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

2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

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

  • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

    Originally posted by flox View Post
    I really like Gallinari. He's been very impressive this season. He was big in the other game vs the Heat as well.

    Speaking of Milwaukee, they seem very inconsistent this year- any reason why?


    Blair is eating up the Lakers right now with great offensive rebounds. With that said- his spacing with Duncan just doesn't feel right

    Their offense stinks. They have to be the worst offensive team in the league. They are still very hard working and intelligent on defense, but if you can't shoot with any accuracy to speak of, it doesn't matter how good you are on the other end of the floor.

    Comment


    • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

      The Bucks' problem is the offense indeed. Injuries + something I talked about in the pre-season, how their new players would be tough to fit. Gooden and Maggette are two more guys with a tendency to stop the ball and play 1x1 lots of times. They already had Salmons + a player like Bogut who demands plenty of post isolations. Hard to build ball+player movement with those pieces. Possible, but it takes time.

      Then Skiles ineptitude to build a respectable offense. He just doesn't put any effort in it.

      hey are still very hard working and intelligent on defense, but if you can't shoot with any accuracy to speak of, it doesn't matter how good you are on the other end of the floor.
      I disagree with this though. They'll probably still make the playoffs - injuries permitting - because they're so good defensively. Pretty much a standard Scott Skiles team. Great defense, awful offense.

      --------

      I confess I struggle to understand the difference between this season's Kobe and a chucker. He's 5-19. Odom, Gasol and Bynum are combining for 10-17. Gasol has 8 shots, Bynum 4, Odom 5. It's pretty hard to believe that they wouldn't use a few of those possessions more efficiently than Bryant.

      Comment


      • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

        Ah I see thanks. Didn't the Mavericks manage to pull a offense out of ball dominating iso players? Wouldn't that work for the Bucks?

        Agreed on Kobe.

        Comment


        • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

          Originally posted by flox View Post
          I really like Gallinari. He's been very impressive this season.
          Not too much. He's shooting a fairly low percentage from the field this season (41.1%). Landry Fields has been more impressive.

          Comment


          • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

            Originally posted by flox View Post
            Ah I see thanks. Didn't the Mavericks manage to pull a offense out of ball dominating iso players? Wouldn't that work for the Bucks?

            Agreed on Kobe.
            The Mavs all had ISO guys that could shoot the ball. Stackhouse, Terry, Dirk, Howard, Harris, etc.

            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


            • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

              Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post


              Freaking WOW. Too bad it didn't count.
              In the NBA.com version of this vid you can see Arenas protesting the referees waiving the basket off.

              Am I the only one who finds disconcerting that Arenas apparently doesn't know one of the most basic rules of the game he's supposed to be a pro at?

              Comment


              • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                Originally posted by Pingu View Post
                In the NBA.com version of this vid you can see Arenas protesting the referees waiving the basket off.

                Am I the only one who finds disconcerting that Arenas apparently doesn't know one of the most basic rules of the game he's supposed to be a pro at?
                Maybe he hung out with Donovan McNabb in DC? He seems to fail at understanding NFL rules.

                Comment


                • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                  Originally posted by Pingu View Post
                  In the NBA.com version of this vid you can see Arenas protesting the referees waiving the basket off.

                  Am I the only one who finds disconcerting that Arenas apparently doesn't know one of the most basic rules of the game he's supposed to be a pro at?
                  You think just maybe that he didn't have a good angle from 80 feet away and didn't realize the ball hit the shot clock?

                  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


                  • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                    Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                    I disagree with this though. They'll probably still make the playoffs - injuries permitting - because they're so good defensively. Pretty much a standard Scott Skiles team. Great defense, awful offense.

                    Oh, I meant you're going to struggle if your offense stinks, not that the Bucks were doomed and weren't going to be able to make the playoffs. I expect them to make it as a lower seed and probably lose in a tough first round series again. That's one thing with elite defensive teams (of which the Bucks are one)... they can play with anybody as long as they don't let their offensive struggles effect their defensive play. One thing that I have seen with the Bucks (being a team featuring a handful of younger guys in Bogut/Jennings/Mbah a Moute/Ilyasova/etc) is that they do let that happen occasionally.

                    Something else too... I don't know what his numbers look like so far this year, but based on the eyeball test, John Salmons is John Salmons again. And not in a good way. He clearly got paid and stopped trying again.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      You think just maybe that he didn't have a good angle from 80 feet away and didn't realize the ball hit the shot clock?
                      I don't know... I was watching the game and even after the referees explained the situation to him he kept protesting and looking incredulous. And he wasn't alone, IIRC. It had to be SVG to come over and send them to the bench.


