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 hawks postgame thread

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

  • Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

    I had some unbelievable seats for this game, 5th row section 15. Let me say that Hansbrough was the only reason I didn't leave after the second half. Hansbrough and Head were the only players that decided to actually try to win this game, everybody else was going through the motions.

    I was with my father who has not watched the Pacers at all this year, however he used to coach high school basketball and knows a thing or two about the game. Here are some quotes from my father, again..someone who has not followed this team AT ALL.

    "Can Dunleavy jump."

    "When did Troy Murphy get 19 points!"

    "Hansbrough sure doesn't look like a rookie"

    "Who drafted Brandon Rush:

    "Ford can score the ball"

    "Roy has a nice touch, is he injured? He should play more."


    To me it was very interesting to watch the game with someone who was completely uneducated on this Pacers team. We both had a blast watching Hansbrough play. I kept screaming "Hansbrough is too much for the Hawks." He really was, not only could Josh Smith not even come close to guarding Hansbrough, Hans was the only guy who even remotely came close to altering any of Horfords shot attempts.

    TJ Ford off the bench is a no brainer and it needs to stay that way, regardless.

    Bottom line is Hawks are a much better team than us, I am just glad Hansbrough made the game worth the price of admission.
    Last edited by Jon Theodore; 12-26-2009, 11:56 PM.
    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

  • #2
    Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

    the hawks are the worst matchup in the nba for us

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

      I was at the game as well. I agree that Tyler played very well. Witnessed some very disconcerting things though. First, today I noticed several people screaming catcalls against the Pacers. We were in the lower level. Heard one guy shout that he would not have come if he hadn't received free tickets. Pretty much hollered non-stop, with nary a good thing to say even when the team fought back to within a few points. Was waiting for the first profanity so I could get security to have a chat with that fellow. Clearly this person should have stayed at home. But it was really disappointing to hear such negative sentiments yelled from several different pockets around me in Sections 18 and 20. This is the first time that I noticed such anti-team sentiment, at least at this level, at the game. Second, even though Foster was listed as "day to day," I did not see him on the bench in a suit or otherwise.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

        Considering Hans played 31 minutes, we lost to the Hawks by 23 points in 17 minutes he was not on the floor. Your eyes were not deceiving you.

        Interestingly, Murphy in 28 minutes...at least 11 minutes shared with Hans...had a negative 25 point outing against the Hawks. That is just amazingly bad.

        Oh, and Dunleavy scoring 2 points in 24 minutes tells me his career is over. I hope I'm wrong about that.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

          I was there too, great seats, row 11 section 6. Forget the matchups, we just can't defend the middle vs anyone. I realize I am much lower on Hibbert than many on this board. His defense is beyond dreadful, and with the size of his feet I can't see it improving. He has made players such as Jason Thompson, Al Horford, and Andrew Bogut look like franchise players. Sure, he does have nice touch and is a decent offensive center, but we routinely allow average players to look amazing against us in the paint. The problem lies with the slow foot speed of Murphy and Hibbert.

          Hansbrough was good. Rip him for 20 shots if you wish, but who else out there did you feel comfortable with shooting the ball? Tyler getting the ball at the elbow and either squaring up and shooting it, or creating space was our best offense tonight.

          Ford had one of his best games of the season tonight. He was under control for the most part and created space for his shot. He wasn't chucking and played at a nice speed for the most part. Overall a pretty good performance in an otherwise terrible season for Ford.

          Murphy had his typical above average offensive, beyond horrible defensive game. He is in the same boat with Hibbert IMO. Yes, Hibbert is younger, but I highly doubt he will ever be an above average center in this league with his hideous defense. Murhpy can not guard anyone either. It is sad to see the Pacers start getting some consecutive baskets, but not be able to cut into the league because they can't guard anyone. Oh well, this will not get better until the Murphleavy contracts expire or they are traded.

          Dun needs to take some time off as well. I don't know his issues, but he is really hurting the team being out there. I think this is fairly obvious to those who have followed the team the past week or so. Head probably deserves to get a look on an everyday basis as does Price/McRoberts. These guys probably won't knock anyone's socks off, but they are young and it would be nice to take an inventory and see what we have. Plus, really how much worse could Price and McRoberts do than the guys in there now? I am not saying play them 30 minutes a night, but 5-10 depending on how they are doing makes sense, especially considering how bad the season is going.

          Thats pretty much it from here.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

            Hansbrough is gonna be one hell of a player by next year.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

              This was the worst game i've ever been to. This team looked like elementary kids facing an NBA team out there. The ball handling was that of a armless man out there on our side and the passing stunk up the entire building. I'm sorry but looking at this team, I feel as if this team would be lucky to play in the D-League. It's just one game, but it was pretty awful out there.

              I'm starting to wonder if Dunleavy is playing hurt. He hasn't been getting back on defense and his passing looks lazy/tired, along with his jumpshot. He needs to take a few days off and rest. He doesn't even need to be practicing in my honest opinion. I don't think he's seriously hurt I just think he needs some major rest. If I was Dunleavy I couldn't wait 'til the all-star break.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                I enjoyed Tyler tonight. The only thing he badly needs to figure out is his shooting %. If he figures out a way to shoot 45+% consistently, we've got something pretty nice on our hands. He can put up points, he can play D, he can get you boards, he battles the entire time, he's tough as anyone, and he has no hint of bad attitude about him. Easy guy to love playing for your team.

