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

Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

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

  • #16
    Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

    Originally posted by crunk-juice View Post
    well when he saw it was closed off he needs to know. he had 3 seconds.
    Anthem mentioned it......there isn't enough time for a rebound....so why Foster was out there in the first place is questionable. If we needed a Big Man passer out there, I would much rather have Rasho....at least he can hit that shot.

    Either way....this is one of those prime examples of a decent play being written up that was simply disrupted. It looked like if Dunleavy was freed up and got the ball, he would have either shot the ball over Sasha or he would have quickly drove to the hoop since the lane was open.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

      Jack is what he is, a backup point guard. No more, no less. If he was more consistent he would be a starting point guard. O'Brien is not utilizing him correctly, and it showed. However, he's also tied with the fact that Ford is hurt, a team needs at least 2 point guards. Of course him guarding Kobe is inexcusable, I alluded to that fact in my Free Brandon Rush post.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

        Originally posted by theboyjwo View Post
        Seriously? That is how you play out the final 2 possessions? Put a small Fry on the games best player and give him essentially an open jumper? Then pass it to the worst offensive player on the team, and let him try to create a play? JOB YOU ARE WORTHLESS. How do you not draw up a play for dunleavy, murphy, even Jack? What the heck enters his mind to think he can draw up a gimmick play on the final possession against one of the best teams int he league! Just throw the freaking game away! Bizzaro world. How do we have a great final play in Phx, and 2 days later, this crap!
        He did draw a play up for Dunleavy, problem was Foster was invovled. There isn't a single poster on this board that would of put rasho or troy in that play instead of foster.

        Why doesn't Larry Bird just coach this team?
        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

          Stephen Graham did well on Kobe on a few possessions.
          *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

            I rarely voice my opinion, but here goes:

            1. Having Jarrett Jack guarding Kobe -- or even having Jack on the floor in the last four minutes when his IQ automatically falls 50 points -- is indefensible.
            2. Granger committed three of the dumbest fouls I've ever seen him commit -- reaching in on Kobe is like $%#^^ing the queen of England out in the front yard of the palace.
            3. Foster has been terrible of late, and hustle doesn't make it OK. He should never have been on the floor when a team needs two points to put it into OT or a 3 to win. You need five shooters out there, and we had three.
            4. This one's on JOB.

            Thank you. I needed to vent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
              jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers. dunleavy? nopest. jack did an okay job but there's only so much he can do at 6'2" we should have probably brought help.
              I know that BRush is a rookie and is prone to make some mistakes....but Jack on Kobe was a very bad matchup.....nearly every possession at the end of the game for Kobe that Jack was guarding him was an automatic score.

              I could see that Jack was doing his best to defend Kobe......but in the end...he was just posting him up and shooting over him.

              Don't get me wrong....I'm not saying put BRush on Kobe because I'm some BRush homer....I just don't see how BRush could have done any worse then Jack against Kobe who was having his way with him. At least the size advantage would have been negated.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers.
                i
                I think I would rather have had Graham on him -- he's at least tall enough and jumps enough to get a hand in Bryant's face and make it somewhat difficult for him. I agree no one on the Pacer roster is a guaranteed stop on Bryant.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                  My opinion:
                  I think Jack deserves a break. Terrible game, terrible decision-making? Maybe. But should we blame him for not defending Kobe to the point where he misses? I don't believe we should.

                  Still can't get over that final play - but I do have to go to work tomorrow, so goodnight all.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                    My opinion:
                    I think Jack deserves a break. Terrible game, terrible decision-making? Maybe. But should we blame him for not defending Kobe to the point where he misses? I don't believe we should.
                    You're right, Jack isn't the one to blame. But who is responsible for him being out there in that situation? JOB.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                      Originally posted by Cherokee View Post
                      I rarely voice my opinion, but here goes:

                      1. Having Jarrett Jack guarding Kobe -- or even having Jack on the floor in the last four minutes when his IQ automatically falls 50 points -- is indefensible.
                      2. Granger committed three of the dumbest fouls I've ever seen him commit -- reaching in on Kobe is like $%#^^ing the queen of England out in the front yard of the palace.
                      3. Foster has been terrible of late, and hustle doesn't make it OK. He should never have been on the floor when a team needs two points to put it into OT or a 3 to win. You need five shooters out there, and we had three.
                      4. This one's on JOB.

