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

Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

    Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
    wowwww foster didn't play at all!? no wonder we got beat on the damn glass all night!
    If I remember they had a 50-43 rebounding edge. The problem was that they got some key offensive rebounds at the end.

    I don't really get Jim not playing Jeff. Jeff has showed more than Troy. And we are going to be playing small ball which is fine but Jeff is better for it. I mean he will fight, and scrap, and rebound. We don't need Troy out there shooting 3s. The other 4 out there with him can do that.

    Would be a good question for Jim's next show as to why Jeff isn't getting minutes.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

      Good Game pacers.

      Couldnt see the game but it seemed like O'Neal had a great game.
      I AM HOFFIN! CHECK IT OUT!
      Originally posted by rcarey
      I don't need to tell you guys this...but the HoffMann is so much of a man, that he made the word MAN even bigger than it is. He added an extra "n". Because he's just that big of a man. Seriously. And when you combine that kind of manliness with the kind of hoffin that this dude does, you have created a recipe for disaster. A recipe for destruction. A recipe for EVENTUAL WORLD TAKEOVER.
      Because those who are familiar with the process of hoffin, know that it's all about taking over the world. You don't just "huff" when you're "hoffin". Because it's a mindset. It's a way of life. It's a new way of thinking. And you don't just learn it. It's something that you're born with. And this MANN was born with the hoffin in him. GOD BLESS HIS SOUL.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs



        Caption this.

        It's immediately after JT misses the "drawn-up" three at the end that would've tied it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

          Tinsley - Did you see the rack on Stacy Paetz? I could just....

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

            I have seen both games where we went small ball....and I can tell you that I don't like it that much. So far, we have played 2 teams that we could use a Small Ball lineup against.....but I think that the lack of Foster in the Frontline really leaves our interior defense lacking. JONeal can oly do so much....especially if he plays for 30+ minutes and is ( likely ) tired by the 4th QTR. For example, at the end, when JONeal was trying to make it back....the Warriors pushed the ball up quickly and ( I think ) Barnes quickly took the ball to the hoop.

            I think that it made a HUGE difference that Barnes and Biedrins were kept out of the majority of the game until the end. Although Biedrins was being owned by JONeal at first......he had fresh legs to give JONeal problems at the end who appeared tired by the end.

            I don't think that Small Ball lost the game for us....but as we use it more.....I think that we are going to see the same problems that the Warriors have seen when it comes to defense and offense....but multiplied by 2.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

              Originally posted by rommie View Post
              If I remember they had a 50-43 rebounding edge. The problem was that they got some key offensive rebounds at the end.

              I don't really get Jim not playing Jeff. Jeff has showed more than Troy. And we are going to be playing small ball which is fine but Jeff is better for it. I mean he will fight, and scrap, and rebound. We don't need Troy out there shooting 3s. The other 4 out there with him can do that.

              Would be a good question for Jim's next show as to why Jeff isn't getting minutes.
              Ever since we have gone with "Small Ball", we have gone with a more "offensive" lineup where everyone can shoot the ball. Diener has gotten the nod over Owens...and Murphy has gotten the nod over Foster.

              I can see advantages in using Diener....but I simply don't see why Foster can't play at the Center Spot and Murphy playing at the PF spot.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers vs. Warriors Post-Game Thread: Same ****, different day

                I don't know if you could hear it on TV.....but EVERYTIME Dunleavy touched the ball....he was BOOED VERY LOUDLY. At the beginning of the game....he was very passive. He just passed the ball and didn't really seem to get involved on the offensive end until later.

