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

Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

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

  • #16
    Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

    I find it absolutely hilarious that people think that the Lakers will beat the Pistons......Even the Pacers are better than the Lakers and Detroit beat them four out of five games.....I know I keep repeating myself but I have never seen a team play defense like these Detroit Pistons......
    I was listening to ESPN radio a couple of hours before the game, and Fred Carter was talking about the personnel changes the Pistons will have to make to have a chance to beat the Lakers next year. That's how much of a forgone conclusion this series was.

    I'm no Pistons fan, but I hope they wipe the floor with these guys.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

      I just hate the party line that he Lakers were just "disinterested" and "took the game off" and "lacked focus"

      and so the Pistons "stole game 1"

      I saw a pretty much tipoff-to-final horn exhibiton of a talented and tough-minded Pistons team TAKING IT TO the Lakers.

      It was fun to watch!



      But even if the Pistons win this, the mediots will puzzle over just why or how the Lakers were distracted too much to take it seriously enough to dispatch the obviously undermanned token representative of the junior varsity conference.
      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


      • #18
        Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

        I hate the Lakers. And I have a lot of respect for Detroit, even though I hate them too. Go east. Represent, baby.
        Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

          By the begining of game one (after the many days of waiting) I had actually begun to hear things like, "If the Piston's struggled with Indiana's defense, wait till they see L.A.'s!" The statements that L.A.'s defense was better than Indiana's grew exponentially the closer the game came to tip-off.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

            By the begining of game one (after the many days of waiting) I had actually begun to hear things like, "If the Piston's struggled with Indiana's defense, wait till they see L.A.'s!" The statements that L.A.'s defense was better than Indiana's grew exponentially the closer the game came to tip-off.






            ed:

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

              I hope after last night no one ever claims LA's D is better than ours again. What a joke.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

                A few comments:

                The LA defense is a joke: if I hate to rate the NBA's best defenses, I'd rate Detroit #1, SA and Indy would tie at #2, and at #4 It'd be a close call between NJ and Houston.

                LA wouldn't rank in my top 15. Name ONE guy on that team thats a defensive stopper. Payton? Malone? George? They're all OFFENSIVE guys. There isn't a JO or an Artest to worry about on LA. Larry Brown made the comment that we had trouble getting used to the fact our shots were so OPEN. A lot of our missed layups were the result of having to take off-balance shots in the LAST series. Once we realize that there weren't any help-defenders on the way, it was smooth sailing.

                Corliss Williamson must be in heaven. No Rodney Rogers, no Al Harrington, no Jon Bender, LA has NOBODY that can check him.

                And Kobe did a great job on Rip, but he just looked WORN OUT from chasing him. In the 4th he had no legs to get by Prince, and everyone knows that you cant shoot OVER him.

                I also, for the first time, saw a VERY worn down Shaq. This isn't minnesota. Ben made him work. Memo made him work. Elden made him work. and yet, shaq dominated. But did you see his SIX turnovers? Most of them were clear signs of fatigue.

                As good as Shaq is, I simply don't think he's in good enough shape to dominate for a full 48 minutes. It looked remarkably like Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy. The Pistons took all of shaq's best punches early, and by the 4th quarter he looked TOTALLY worn out, and we delivered the knockout blow.

                The question in this series isn't wether the Pistons can score enough, its wether the LAKERS can score enough.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

                  In my thread starting post, I asked a question about how good a defender is Prince. No one answered my question, so I guess I will.

                  He defended Artest better than anyone I have seen all season long. Yes they have great help, but his one-on-one defense on Artest was the best I have seen this season, and it is not even close.

                  Then watching Prince do a job on Kobe last night, I started wondering how good is he.

                  Is he the 2nd best small forward defender in the NBA behind Artest, I think he is. KG is not a small forward

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

                    I've been saying it all year, I think Prince will be a 2nd-team all-defensive player in the next 2 years. He isn't overpowering (Richard Jefferson really gives him problems), but he's got physical gifts (wingspan) and great basketball IQ that most defenders don't.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

                      A few comments:

                      As good as Shaq is, I simply don't think he's in good enough shape to dominate for a full 48 minutes. It looked remarkably like Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy. The Pistons took all of shaq's best punches early, and by the 4th quarter he looked TOTALLY worn out, and we delivered the knockout blow.