                I was surprised to see Luther had 19 points. Didn't feel like it. Still, he's someone I generally like to see getting time.

                I'm officially concerned about Mike Dunleavy.

                I don't feel like discussing more individual players, but I will say this about our team: Having a motion offense is the right call. However, having it be read-and-react versus set plays is a mistake. It's painfully obvious this team needs a lot of structure. Too often the offense they try to run ends up doing more harm than good.

                It's kind of the antithesis of last year: Last year we all talked about the defense not being the right fit for the players we were asking to run it. This year, the offense isn't the right fit for this group to handle effectively or consistently.

                Don't get me wrong, some of these guys can handle it, but the rotations as a whole cannot.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                  It is somewhat sad when we're here getting excited about guys like Luther Head and Tyler Hansbrough. Sure, Luther can be a spark off the bench and Tyler could be a decent NBA player, but we're terribly devoid of talent. This is such a throwaway year. I'm so depressed about the Pacers.

                  Dunleavy, Ford, Murphy, don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                    Why all of the Dunleavy hate all of a sudden? The guys proven he's a very good talent capable of putting up 20/5/5 on any given night. He's good enough to be a good starter on a 50+ win team.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                      Why all of the Dunleavy hate all of a sudden? The guys proven he's a very good talent capable of putting up 20/5/5 on any given night. He's good enough to be a good starter on a 50+ win team.
                      Dunleavy is a good player. Granger is the other good player. Those two carried this team to a half-way respectable record 2 years ago.

                      Yes, our record reflects our talent level...but I think the injuries to Dun and Granger now are why we are not closer to .400.

                      Yes, this team...even if 100% healthy...would struggle to be .500. When both Dun and Granger are injured, they are lucky to beat the worst teams in the league.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                        Why all of the Dunleavy hate all of a sudden? The guys proven he's a very good talent capable of putting up 20/5/5 on any given night. He's good enough to be a good starter on a 50+ win team.
                        just frustration after this game. he was pretty much the reason we got off to a slow start. (so many turnovers lead to easy baskets)
                        Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                          Give me 12 guys with the talent level, attitude, and how do I want to describe this, ferociousness of Tyler Hansbrough and I'll compete with anyone on a given night.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Considering Hans played 31 minutes, we lost to the Hawks by 23 points in 17 minutes he was not on the floor. Your eyes were not deceiving you.

                            Interestingly, Murphy in 28 minutes...at least 11 minutes shared with Hans...had a negative 25 point outing against the Hawks. That is just amazingly bad.

                            Oh, and Dunleavy scoring 2 points in 24 minutes tells me his career is over. I hope I'm wrong about that.
                            I think your over-reacting about Dun a bit. ATL forced him to create his own shot to perfection. We as Pacers fans know he gets his shots off the ball and they shut him down. I'm pretty sure ATL is pretty good.

                            +\- on Murphy isn't all his fault. Hawks announcers said it best when they said Murphy was the only bright spot in the entire starting line-up. Some of Murphy's +/- woes are due to the fact that he plays in several different rotations. The team is so bad he's bound to suffer night in an night out in that category. The last ten games Murphy has put up 19 pts. and 11.5 rebs. a game, so his clearly doing what he does best. Plus, Murphy is twice the defender than our loved but undeserving bum of a center Hibbert. Constantly I hear Murphy and Ford hate that is undeserving. Yeah, they are seriously flawed, but. Dahntay, Watson, Hibbert and Rush kill this team night in and night out. Offensively those guys just flat out stink, and Dahntay and Watson are over-rated as defenders. I will gladly debate my stance because we need to place blame where the true problems lie.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                              Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
                              I think your over-reacting about Dun a bit. ATL forced him to create his own shot to perfection. We as Pacers fans know he gets his shots off the ball and they shut him down. I'm pretty sure ATL is pretty good.

                              +\- on Murphy isn't all his fault. Hawks announcers said it best when they said Murphy was the only bright spot in the entire starting line-up. Some of Murphy's +/- woes are due to the fact that he plays in several different rotations. The team is so bad he's bound to suffer night in an night out in that category. The last ten games Murphy has put up 19 pts. and 11.5 rebs. a game, so his clearly doing what he does best. Plus, Murphy is twice the defender than our loved but undeserving bum of a center Hibbert. Constantly I hear Murphy and Ford hate that is undeserving. Yeah, they are seriously flawed, but. Dahntay, Watson, Hibbert and Rush kill this team night in and night out. Offensively those guys just flat out stink, and Dahntay and Watson are over-rated as defenders. I will gladly debate my stance because we need to place blame where the true problems lie.
                              I don't think he is overreacting at all. Dun was 2-17 against Milwaukee this Monday. What are you going to say about that? Charlie Bell was a lock down defender too? Dunleavy has looked horrendus for a week now.

                              And enough with the excuses for Murphy's terrible plus minus. The major reason it is so bad is because he can't play anything resembling defense when he is on the court.

                              No doubt Hibbert should be in the same category as Murphy though. He shows signs offensively, but will ultimately stop no one. Easy with Dahntay though, he is making less than 3 million per year for 4 years. He has given us pretty good bang for the buck considering he was signed to be a complimentary player.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X