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

2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

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

  • #91
    Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    1. Jared Dudly is strong and physical as hell on defense and on the glass...he is a perimeter shooter on offense but that really wasn't the point. The Suns matched him up with DeJuan Blair and he outplayed him...do you really think he's going to be intimidated by Lamar Odom's size?

    2. Amare has been the best defensive PF in the entire playoffs, bar none. Calling him a bad defender is almost embarrassingly outdated at this point.

    3. Gasol and Bynum are equipped to guard amare? How exactly does that work? Who in the NBA is equipped to guard Amare?

    4. Derek Fisher can check Steve Nash now? Nobody in the NBA has been able to slow him down outside of the Spurs of old, but broken-down Derek Fisher is going to do the job? He tore up Tony Parker with one eye.
    Have I ever told you how unnecessary your condescending nature is? You really don't have to be rude to respond to posts. It's true.

    Dudley guards a lot of SF/tweener PF types. He talked on Simmons' podcast today about guarding Kobe and compared him to other perimeter players he has guarded. I don't think he'll be intimidated by anyone, and never said he would be.

    Agree to disagree on Amare. I'll stop there, but I'd be very interested in seeing someone else's opinion on the matter, because I have seen decent defense at best out of him.

    Gasol and Bynum can guard Amare as well as anyone. I'm not saying they are going to shut him down, but they will make it tough on him with their length.

    No, I did not say Fisher can check Nash. He will guard him, yes, but no one is going to shut Nash down, and I sat there and said in the post that Fisher is still a liability. I'm just saying Fisher has a better chance of staying with Nash on defense than he would a quick PG like Paul, Parker, or Westbrook.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I believe PHO is 1-3 against LAL this year.
      To be fair, one of those losses was pretty close, so while at first blush it seems impressive to say that the Suns only won 25% of their games against LA, they were a few good bounces away from a tied series. Hollinger also had a pretty good analysis a while back showing that regular season record correlates with first-round playoff results, but is not at all predictive after that, so I wouldn't take the 1-3 record that seriously unless you watched the games and have specific match-up or style issues you can take away from them.

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      1. Jared Dudly is strong and physical as hell on defense and on the glass...he is a perimeter shooter on offense but that really wasn't the point. The Suns matched him up with DeJuan Blair and he outplayed him...do you really think he's going to be intimidated by Lamar Odom's size?
      Dudley is strong for perimeter defender. He can body up Dirk, for example. And DeJuan Blair is big and strong, but hardly a primary post option. Really, Lamar Odom is not the issue. Unless you are suggesting that Jared Dudley can guard Gasol or Bynum, IMHO the Suns will have difficulty stopping the Lakers inside game.

      Furthermore, there's more to interior offense than posts-ups. The Lakers have been very strong on the offensive glass, capped off by Gasol's tip-in against the Thunder. They had the fourth-most offensive rebounds during the regular season, and have been even more impressive during the off-season IMHO, . The Suns on the other hand, GAVE UP the second most offensive rebounds during the regular season. I think the Lakers will just abuse the Suns on the offensive glass - lots of second shots and kick-outs to Derek Fisher for open threes. Which brings me to...

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      2. Amare has been the best defensive PF in the entire playoffs, bar none. Calling him a bad defender is almost embarrassingly outdated at this point.
      Well then, fire up the grammaphone and pass me my bifocals, cause I think Amare is a bad defender. The Suns are a much, MUCH better defensive team than they have been - in fact, they are a pretty good defensive team. They are physical on the perimeter, and they trap, help and rotate effectively against perimeter drives. To me, that says a lot more about Alvin Gentry than Amare Stoudemire. Blocking shots is not a sign that someone is a good defender. Being part of a frontcourt that gives up the second most offensive rebounds in the league, however, is worrying.

      Furthermore, do you think Amare can check Gasol or Bynum in the post one-on-one? I don't think he has the defensive awareness or strength, which means the Suns are going to have to double and rotate, which means the Lakers get to play their pass and move game. As I type this, the Lakers are playing a double post offense against the Jazz, controlling the pace and the flow, kicking it around. That's the Laker's game, and I think the Suns lack of post D will make it easy to play that game.

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      3. Gasol and Bynum are equipped to guard amare? How exactly does that work? Who in the NBA is equipped to guard Amare?
      Well, he averaged 20 pts against the Lakers in the regular season, compared to his overall average of 23 ppg, so it's not like he is particularly effective against the Lakers.