                      Thank you. I needed to vent.


                      thank you..................I agreed with this
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                        Ok i think i've vented enough, I just want to say that I would have Dunleavys child in a heartbeat. He is just such a fluid player. His passing is incredible, shooting is great and he just makes great decisions. I am so glad to have him back and I REALLLLY hope we can go on atlease a five game winning streak at some point this season. My psychiatrist says if the pacers win five games in a row he can cut back my medications and I can sleep again.


                        I mean what uppp
                        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                          Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                          jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers. dunleavy? nopest. jack did an okay job but there's only so much he can do at 6'2" we should have probably brought help.

                          Oh I would have totally had Dunleavy on Kobe. Everyone knows in that situation Kobe gets the ball and runs down the shot clock and fires a jumper. Dun is 6'-9". Makes for a way tougher shot.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                            oh well. seriously people - we've played the lakers twice and the games have been decided by a total of THREE points. we got insanely lucky on troy's tap. we got insanely unlucky not even getting a shot off and having granger on the bench. i'm actually pretty encouraged by this -- i know we hate moral victories but honestly i was expecting to be blown out like the second celtics game. we played well without having TJ or Quis. mike had a solid second game (minus that stupid TO when granger got his 5th) danny had a pretty good game, troy had a great game... let's finish out the trip with wins in oakland and salt lake.
                            I know we lost this game, but I will agree with you on this.....we played the Lakers 3 times and we were able to stay in the game until the end. That's the only silver lining.....we've given the Lakers a run for their money 3 times this season.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Anthem mentioned it......there isn't enough time for a rebound....so why Foster was out there in the first place is questionable. If we needed a Big Man passer out there, I would much rather have Rasho....at least he can hit that shot.
                              yeah but there would have been time for a tip and feisty gets off the ground much better than rasho piedlourde. also, it isn't like jeff is a terrible passer so i understand having him out there. i'll say rasho is a better one but i don't think i would have drawn up a pass play like that anyway.

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Either way....this is one of those prime examples of a decent play being written up that was simply disrupted. It looked like if Dunleavy was freed up and got the ball, he would have either shot the ball over Sasha or he would have quickly drove to the hoop since the lane was open.
                              basically

                              Originally posted by Cherokee View Post
                              I think I would rather have had Graham on him -- he's at least tall enough and jumps enough to get a hand in Bryant's face and make it somewhat difficult for him. I agree no one on the Pacer roster is a guaranteed stop on Bryant.
                              graham hadn't done a bad job but this is the end of the game, the last thing we needed was an inexperienced BRush or Graham giving bryant an open lane by gambling. did about as well as could be expected - or at least as well as you could have expected BRush or Graham to do.

                              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                              My opinion:
                              I think Jack deserves a break. Terrible game, terrible decision-making? Maybe. But should we blame him for not defending Kobe to the point where he misses? I don't believe we should.

                              Still can't get over that final play - but I do have to go to work tomorrow, so goodnight all.
                              i thought jack had a fairly poor game offensively but the last play was fine. it was the best we could do and we still had a shot to win or tie the game.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                I can....he wasn't expecting to shoot....he was expecting to quickly pass the ball to Dunleavy...and when the avenue was closed off by Sasha...he wasn't prepared to shoot.
                                And a professional basketball player needs to be prepared to shoot in that situation. Always.

                                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                                jack was on the floor because we didn't have anyone else to put on bryant. are you going to put rush on him? nope. graham? nopers. dunleavy? nopest. jack did an okay job but there's only so much he can do at 6'2" we should have probably brought help.
                                This is what I would have posted if I didn't use capital letters. Jack played him fine. Kobe's just taller, stronger and can make that 15-foot fadeaway in his sleep. But he would have gotten by any of Rush, Graham or Dunleavy and either gotten all the way to the hoop or pulled up once he got them off-balance and made just as much space for him to get off a clean look as he did by simply overpowering and outjumping Jack.
                                Last edited by JayRedd; 01-10-2009, 01:50 AM.
                                Read my Pacers blog:
                                8points9seconds.com

                                Follow my twitter:

                                @8pts9secs

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X