                I really hope that when SJax and Harrington return to Conseco...that they get the same treatment from the half-empty stadium.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                  Thing is the Indy fans have legit beef with Al and Jack. Jack for the obvious multitude of reasons, and Al for the fact that he trashed the organization after he was traded away. Pretty classless. The only crime MDJ committed against the Warriors fans was not living up to his draft pick, but he was boo'd as bad if not worse than Artest or Jackson were boo'd either of their first games back in Indy.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                    I have to wonder why the crowd was just so into booing MDJ. He was nothing but a high class guy while he was there and never said a bad word about the Warrior organization or the fans. My only guess is that it's Oakland fans frustrated from a year of playing russian roulette with QB's.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                      I just came back from the game. Pretty entertaining for most of it.

                      A very good game from the Pacers, Dunleavy and Jermaine. A very solid performance from Granger as well.

                      The Pacers outplayed the Warriors for most of the game. As expected, they did the right thing and packed it in and forced the Warriors to shoot from the outside, which they did poorly for most of the game. They also did a good job of pushing the ball up the floor to create a few open looks after the Warriors scored (essentially giving some of their own medicine).

                      Jermaine physically isn't what he used to be, but he still looks very effective on help defense. He erased shot after shot. Scorer gave him 6 blocks but it seemed like more. Whenever you guys took him out and put Murphy in at center, it was basically a free lane to the basket for the Warriors. In fact I felt having Murphy in there for a couple stretches in each half is what kept the Warriors in the game. Biedrins has a deep thigh bruise from the game against Memphis and Nellie was careful using him. Jermaine mostly had his way inside, but he forced a few shots in the 2nd half against double/triple teams. He's just never been a great passer out of the post.

                      What the game came down to was the Warriors getting offensive rebounds (you guys missed Foster here) and forcing turnovers, which they are usually pretty good at.

                      On the last shot, the Warriors wisened up and kept Granger from getting the open look at the 3, daring Tinsley to shoot it instead. I think Granger is a very solid player with a good looking shot. Judging from just this one game though, he looks like a guy who if I'm playing against would rather force him to put the ball on the floor as opposed to giving him the open look. He's not exactly Clyde Drexler off the dribble when a guy runs at him.

                      As for the Warriors, they played like garbage most of the night. Jackson played with the flu and he stunk, but he's really stunk it up for a couple weeks now. Really, he's being miscast as a #2 option because the W's don't really have anyone else who can step into that role right now. Overall, he's just not a talented enough guy to take on that much of the offensive load, especially when he's got to expend energy guarding the opposing team's best player every night.

                      I thought the Warriors really were going to shop Monta Ellis around the trade deadline, but he's upped his game and is proving to be too valuable right now. He's cut down on his turnovers and improved his mid-range game. He was simply too fast and explosive when he got going for the Pacers to handle. Tinsley's flagrant seemed to fire him up.

                      A good game from the Pacers. Came out looking pretty determined and opened the game with more energy, which is impressive because they were the road team on a back to back. Dunleavy played very well through the boos and silenced the crowd a couple of times with big shots. A good game from him, tho he did miss a pretty key free throw down the stretch. He seemed to get a warm embrace from every one of his Warrior teammates. Good for him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                        Originally posted by mb221 View Post
                        Thing is the Indy fans have legit beef with Al and Jack. Jack for the obvious multitude of reasons, and Al for the fact that he trashed the organization after he was traded away. Pretty classless. The only crime MDJ committed against the Warriors fans was not living up to his draft pick, but he was boo'd as bad if not worse than Artest or Jackson were boo'd either of their first games back in Indy.
                        Although I am very glad that he put up a VERY QUIET but outstanding 18pts/10reb/7assists on 54% shooting from the field....I really think that the booing really affected his game and how aggressive he would be.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                          Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                          I have to wonder why the crowd was just so into booing MDJ. He was nothing but a high class guy while he was there and never said a bad word about the Warrior organization or the fans. My only guess is that it's Oakland fans frustrated from a year of playing russian roulette with QB's.
                          The reason Dunleavy is disliked isn't that simple. It's kind of like explaining why Dunleavy was never any good until this year.