      Who in the NBA is equipped to guard Amare Stoudemire? How about a solid defensive team with a couple of good defensive bigs whose length has given everyone trouble? You're right, no one's gonna "shut down" one of the NBA's premier scorers, but that's not how playoff defense works. You make an elite NBA scorer work for his shots, you keep him off the line, you hold him to a low percentage and you work him on the defensive end over a seven game series.

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      4. Derek Fisher can check Steve Nash now? Nobody in the NBA has been able to slow him down outside of the Spurs of old, but broken-down Derek Fisher is going to do the job? He tore up Tony Parker with one eye.
      Steve Nash is playing great right now. I really admire his toughness and grit. Like Amare, I'm sure he'll get his. There's no denying that Phoenix is very, very good. That's why they're in the Western Conference playoffs.

      The thing about saying that Nash and Amare are tough to guard is that, while it's true, it's not the whole story. We could also sit here making cracks about Kobe tearing up Utah with one pinky or Gasol being a seven-foot power point passing point guard. I think the Suns are very, very good. I think they don't match up well with the Lakers inside. I think it will be a tough, close series, but I think the Suns will lose. That's all.

      Most of the things you said are spot on, but the Lakers have advantages too, and at the end of the day, you just make a judgement call about whose advantages outweigh the other's. And there's no reason to take it so seriously. Just a thought.
      2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

        If you think pau gasol has a size and strength advantage against amare stoudemire, then i think im not the one that needs bifocals...

        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


        • #94
          Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

          I think that nobody in the Lakers is going to be able to stop Amare, the guy is just a beast, like Kstats said right now he is one of the best defensive PF's in the NBA, remember that defense does not consist only by blocking shots but to stay in front of the guy and make it difficult to score and he did that to Duncan, Mcdyess and Blair.

          Regarding Steve Nash, even at his age he still one of the top five PG's in the NBA maybe top three right now,nobody and I mean nobody can't stop this guy, The Lakers are gonna need to put two guys on him at all times and that is going to create open spaces for everybody else.

          I am telling you guys this Phoenix Suns team is tough, can play up tempo and half court offense and their defense is really good, I actually think that the only advantage the Lakers have is that they have Kobe on their side that's it.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            If you think pau gasol has a size and strength advantage against amare stoudemire, then i think im not the one that needs bifocals...
            Gasol is listed at 7'0 250 lbs. Stoudemire is listed at 6'10 249 lbs. I don't think anyone needs bifocals. Gasol has the size and length advantage, and Amare is probably stronger.

            The Lakers are playing against an elite PG/PF combo right now, and it doesn't seem like they are having a huge issue with them.
            Last edited by cdash; 05-10-2010, 11:41 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

              Because utah's massive frontline duo of defensively challenged 6'7" millsapp and defensively challenged 6'8" boozer is certainly comparable...and LA still cant guard deron, but he has zero help.

              Deron has done what he wanted in this series. it's a different story when the guys you pass off to can't shoot, and the guys you dump the ball to inside can't finish and fumbled the ball away.
              Last edited by Kstat; 05-10-2010, 11:52 PM.

              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


              • #97
                Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                because utah's massive frontline duo of 6'7" millsapp and 6'8" boozer is certainly comparable...and la still cant guard deron. but he has zero help.
                You forgot the immortal Kyrylo Fesenko! He's 7'1!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

                  he's 7'1" and plays like he's 5'8."

                  He reminds me of that story when some college coach tried to teach manute Bol how to play basketball. He got on a ladder and stuffed a basketball through the rim and asked Bol if he could do that, an Bol went and got a ladder and dunked the basketball through the rim...

                  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


                  • #99
                    Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

                    Kstat has shown himself to be quite knowledgeable about The Suns. I take his analysis on them with a little more gravity now. Unfortunately, he is working hard to find the ignore list.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2010 NBA Playoffs: (3) Phoenix vs (7) San Antonio

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      If you think pau gasol has a size and strength advantage against amare stoudemire, then i think im not the one that needs bifocals...
                      [snark] If you think I said Pau Gasol had a size and strength advantage against Amare, then you DO need bifocals. Also, I never even implied you needed bifocals, I said I did. As a joke. So there's some reading comprehension issues going on here. Or some eyesight issues. [/snark]

                      I said the Lakers were great on the offensive glass, and the Suns were terrible on the defensive glass. I also said Amare couldn't check Pau or Bynum in the post one-on-one, which would force the Suns to double and allow the Lakers to play their post-and-pass game.

                      Am I not right?
                      2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X