our lack of maturity really starts to hurt us.
          Is it me or does Sheed constantly have his mouth going. I don't think that I've ever seen him NOT talking. That would drive me nuts.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: short thoughts from game 3....

            AL was taken out of the game early in the 4th quarter with the Pacers trailing by 9. He was not part of the group that provided a spark in the 4th.

            Rick went to a jump shooting and quick limeup. He took out hios three post players, and it seemed to work for awhile and I did agree with him bringing back thr starters, although I might have wanted to keep AJ in. But then Tinsley played his best in the last 3 minutes.

            I do not understand why anyone is complaining about the 4th quarter, that was the best quarter they have played all series.

            Peck, I don't care what J.O or Reggie say in the post game pores conference, and yes I watched that whole thing, I did not post one word of critical comments when Sheed guaranteed a victory in game #2, because I thought it was meaningless, and I still think it was. It had no effect on the outcome of game #2.



            far be it from me to support Ron Artest , but I thought he had a good game #3. he took better shots, there were maybe 2 or 3 bad ones usually with the shot clock winding down. But he moved the ball much better. Ron's had to change his game because of the Pistons defense, and I was proud of him for doing so last night. The thing that burns me up is that Ron played games #1 & #2 offensively like he has all season, now that is not effective against the Pistons defense, but so many thought that all of a sudden Ron was holding the ball, and doing things differently, he wasn't. Last night he changed his game offensively.

            Ron has to be on the floor, his defense is needed and his defense was excellent last night

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: short thoughts from game 3....

              I think the Pacers should drop Jeff from the starting lineup and insert Al at PF and move JO to center, or start Croshere at center. It would probably be best to start Croshere because Al is a big part of the 2nd unit and that is working. Either would give JO another guy to pass to who can score.

              The problem is Detroit knows where the ball is going when the Pacers have the ball, in to JO. He then holds the ball to long before making his move. And it's always the same basic move, bump a couple times and then turn and shoot. He needs to shoot on his first move sometimes. Right now he's to predictable. Hold the ball for 5 seconds, then make his move.

              What makes the 2nd unit so effective? Detroit doesn't know where the ball is going and the 2nd unit moves the ball. This is what the starters need to do.

              I really think the Pacers are the better team, but Detroit has more experience and they are playing smarter.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: short thoughts from game 3....

                I wonder if Peck will be back tomorrow?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: short thoughts from game 3....

                  I wonder if Peck will be back tomorrow?
                  I hope he sees my Ladies and Gentlemen... thread.

                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: short thoughts from game 3....

                    I think the Pacers should drop Jeff from the starting lineup and insert Al at PF and move JO to center, or start Croshere at center. It would probably be best to start Croshere because Al is a big part of the 2nd unit and that is working. Either would give JO another guy to pass to who can score.
                    Now we know where Rick got the idea to start Cro.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: short thoughts from game 3....

                      I think the Pacers should drop Jeff from the starting lineup and insert Al at PF and move JO to center, or start Croshere at center. It would probably be best to start Croshere because Al is a big part of the 2nd unit and that is working. Either would give JO another guy to pass to who can score.
                      Now we know where Rick got the idea to start Cro.

                      Nah, read this.

                      Croshere actually won his starting job in the fourth quarter of the Pacers' Game 3 loss, when he helped spark a futile rally that produced 33 points. He hit two shots in the period, a 3-pointer and a driving dunk on Rasheed Wallace. That was enough to convince Carlisle, who told his players after the game he had an idea that could win Game 4.

                      http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/150950-9318-179.html

                      I could say that 'great minds think alike,' but I don't have a great basketball mind.

                      Just a great mind! <giggle, giggle, snort>

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      Working...
                      X