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/Kings postgame thread

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

  • Re: Pacers/Kings postgame thread

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    This is how bad it has gotten with Collison & Price, people are once again beginning to clamor for the all first team NBA player that is Jarret Jack.

    I had honestly hoped we had put this behind us but with the play of our current point guards they have once again kicked open that door.

    For the love of God if we are going to address our p.g. position again this summer, which we probably should, could we please aim a LOT higher than Jarrett Jack.


    I liked Jack. He wasn't or isn't perfect, but he brought certain qualities to the PG that neither Collison or Price has. I'm surrounded by those that keep saying "Collison's only in his 2nd year" and by those that makes excuses for everthing Price does. At the present time, NEITHER is the present answer to the PG position. Collison could be down the road, but let's face it he's presently not his former UCLA teammates Westbrook or Holiday.

    Seriously, who do YOU feel is a higher PG than Jack that the Pacers can "realistically" get? Let's face it Rondo, Westbrook, Williams, Nash, etc isn't walking thru the door or beating it down to play for the Pacers. So who? I honestly want to hear who you feel is available to the Pacers. Maybe you have someone in mind that not been mentioned b4. I'd really be interested!!

    I'm on record saying I'd like to bring in Raymond Felton, but many feel he's nothing but an older more expensive lateral move for Collison. I'm not in the least interested in drafting "the PG of the future" as some are. That is even if the Pacers could get that type of a pick to do so. I have no problem keeping Collison to season, but I want a PG that can bring and do things with their game Collison and Price can't.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Kings postgame thread

      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
      I totally blame it on Price. My back up Point shouldn't be taking 9 3pters, and he shouldn't be taking them back to back to back. He shouldn't be dribbling up the court and dumping it off to somebody else and then camping out of hte 3 point line. Not setting up any kind of offense. We didn't have any hustle or flow tonight.

      Also DC shouldn't go half the game with 0 points. Heck all his points game in a a 3 minute stretch that almost sparked a comeback, and then Vogel went back to Price.
      Agreed. It wasn't all on Price, but he was terrible. I'd place DC in the middle to lower of the pack as far as starting point guards go, but AJ has to be one the worst backup point guards in the league right now. Can someone name five that are obviously worse?

      I like the guy and he seems like a good leader, but I'm just not seeing the talent that'll make him a good point guard in this league.
      Last edited by BruceLeeroy; 03-26-2011, 05:36 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Kings postgame thread

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        This is how bad it has gotten with Collison & Price, people are once again beginning to clamor for the all first team NBA player that is Jarret Jack.

        I had honestly hoped we had put this behind us but with the play of our current point guards they have once again kicked open that door.

        For the love of God if we are going to address our p.g. position again this summer, which we probably should, could we please aim a LOT higher than Jarrett Jack.
        Second. Year. Point Guards.

        The AJ Price of last season, was simply put..better in every facet of the game. I have to believe the reason for that is not being over his knee..whether he's still feeling pain or mentally not there, or physically not there. I really hope he didn't change his mentality because of O'brien. That woudl be ashame. I'm hoping he's just being told he needs to score..because, although I think shooters should keep shooting..AJ didn't his entire career until he got here. (And he had more freedom to do what he wanted at Uconn)

        That's not to say he doesn't have flaws. I'm saying evaluate him after a summer of getting his stuff together.

        With AJ though, when you throw him on the court with Brandon, Dahntay, Jeff and Josh...who do you honestly think Frank Vogel wants to take the most shots? And then we have quotes by AJ saying that Frank told him to keep shooting. Seems pretty obvious to me what he's being told to do.

        DC also has flaws. He hasn't had a consistent coach, a consistent offense in two seasons. He's also got an enormous amount of pressure on him. Let him work on himself. Isn't Roy a significantly different player than he was two seasons ago?

        Do we need a PG upgrade? I don't know. It depends on what Larry (or whoever) does with the rest of the team. But if we're just going to let all the other young guys play together, then no reason to not let the PGs have another season to grow too.

        And anyway..this game did not illustrate problems with our point guards. We lost this game with our post players..who really didn't do anything right. Their defense made DCs defense look good. They still don't box out (our point guards do...) and we've only got two scoring threats between the four of them. We need another one. And we need a guy that, when the other team plays rough aggressive defense, our guy can still play. I really feel this is just a case of people getting on the whipping boys, when it wasn't them at all..other than the fact that they couldn't shoot either. We lost this game because of poor shooting and poor post play. Period.

        edit: When we're down by a ton, I wish Vogel would put in "the goon squad" They were/are intense guys who can usually scrap back into the game.

        And that's another example, someone mentioned AJ thinking a PnR/PnP was just a way for him to get an open shot. Well..he's playing them with Foster and Josh..so duh. When he does it with Danny or Tyler, those two always got the ball. You can not play unit for a long stretch of a game that has two non scoring post players, a guy who doesn't score in the flow of the offense, and Brandon..who used to not take shots but at least now he does..and expect any point guard to come up with a reasonable offense that doesn't involve that point guard trying to score. Usually, the second Danny comes into the game, Price completely differs..he fed Tyler all the time. Give him someone who can actually score...
        Last edited by Sookie; 03-26-2011, 06:08 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Kings postgame thread

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Is anyone actually keeping track of this stat, or did you just measure it yourself?
          measured it myself, I'll do it for DC tonight too. AJ's just easier to count it with because he only plays 15 minutes. (And because they were so obvious sometimes assists are..blury..but these ones weren't.) Most of them came from driving and dishing to a wide open Brandon or Dahntay.

          It's a stat that European leagues keep though, I wish American leagues would too. I like the stat. IF we're going to evaluate a PG on the statistic of assists (which I don't quite agree with) then taking into consideration poor shooting nights from a team is something we should consider too. It's not DC and AJ's fault a normally pretty good shooter in Brandon Rush, missed 7 wide open 3s, so it's not a bad idea to acknowledge the other side too. (And Price is typically not even close to that high..which is why I noticed it last night. If I had to guess, DC's was lower, but that could just be my guess because his wasn't as condensed as Price's was.)

          I really didn't have a problem with the way AJ played last night. Maybe it's because I understood completely what he was trying to do..and as I said..he's one of the few guys that'll try and claw the team back into the game..and actually..he's done a pretty good job of it for both seasons...so I don't think it should be discouraged..even if he's missing that badly or playing too fast.

          I got what he was trying to do last night, understood the reasons..the past couple of games I thought he had gotten injected with stupid..this game..he just shot like crap..like the rest of the guys.
          Last edited by Sookie; 03-26-2011, 06:08 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Kings postgame thread

            Not that this excuses the loss, but the 76ers just lost to the Kings.

            I would say that the Kings have blazed through this East Coast swing like Sherman marching to the sea.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Kings postgame thread

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              Not that this excuses the loss, but the 76ers just lost to the Kings.

              I would say that the Kings have blazed through this East Coast swing like Sherman marching to the sea.
              This is also telling you how many teams think this draft is weak, nobody is even trying to tank.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Kings postgame thread

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                This is also telling you how many teams think this draft is weak, nobody is even trying to tank.
                Look how many wins they have they are still tanking. They could win out and still be tanking

                Comment

                Working...
                X