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/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

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

  • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

    Originally posted by d_c View Post
    The real issue of precedence is when the last time a team won a title with their best player being under 6'5". Last time it happened was probably the Bad Boys Pistons teams. If the Bulls win the title, that would truly be setting a precedence that hasn't happened in quite awhile.

    The Spurs in 99' won with Duncan and really nobody else who could create their shot. That was pre-Ginobilli and Parker.
    Yeah, it isn't really about creating a shot as it is playing as a team. If there is ball movement and player movement you don't need someone who can create with the ball. This is why I don't care about getting someone who can create their own shot with the ball in their hands. It just reinforces standing around while someone else does all the work. This is still a team game, and it is still the teams who play as a team that win the championships.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

      Originally posted by d_c View Post
      The real issue of precedence is when the last time a team won a title with their best player being under 6'5". Last time it happened was probably the Bad Boys Pistons teams. If the Bulls win the title, that would truly be setting a precedence that hasn't happened in quite awhile.

      The Spurs in 99' won with Duncan and really nobody else who could create their shot. That was pre-Ginobilli and Parker.
      Wade is 6'4 and plays like he is 6'7.

      Almost the same thing with Derrick Rose. Speedy little guys like Iverson.. etc.. are much easier to stop (case in point, Iverson's field goal percentage due to bad shots). Derrick Rose plays much bigger than he really is.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

        Vogel impressed me. I'm leaning more and more towards being just fine with him keeping his job. He's like our version of Brad Stevens. He has tremendous presence and voice. Notice they kept giving us sound bites inside the Pacers' huddle, and none of "Thibs". Even the announcers seemed impressed by his poise and confidence. His playcalling and substitutions were well-done today, imo. It's like they were giving us glimpses into the birth of something special.

        This Pacer team is young and talented, but frankly if you consider what they've been through this year (especially an in-season coaching change) they should have no business playing as well as they did in this 1st playoff game. Even getting there is a testament to the man in charge. A large part of me believes we wouldn't even be in the playoffs with JOB in charge, and here this young guy gets us there and absolutely takes it to Chicago, the best team in the league.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-16-2011, 07:51 PM.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

          Originally posted by GrangerRanger View Post
          Wade is 6'4 and plays like he is 6'7.

          Almost the same thing with Derrick Rose. Speedy little guys like Iverson.. etc.. are much easier to stop (case in point, Iverson's field goal percentage due to bad shots). Derrick Rose plays much bigger than he really is.
          Wade may have been the "best" player on the team, but he wasn't the best player on that team. That team won because of Shaq not Wade.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            Yeah, it isn't really about creating a shot as it is playing as a team. If there is ball movement and player movement you don't need someone who can create with the ball. This is why I don't care about getting someone who can create their own shot with the ball in their hands. It just reinforces standing around while someone else does all the work. This is still a team game, and it is still the teams who play as a team that win the championships.
            NBA defenses are too good to be beaten by executing an offensive set. I'm not saying ball movement and team play aren't important but in the end you need guys who can make something from nothing.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

              I'm disappointed in Rose's comments about us being "too physical."

              This is the playoffs, Derrick. Buck up or go home.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                Very fun game to watch even with it being a little heartbreaking.

                I think a good way to slow down Rose is to get him to commit offensive fouls. ........When refs actually start calling it, I think we can win more than one game this series I think lol. I hope we also try Dahntay on Rose also. The length of Paul actually worked out pretty well on some possessions but Dahntay is known to stop stars like Rose in the playoffs. He needs a shot at him.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  I'm disappointed in Rose's comments about us being "too physical."

                  This is the playoffs, Derrick. Buck up or go home.
                  I think he was answering a question about us been one of the most physical teams in the NBA.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                    Vogel impressed me. I'm leaning more and more towards being just fine with him keeping his job. He's like our version of Brad Stevens. He has tremendous presence and voice. Notice they kept giving us sound bites inside the Pacers' huddle, and none of "Thibs". Even the announcers seemed impressed by his poise and confidence. His playcalling and substitutions were well-done today, imo. It's like they were giving us glimpses into the birth of something special.

                    This Pacer team is young and talented, but frankly if you consider what they've been through this year (especially an in-season coaching change) they should have no business playing as well as they did in this 1st playoff game. Even getting there is a testament to the man in charge. A large part of me believes we wouldn't even be in the playoffs with JOB in charge, and here this young guy gets us there and absolutely takes it to Chicago, the best team in the league.
                    I couldn't agree more.

                    He is a player's coach, and that is definitely what they need right now.

                    I think he has the intensity that most coaches don't have, and he also believes in his guys and lets them know that.

                    I also love his smash mouth style of basketball, and it is only going to get better with time.

                    The Pacers need Vogel and Vogel needs the Pacers.

                    They are both young, intense, talented, and have endless potential.

                    This is our guy for the future.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                      Originally posted by Shade View Post
                      I'm disappointed in Rose's comments about us being "too physical."

                      This is the playoffs, Derrick. Buck up or go home.
                      No kidding, that disappoints me as someone who follows the NBA, not as someone who roots for the Pacers. The playoffs have been somewhat isolated from the pansifying of the NBA, which from the perspective of the regular season can be somewhat justified because you don't want the superstars out of commission for the playoffs.

                      But if the playoffs become as tightly called as some of the regular season games, the popularity of the league will eventually suffer. The league must remember that it is bigger than any prima donna player that isn't willing to play grind it out basketball and get knocked down when they take it to the basket.

                      It does offer an interesting opening in the series, however. If we knock him down a couple times the next game, who is to say he won't become unhinged and go after one of our players, land a punch, and get suspended for a game or two at least.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                        By the way only 4 points by Iguadola today, I wonder how many people would get on Danny's a$$ if he does this?
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                          Originally posted by idioteque View Post
                          It does offer an interesting opening in the series, however. If we knock him down a couple times the next game, who is to say he won't become unhinged and go after one of our players, land a punch, and get suspended for a game or two at least.
                          See: Matt Gieger IND-PHI 2000
                          "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                          "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                            I had to work so I missed the game but I was able to sneek a updates as the game progressed. I'll catch the next game. I was on edge while the Pacers had the lead and not being able to check in very often. It feels great to have my team in the playoffs again. Great game by our players, I think we'll at least pull one out at home.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              OK re-watching from the time Hansbrough steal and dunk.

                              1) tried to go to Tyler could not get him the ball.

                              2) Tried again ran two pick and rolls tYLER AND Collison - finally got Ty the ball and he missed a driving layup

                              3) next possession. ran double pick an rolls with DG and roy, end on a Roy post up and he ws fouled

                              4) ran another pick and roll Ty and darren, collison shot the ball

                              5) iso for danny


                              just wanted to document that they tried to go to Tyler in the last 2.5 minutes

                              6) out of bounds play down thre, nice play to get danny a good dhot
                              Number 5, iso for Danny, was interesting.

                              Tyler was in the near corner and Danny waived him off twice before Tyler finally went to the other corner. Then Danny did his iso and threw a desperate pass attempt to Collison that failed just before the shot clocked expired.

                              I'm thinking Tyler would have done a lot better with that possession if he had gotten the ball in the corner.

                              Now, I hope Tyler was supposed to be in the other corner and that's why Granger waived him off. If not, I'm upset.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                                Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                                See: Matt Gieger IND-PHI 2000
                                i sat right behind his mom and dad at MSA one series. his dad looks just like him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X