                          First of all, he was high profile coming from Duke (and everyone hates Duke). He was a coach's son. He was the #3 pick. He didn't work for anyone or against anyone in pre-draft camps (Caron Butler was incredibly pissed that Dunleavy went that high w/o working out) but still went high.

                          When he initially played, he stunk and the team struggled. He was the #3 pick who got outplayed by castoff guys like Brian Cardinal and Earl Boykins. He was seen as the guy with the silver spoon in his mouth who got picked #3 because of his Daddy's name and was getting his lunch money taken away by scrubs who were just trying to scrape by in the league.

                          And throughout it all, he'd never say "I need to pick it up." If he and the team were stinking, he'd never accept the accountability publicly. He'd basically infer that "Well, I'm playing the game the right way, so don't blame me." He also made a backhanded comment towards Warriors fans after the trade by saying that he was glad he was finally going to a place where fans understood the game (or something very close to those words).

                          The Summary: Right or wrong, Dunleavy in the Bay Area is viewed as a guy who was made to be important (#3 overall pick), was paid to be important ($45M contract) and wanted to have the status of a guy who was important but didn't want the criticism, expectations and pressure that came along with it.

                          It's not his fault that he was made to be the #3 overall pick. He shouldn't have gone that high. He's simply not that talented of a guy. Being somewhere else means he no longer has that type of pressure and expectation on him and that's probably the biggest reason he's doing better.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                            Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                            I have to wonder why the crowd was just so into booing MDJ. He was nothing but a high class guy while he was there and never said a bad word about the Warrior organization or the fans. My only guess is that it's Oakland fans frustrated from a year of playing russian roulette with QB's.
                            Warrior fans always hated that he underperformed as a Warrior.....they hated that he was inconsistent at times....they hated that he never lived up to being a #3 pick....they hated that he never lived up to the overpaid contract that he was given.

                            They did boo Murphy....but I think it faded as the game got along.

                            The only part that I loved was towards the end of the game where we were close....the crowd was standing and screaming "Defense"...and then Dunleavy got the ball and drained a jumpshot...quickly silencing the crowd.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Warrior fans always hated that he underperformed as a Warrior.....they hated that he was inconsistent at times....they hated that he never lived up to being a #3 pick....they hated that he never lived up to the overpaid contract that he was given.

                              They did boo Murphy....but I think it faded as the game got along.

                              The only part that I loved was towards the end of the game where we were close....the crowd was standing and screaming "Defense"...and then Dunleavy got the ball and drained a jumpshot...quickly silencing the crowd.
                              The main thing is that he underperformed. But on top of that, he kind of gave off the vibe of "It's not my fault because I play the game the right way". He was picked high. A lot was invested in him. Trades were made just to accommodate him. Coaches were hired specifically for him. Lineups were changed just to try to get him going. Through it all, he could just never get going and the view was that he never dug deep enough to try to take the bull by the horns.

                              It just wasn't the right situation for anyone and he needed to go, just like Stephen Jackson.

                              They really don't care that much about Murphy. He got paid big and underperformed but the fans never viewed him as a snob the way they viewed Dunleavy.

                              When Jason Richardson comes to town in a couple of weeks, I expect that this man will get a two minute standing ovation before the game and will probably get another big ovation after the game. Fans will want pictures with him before and after the game. They'll probably have a video tribute. Little kids will probably give him flowers.

                              We're not total haters.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                                BTW,

                                Dunleavy loves us Warrior fans too

                                OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- From Mike Dunleavy's opening introduction to his final missed 3-pointer, the booing Golden State fans let their least favorite player know just how much they still despise him.

                                And after the Warriors finished their 106-101 comeback victory Sunday night over Dunleavy and his Indiana Pacers, the much-reviled forward confirmed that the feeling is mutual.

                                "I wouldn't want it any other way," said Dunleavy, who spent his first 4½ NBA seasons with the Warriors. "I couldn't care less. It's hard to pay attention and care about something somebody says when you have no respect for them. They can do whatever they want."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X