                      Originally posted by spreedom View Post
                      Oh, I meant you're going to struggle if your offense stinks, not that the Bucks were doomed and weren't going to be able to make the playoffs. I expect them to make it as a lower seed and probably lose in a tough first round series again. That's one thing with elite defensive teams (of which the Bucks are one)... they can play with anybody as long as they don't let their offensive struggles effect their defensive play. One thing that I have seen with the Bucks (being a team featuring a handful of younger guys in Bogut/Jennings/Mbah a Moute/Ilyasova/etc) is that they do let that happen occasionally.

                      Something else too... I don't know what his numbers look like so far this year, but based on the eyeball test, John Salmons is John Salmons again. And not in a good way. He clearly got paid and stopped trying again.
                      Hmm... has Salmons a reputation of not trying or being lazy? It's not the first time I see something like that suggested. I'm not aware of that to be honest.

                      Salmons was injured during the training camp and pre-season. He probably was still dealing with injuries when the season started, I think I remember he missed most of their pre-season games. Then he was shooting poorly earlier in the season. Plus he was a victim of their chaotic offense (even more than usual). In the games I saw, he was relegated to a less prominent role, used more as a decoy and spot-up shooter. Since Gooden and Maggette were more or less removed from the equation, he's been shooting a little better - his efficiency improved from 37% to 40% and his scoring from 13ppg to 16ppg. But other than the scoring, the rest of his game was pretty much the same it was last season - defense, rebounding, playmaking. So, it's hard for me to say a player is being lazy if he's defending at his normal level. Anyway, we'll see how he does the rest of the season, he's already 31, no? Sometimes players just have periods of bad form, it happens.

                      Anyway, regardless of his level of play now, I think it was a mistake to pay him that contract.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                        It's great to have Paul Silas back on coaching. One of my favourites, I used to love his Charlotte and Cleveland teams. Had Ainge decided to rebuild around Rondo this Summer, he was my pick to replace Doc Rivers - to build a running PG-centric offense around Rondo. He's going to be great to Augustin - even though Augustin doesn't really deserve it. Very hard to see that happening, but reuniting Silas and Davis would be excellent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                          It's fun to watch Tracy McGrady and Ben Gordon playing alongside each other. Those two should have been reunited 5 years ago. It's a shame Gordon never had a player like McGrady to play along. A playmaking wing that would allow him to match up with the point-guard defensively and play the scoring off-guard role offensively.

                          Uh oh, Garnett just got injured in the right knee while elevating for a dunk.
                          Last edited by cordobes; 12-29-2010, 08:05 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                            That alley hoop from baron to blake was sick. That stretch in the game was some pretty fun basketball to watch. What a great game it was. EJ and Blake played really good so did Evans i had fun watching it on LP.
                            It really was a fun game. A couple of times the Clippers pulled away, but the Kings always battled back. Griffin certainly is fun to watch. He is going to be a beast in this league for a long time to come. And Gordon was putting on a clinic. He couldnt miss. There were some flashes of old Baron in there too. He was getting into the lane at will in the first half. There was some ball hog Baron too. Tyreke Evans is the only thing the Kings can rely on. He almost pulled it out for them. Although the foul at the end of the game shouldn't have been a shooting foul IMO. There were quite a few home team calls it seemed.

                            I had a great time. First time i have been to an NBA game. Arco is OLD. Thats its only problem really. The location could be better too. But its age shows. And it's very small. I didn't realize it was the smallest in the NBA til I got there. But it does get very loud and I was surprised at how many people were there. I don't think a new arena is much to ask considering the age of it. I have some pics that I will upload later.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                              Jazz vs Clippers on NBA TV right now
                              Gordon Hayward got the start!
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2010-2011 NBA Random Thoughts Thread part VII: Advent Children

                                Hayward finished with 17pts and a handful of rebounds. Not bad considering he hasn't got much playing time so far. He probably would had even more production had Al Jefferson not been on Fire and essentially ball hogging it every time down the floor. That dude can be a black hole on offense.

                                One thing I noticed is that Sloan had a set rotation for him as well. It did not matter that he basically sucked in the first half. Sloan still went with him in the 2nd, and Hayward turned it on. Oh to have a good coach...
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X