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 vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

    Originally posted by Kofi View Post
    I don't wanna alarm anybody, but I'm starting to think we suck.
    someone had to say it...I mean we played really well tonight. And even then we still can't win a game on our home court.
    Ps. Our defensive schemes suck
    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

      Originally posted by Shade View Post
      I wasn't totally sure, but you've convinced me.
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

        That final play was horrible. "Like them contested"? Hey, maybe try to get one that isn't contested for one of your hot players with, I don't know, A PLAY?

        This was a pass and screen, jack up so early in the clock that if you hit it you are still going to lose. 13 seconds left. It was dumbfounding.

        Not only that, but down 4 they run it up, passed to a now wide open Rush where it was critical to get a shot up ASAP since you still need to foul and score again. What's Rush do this time? Passes back to Diener. I mean good lord WTF?!?!


        Murphy, Danny, Foster, Quis - outstanding. Quis found his inside scoring magic again, he's coming out of that slump.

        Troy is playing out of his freaking mind. He's been as good lately as he was poor for the first few months. I'm really impressed. I assume it's just a streak, but I hope it's more than that.

        I mean I'm really happy when I see him out there and getting the ball. The guy has a dunk off dribble in about every game the last 2-3 weeks it seems.

        Poor Danny, seems like he's asked to do nearly everything at both ends. He was clearly frustrated near the end of the game, and I think it was with his own team.


        JOB - don't defend that last play call because it was an identical match for the horrible offense of the entire 2nd quarter. No plays, all cheap isos, bad. And I know they have plays because he did sneak some in from time to time.

        I did like him going zone in the 4th, that seemed to help. They also closed or defended the corner much better than they have been.


        Diener - train wreck of a game. Ford looked his best when he just iso'd on him.

        Rush, Dun - continue to slump and have low impact on games. Rush's line was saved by a few early makes. I couldn't tell you when Dun got any of his numbers in this game. I could tell you when he helped guys like Delfino get his.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

          Do you guys actually think that JO'b got the shot that he wanted on the last possession? He's stupid if he did, and I don't think he's stupid. I'll give it to you that there wasn't much of a play run, but we should be killing Rush just as much as we are O'Brien. He's the one that took a contested shot with 13 seconds left in the game. It's not like Jim said "Kareem, you take this shot no matter what, and I want you to take it with some time left so they have a chance to win." Rush should have passed the ball, we had 3 other decent shooters on the floor.

          My main O'Brien complaint of the night was that Murphy was guarding Bosh while Granger was guarding Bargnani. I know that Danny's not a great post-defender, but it's not like Murphy is either. Also, when Foster came in the game, Murphy was still on Bosh a lot. Later in the game, Dun was guarding Bosh. I know our defense involves a lot of switching, but that's a bit ridiculous.

          I'm getting sick of our defense. I watch Purdue or the Pistons play and I see 5 guys playing aggressive man-to-man defense and creating turnovers and contesting nearly every shot. Then I watch Carlos Delfino shoot at least 5 wide open 3 pointers with no one even in sight of him. I don't want a system that compensates for poor individual defensive players. I want good individual defenders.

          I'm also sick of all our stupid fouls. Shawne and Kareem are the kings of this. When Williams fouled Delfino at the end of the first half is a perfect example. There was 0.4 seconds left on the clock, Delfino was at a full-bore, out-of-control sprint, and Rush and somebody else were both behind Shawne, ready to contest the shot, but Shawne fouls and Delfino's on the line. He and Kareem also give up a ton of "and 1" plays where they foul the guy on a layup that he'd make even if they tackled him.

          Murphy really needs to develop one go-to move in the post. He's been great with jump shots and off the dribble, but once people figure his game out and start guarding him with smaller guys, he has no way to take advantage of the mismatch. He's young, we should teach him a jump hook.

          Our PG defense, especially on Ford, was terrible and cost us the game, again.

          I have to eat a little crow and say that Calderon's defense is not quite as good as I thought it was. He does a pretty good job in the half court, but Diener blew by him quite a few times in the open court.

          I keep watching and cheering (actually, swearing is more common), but I'm not sure how much hope I have left.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            Seriously, JOB is a bad coach. Truly bad. We run a Rush ISO down by 3 with 13 seconds left so he can manage a contested 3 attempt? That's our play?

            JOB is a dolt.
            It is not reasonable to call O'Brien a dolt. NBA teams sometinmes win games with a 3-pointer at (or near) the end. O'Brien called for a set that allowed Kareem to shoot as one of several options. If the shot from Kareem had gone in -- as it nearly did -- the Pacers might have won. We have no reason to say that O'Brien called for the exact play that happened.

            Dece implies that O'Brien called for something crazy, like dribbling to the far end and shooting from 100 feet away. That isn't what happened. Post #19 ^^^ looks more reasonably at the last play.