                      The question in this series isn't wether the Pistons can score enough, its wether the LAKERS can score enough.
                      Yes, because Larry B. has finally learned not to double Shaq and open up everyone else for wide open jumpers and 3 ptrs. Shaq will get 20-40 pts regardless of how many defenders are on him, so why waste a 2nd defender on him. I hope he holds this strategy for the entire series. The Pacers took LA to 6 games in 2000 employing a straight up strategy on Shaq.

                      On the scoring, you might be right. I never thought this could be true, never crossed my mind...time will tell.

                      Water

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense


                        In a sense I tend to agree, the Lakers certainly didn't show the hunger that the Pistons did..throughout.

                        IMO that_ was the difference in game 1 although an argument can be made that the Lakers reflected some rust and lack of team cohesion due to the layoff between series.
                        Meanwhile Detroit was on top of their game with no rust after playing their last game of the ECF's 24 hrs after LA's last game of the WCF's. LA got awfully rusty in only 24 hours difference compared to Detroit. I'm not saying rust wasn't a factor but I have to wonder how Detroit avoided it then?

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense


                          In a sense I tend to agree, the Lakers certainly didn't show the hunger that the Pistons did..throughout.

                          IMO that_ was the difference in game 1 although an argument can be made that the Lakers reflected some rust and lack of team cohesion due to the layoff between series.
                          Meanwhile Detroit was on top of their game with no rust after playing their last game of the ECF's 24 hrs after LA's last game of the WCF's. LA got awfully rusty in only 24 hours difference compared to Detroit. I'm not saying rust wasn't a factor but I have to wonder how Detroit avoided it then?

                          -Bball
                          Well, being from Detroit and the rust belt I'm sure they had some extra WD-40 to chug between series.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

                            I have to admit, I was surprised tonight of how many open looks Detroit got.
                            That is no surprise to me. San Antonio got open shots against them, they just didn't hit them. I don't know about Minnisota bacause I didn't watch that series.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

                              well, i am one who picked lakers in 6. i did so not because i think the lakers are so good but, because i figure they will get most of the calls. i would not be a bit surprised if phil tells kobe to force the issue and drive no matter what. it used to work all the time back in chicago with jordan. he would drive and the refs would bail him out. eventually, key defensive players get in foul trouble. and then on the other side, as much as the refs give kobe beneficial calls, no one has ever recieved the kind of protection jordan recieved back in chicago. this could be a big problem for that coaching guru mr. jackson- actually having to coach. payton being uncomfortable with phil's offense could really hurt the lakers like it did in gm.1
                              i think even though i hate detroit, i will pull for them because i have always liked larry brown and really hate phil jackson. i will never forgive jackson after what he said in the '98' ecf's when he blasted the officiating for doing a munich '72' where the usa got screwed by an international squad of refs and kept giving the russians several underserved chances to win the olympic gold. he is probably the sorest loser i have ever seen or heard. at least his comments got him something like a 10 grand fine and a warning of more severe action if he kept it up.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Maybe it wasn't the Pacers offense

                                well, i am one who picked lakers in 6. i did so not because i think the lakers are so good but, because i figure they will get most of the calls. i would not be a bit surprised if phil tells kobe to force the issue and drive no matter what. it used to work all the time back in chicago with jordan. he would drive and the refs would bail him out. eventually, key defensive players get in foul trouble. and then on the other side, as much as the refs give kobe beneficial calls, no one has ever recieved the kind of protection jordan recieved back in chicago. this could be a big problem for that coaching guru mr. jackson- actually having to coach. payton being uncomfortable with phil's offense could really hurt the lakers like it did in gm.1
                                i think even though i hate detroit, i will pull for them because i have always liked larry brown and really hate phil jackson. i will never forgive jackson after what he said in the '98' ecf's when he blasted the officiating for doing a munich '72' where the usa got screwed by an international squad of refs and kept giving the russians several underserved chances to win the olympic gold. he is probably the sorest loser i have ever seen or heard. at least his comments got him something like a 10 grand fine and a warning of more severe action if he kept it up.
                                i still remember the jordan protection association like it was yesterday. very very painful. anytime he missed his lay up the ref would blow the whistle. there was this time when bird, magic, and jordan were "modeling" for a photo shoot for dream team 1. magic said, "hey larry, don't get too close to Michael... thats a foul".


                                maybe kobe will lose the ball before he goes for the layup. kobe tends to do that alot and isn't near the player jordan was.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X