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

12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

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

  • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

    Props to JOB for putting Roy back in the game at the end. He had a huge tip in that almost won the game for us, then a big rebound the next play.

    He blocked Duncan but unfortunately Timmy got the rebound and traveled his way to a dunk.

    I would have liked to see Roy take the last shot and try to win the battle with Duncan in a spectacular way. TJ's shot just didn't fall.

    But JOB was right to play Roy down the stretch.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

      I missed the game and didn't watch until the last 5 minutes but it looked like the typical Pacers: sizable lead, then the opponent goes on a run and the pacers lose a close one. Somebody else other than T.J. should have taken that shot.
      Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

      Comment


      • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

        Even though we lost I thought we did pretty well and competed. I wish someone else would have taken the last shot. I cringed when I saw it was TJ. I was hoping to see Brandon or Dunleavy taking that shot. The slam that Timmy had at the end was typical of a future HOF player in what they do. Roy played it well but was just not enough to stop him on the play. I was glad to just see us hanging with them. The loss does suck, but it may help us down the road confidence wise.

        Comment


        • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

          From 1:30, we had 4 shots. TJ took three of them and missed all of them. Roy hit the other.

          TJ was 4-4 in the 3rd, 2-7 (of 17 total Pacer shots) in the 4th. Watson should have been back in.


          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

          Comment


          • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

            Deja vu!

            A few years back, last in the season against the Spurs in Indy, same score (100-99), but we won because of Jamaal Tinsley's layup.

            Who else remembers?

            Comment


            • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

              Three Trophies of the Game

              Bronze:
              T.J. Ford. - His performance was very good and it helped us get back into the game when the second half started. He played well in the fourth quarter and defended well. He made some well needed fadeaway baskets in closing minutes. His final shot for the win was really upsetting to many because he was able to get in closely towards the rim.

              Silver:
              Troy Murphy - He defended well and it's good to see from him. He shot/scored very well finishing with 21 points, but no double-double tonight. Fell 3 rebounds short of it. He really bodied up Tim Duncan in the paint and around the post which is showing that he's doing what every big man should do and he's been a help there. He picked up some late game fouls forcing him to the bench.

              Gold:
              Roy Hibbert - He had a very aggressive and powerful game tonight. He did his best to over power Tim Duncan in the paint. He tied his career high again finishing with 20 points and also had 6 blocks. He bodied up Duncan throughout the game and played very good post defense and was a beast offensively inside the paint and around the outside. This is the kind of performance from Roy that will help us win games. Solid game he had tonight and hope to see more from him.

              We have some pretty tough games coming so I'm really hoping that we don't turn this 2 game skid into an even larger streak.

              We host the Bucks at home Monday night and they've looked pretty good, but we need to show them who's boss and not let them come in and beat us at home.

              Comment


              • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                Did anyone hear Mark Boyle and Slick tonight? I tuned in during the 4th quarter. It seemed like Slick was having a hard time keeping his cool as the pacers lost the lead. He pretty much was calling out JOB for extremely poor coaching down the stretch. Mark even asked at one point why JOB would keep TJ in when TJ was just taking shots and not even attempting to get some form of offensive scheme going.
                Last edited by IndySDExport; 12-20-2009, 02:54 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                  Was it that the rest of the guys were not making themselves available, or does TJ not look to pass. It seems like there was an eternity when Roy was out and several times down the floor there was minimal passing if any? This was about the time we started trading buckets and the lead slowly escaped them.
                  ! Free Rick Sanchez !

                  Comment


                  • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                    I don't care how good TJ was tonight hitting all those shots. The Pacers lost a big lead and ultimately the game when TJ played. Put Watson in with 7 min to go in the 4th and the Pacers win this game.

                    It absolutely frustrates me to no end to see him play 1/2 the 3rd qtr and the entire 4th. Watson had a terrific game and JOB refused to put him back in. Watson deserved to finish this game and he never got the chance. I think of all the games this year, this one has frustrated me the most.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                      I don't know why people are complaining about TJ taking the last shot. IMO he's the go-to guy in the clutch for this team, including when Granger is in the lineup. That fade-away jumper nailed the coffin for a few teams last year and he makes it more often than not.

                      He's the only player capable of creating enough space between him and his man by himself to get a good look at the final shot. When you only have a few seconds you don't have time to pass the ball around and get Granger or Dunleavy open...you need somebody who can create their own shot. TJ is the only player on the roster capable of doing this. He had a very good look and it was a high percentage shot that just didn't fall for us this time. Can't get them all. I think it was a solid look. He could have taken his time a little more and maybe got in a couple more feet, but it was solid regardless.
                      Lifelong pacers fan

                      Comment


                      • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        #1 reason why JOB is not a reliable coach, I would have been 10K bucks that it was going to be TJ drive to his right side 1 legged fade jumper. Everyone in the NBA knew that was the play.

                        His name is Dunleavy. You F*****N in bounds with him to Rush or Roy, fake some play with another cut when really you are looking for Mike to step in and go about 3 feet inside the arc for the return pass jumper as he's moving toward the rim.

                        That play wins the game, I feel as confident about that as I did that they would go to TJ and it would fail.


                        TJ has hit some winners? Of course he has. He takes damn near every single late shot. A broken clock is right twice a day too.


                        I disagree, Mike wasn't hitting anything and Quinn kept saying he was tired, which he looked very tired to me, I have no problem with Ford's shot, he makes that a good % of the time, there wasn't going to be a better shot. If I was the coach I would have called the exact same play and against a Spurs team I would have been happy with the shot Ford took

                        Comment


                        • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                          Originally posted by TM3 View Post
                          WTF was Troy late in the game!!!!!!!!!

                          He was replaced by Roy with over minutes to go, (did he come back in at all?) Besides Troy was shooting rather well last night

                          Comment


                          • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                            Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                            From 1:30, we had 4 shots. TJ took three of them and missed all of them. Roy hit the other.
                            Yeah, I was trying to figure that out. People kept saying TJ should have taken the last shot because he was hitting everything, but it sure seemed like he'd missed a lot of shots right up until then.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I disagree, Mike wasn't hitting anything and Quinn kept saying he was tired, which he looked very tired to me, I have no problem with Ford's shot, he makes that a good % of the time, there wasn't going to be a better shot. If I was the coach I would have called the exact same play and against a Spurs team I would have been happy with the shot Ford took
                              Sorry, but that wasn't a play.

                              A play would be drawing something up, not giving it to the PG and saying "Good luck."

                              Comment


                              • Re: 12/19/2009 Game Thread #25: Pacers at Spurs

                                Personally, I agree that I would have liked seeing Earl come back down the stretch. The comments about TJ's ineffectivenes the last four minutes or so being why. I think we play better as a team with Watson, particularly in terms of offensive flow and defense.

                                That said, Ford was productive and played very well during the 3rd quarter and well into the fourth. I thought the lineup rearrangements worked well and hope they continue. TJ will undoubtedly be expected to score if he remains with the second unit. If he can somehow negotiate his scoring responsbility with keeping others reasonably involved and not completely compromising offensive flow, I actually think he could shine in that role.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X