            Anyway, I look at this game and I see Granger's 20-10. I see 5 players with 10 or more points. I see only 8 TOs. I see .933 from the free throw line. Not everything was bad. We are a weak team and we are going to lose most of the time. Why act indignant?
            Last edited by Putnam; 02-26-2008, 10:58 AM.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

              Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
              Do you guys actually think that JO'b got the shot that he wanted on the last possession? He's stupid if he did, and I don't think he's stupid. I'll give it to you that there wasn't much of a play run, but we should be killing Rush just as much as we are O'Brien. He's the one that took a contested shot with 13 seconds left in the game. It's not like Jim said "Kareem, you take this shot no matter what, and I want you to take it with some time left so they have a chance to win." Rush should have passed the ball, we had 3 other decent shooters on the floor.
              That's no fun, and makes entirely too much sense. Away with you, sir!

              However, I can't let O'Brien totally off the hook. I knew we had 0 likelihood of attacking the basket, and said essentially that to Gnome right before the play started. It had a 3 point chuck written all over it. But, that doesn't mean Jim is stupid enough to say what you wrote above, I agree with that 100%.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                After watching the trainwreck of an OT during the Phoenix game with Tinsley, I wouldn't be surprised if JOB just went to the locker room at the end of games and set out a cardboard cutout of himself.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                  Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                  y main O'Brien complaint of the night was that Murphy was guarding Bosh while Granger was guarding Bargnani. I know that Danny's not a great post-defender, but it's not like Murphy is either. Also, when Foster came in the game, Murphy was still on Bosh a lot. Later in the game, Dun was guarding Bosh. I know our defense involves a lot of switching, but that's a bit ridiculous.
                  I keep on saying this.....but I would live with 5 quick fouls from Harrison guarding Bosh in the Low-Post then have Bosh continually own Murphy in the Post. Harrison maybe a "5 quick fouls in 10-15 minutes" type of player....but his wide frame in the Low-Post is very difficult to score on when a player is trying to post him up.

                  I'm not saying that Harrison is any long-term solution to our interior defense until JONeal returns.....but he's a quick stop-gap solution that can be used to cool players down that keep on attacking the post or the basket.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                    Look at the video clip on Pacers.com on Rush's shot and you'll notice only one guy in position to rebound - Granger, Daniels, and Diener were all on the perimeter when the shot went up.

                    Very telling.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                      Wait a second, Troy Murphy got 7 assists? What happened? Did Bill Walton tie up Murphy in a closet and steal his uniform?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                        Originally posted by d_c View Post
                        Wait a second, Troy Murphy got 7 assists? What happened? Did Bill Walton tie up Murphy in a closet and steal his uniform?
                        This was probably Troy's best game of the season. Aside from the assists, one other stat stands out: 0-1 3pts.
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                          If he wanted a different shot, he should have run a different play. I still say it's a dolt move to think that you are going to get a better shot on an ISO than that, in that situation. I mean, what else is going to happen? Rush isn't going to shake and bake anybody in the best case, in this case his defender knows he can't take a 2. It's a bad play, with no vision. There is no defense.

                          If you want to blast Rush for making bad decisions as well, that's fine, but that doesn't make the play any better.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                            Originally posted by Dece View Post
                            If he wanted a different shot, he should have run a different play. I still say it's a dolt move to think that you are going to get a better shot on an ISO than that, in that situation. I mean, what else is going to happen? Rush isn't going to shake and bake anybody in the best case, in this case his defender knows he can't take a 2. It's a bad play, with no vision. There is no defense.

                            If you want to blast Rush for making bad decisions as well, that's fine, but that doesn't make the play any better.
                            The point is that I really don't think that was the play. I think Rush broke the play and took a bad shot. There's no way that O'Brien would call a play that would have a game-tying shot taken with 13 seconds left on the clock. I think the play was to throw it around the perimeter, try to out pass the defense or look for some penetration, and then kick it out to an open shooter. The post about how we had 3 other guys standing behind the 3 point line would lend itself well to this theory.
                            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                            - Salman Rushdie

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                              This was the first Pacer game that I had watched more than a quarter since the first month of the season. I had to know if it was as depressing as I have been hearing it was. I was pleasantly surprised: Daniels had a very good game as did Murphy and Granger. The main problems I saw were on defense. I'm not a pro scout, but even I would expect that if left wide open, Delfino would be able to make a three pointer or two (or three or four). Don't commit stupid fouls (especially with .4 seconds left on the clock). I also agree that we should be able to get a better last shot off than we did. Although I was disappointed in the loss, (all the more because we had a legitimate chance to win) it wasn't a bad game to watch. I guess I'll start watching more often.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Pacers vs. Raptors Post-Game 57: Toronto 102, Indiana 98

                                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                                Seriously, JOB is a bad coach. Truly bad. We run a Rush ISO down by 3 with 13 seconds left so he can manage a contested 3 attempt? That's our play?

                                Murphy plays out of his mind, 17 points on 9 attempts, and he's not even in the game towards the end? Granger, our best player, doesn't even touch the ball on the last possession?

                                Our rotations are bad. Our plays don't exist. JOB is a dolt.
                                Pure garbage.

                                One of my pet peeves is your first paragraph. Any play at the end of the game (or any play any time) has a number of options. (Teams are really starting to key on Granger - please take into account the defense - I'm sure their first instructions from Mitchell were about not letting Granger get the ball) But beyond that I am sure OB did not want Rush to take a contested three in that situation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X