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

2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

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

  • #31
    Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

    I don't think they can stop Westbrook. I also don't think they necessarily have to. He's not good enough to beat an entire team by himself. He can be OKC's biggest liability just as often as he can be their biggest strength.

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Dallas' experience is something that's being trumpeted in this thread. They have what, two players who were on the 2006 Finals team (Dirk and Terry)? That's about as relevant as the Heat's two best players having been to the Finals in the past.
    Dallas has been in the playoffs together for a while now. Even the newest members of their roster have been through it for a year already. Kidd is the floor general of that team, and he's in year #4.

    What impresses me about the Mavs is that they cannot be rushed. They will play at their own pace, hell or high water. They are going to run their stuff and make you play defense. OKC just doesn't have that level of maturity, which is why they struggled so much against Memphis, despite matching up extremely well. One game they look like the best team in the NBA, and the next Westbrook is hoisting 30 shots and freezing out the NBA's scoring champ.
    Last edited by Kstat; 05-16-2011, 02:00 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


    • #32
      Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

      Dallas in 6. Dirk > Durant. Westbrook is the third best player in the series, but i just don't see him carrying OKC to the finals. He is still a young player, and he isn't on the level of a Derrick Rose. If Dallas is hitting their 3's, good luck beating them. Similar to Orlando in 2009. Also, Dallas having home court is huge.
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        They also aren't as playoff tested as Kobe was.

        Over 7 games, young legs give way to experience. Dallas can control the tempo of a game. OKC has trouble with it because their point guard is so bipolar.


        The Thunder in their first playoff series ever were a Gasol tip in away from forcing a game 7 against the defending champion Lakers.

        They have now won two playoff series this year, including a grueling 7 game series against the Grizzlies. So I think they are quickly learning in the "experience" department.

        Westbrook is bipolar, but IF he plays like he did yesterday than I think it's the Thunder who control the tempo.

        It's going to be a great series, that's for sure.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          The Thunder in their first playoff series ever were a Gasol tip in away from forcing a game 7 against the defending champion Lakers.
          .
          ...they had control of that game never should have let it come to that. That's what I'm talking about.



          Westbrook is bipolar, but IF he plays like he did yesterday than I think it's the Thunder who control the tempo.
          Agreed, but the chances of him completely changing his stripes are slim to none. He's never been a consistent floor leader. Aside from a handful of hall of fame point guards, nobody is mature enough to be that composed at age 22. Jason Kidd didn't grasp it until he was almost 30.

          I don't think Kidd is anywhere near as gifted as Westbrook at this point, but I know Kidd is going to make sure the ball goes where it needs to go every time down the court. It's pretty obvious Westbrook still has to learn that lesson.
          Last edited by Kstat; 05-16-2011, 02:07 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


          • #35
            Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

            I think the series goes 7. The questions, for me, that will decide the series are all revolve around the Thunder.

            Which Westbrook is going to show up?
            How healthy will Ibaka be?
            Is KD going to be a little more consistant with his shot? (which directly relates to question 1 IMHO)

            It does come down to experience, but at some point in time the light switch is going to be turned to the on position for OKC. There's no reason why it can't happen this series, considering how last year played out and how this year as gone so far.

            Then again, it wouldn't surprise me to see it remain in the off position for another year.

            Which ever the case, I still think the series goes 7. OKC has too much talent.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              ...they had control of that game never should have let it come to that. That's what I'm talking about.




              Well yeah, but that was their first series ever. Don't you think the two series this year - especially the grueling 7 gamer against the Grizz - taught them a few lessons that they didn't know 13 months ago?

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                Yeah, but it's a learning process. Even Jordan's Bulls had to wait a few years to win a playoff series, and after that had to wait a few more to finally beat the Pistons. It's not like there's only one hurdle to climb.

                I think going to 7 with Memphis emphasized their lack of maturity. They had every conceivable advantage, and it took them 7 games to decide how they wanted to defend Memphis's only rally dangerous offensive threat. OKC played 7 different games 7 different ways. There was just no consistency with what they were trying to accomplish. I don't see that working against Dallas.
                Last edited by Kstat; 05-16-2011, 02:15 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


                • #38
                  Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Well yeah, but that was their first series ever. Don't you think the two series this year - especially the grueling 7 gamer against the Grizz - taught them a few lessons that they didn't know 13 months ago?
                  Along with the acquisition of Kendrick Perkins, who kept telling them they haven't won anything yet.

                  His pickup was huge, IMHO. Completely changed the dynamics of two teams.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                    I totally love this series, am looking so much forward to it. You get 2 good defensive centers go head-to-head, Perkins and Chandler. It'll be interesting to see who can step up in more than one side of the ball.

                    The other difference, will be Dirk more effective against Ibaka than Durant will be against Marion?

                    Will Westbrook be consistent enough slowing down Kidd/Barea-playmaking to make up for the combination of Terry/Stevenson/Peja outplaying Harden/Sefalosha?

                    I just don't know what it will be, my gut feeling says Dallas, but Durant can make a name for himself. I think he will, OKC in 7!
                    Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                      Mavs in 7. They have the veteran experience and home court advantage.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                        I'm looking at Dirk's stats right now and it's just amazing what he's been doing for 10 plus years.

                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...nowitdi01.html

                        Look at his run from 00-01 to present. Averages in the mid 20's every year for the most part. Plays in virtually every game. Since 00-01 they have never won less than 50 games which is absolutely incredible. That is an insane run of sustained excellence that Dirk has been the center piece of.

                        If this guy wins a championship this year then that would be the icing on the cake of an absolutely incredible career. As much as I love the young Thunder, I am sort of rooting for Dirk since he's 33 and might not have another opportunity like this.

                        I think one of that greatest what-if's of all time is what if Cuban didn't decide to get cheap with Steve Nash? Spending money on Dampier instead of Nash was a huge misfire. If Dirk and Nash had played the past 7 years together then they would have won a ring at some point, no question about it.
                        Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-16-2011, 07:54 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                          Dallas is deep and consistent and when the Thunder play poorly they play reaaaally poorly. I think OKC will lead in every game, blow out Dallas twice, but lose the series in 7.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                            GO MAVS! DIRK NEEDS A RING! Sorry, but he's my favorite player of the last decade. Why? Because he's a great player, but not a dazzling athlete, not flashy, and not a prima donna.

                            However, if the Dallas goes down, I'll undoubtedly be pulling for OKC. I like them, too, and I sure as hell don't want Chicago or Miami.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                              I think it would be entertaining to see Westbrook and Rose go at it in the finals.

                              I expect the Bulls will beat Miami, however I haven't seen the Mavs play enough to predict the WCF.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: 2011 Western Conference Finals: (3) Dallas vs. (4) Oklahoma City

                                Dallas in 6 or 7. They know who they are, the Thunder still figuring it out.

                                Ofc, I'm sticking with my Dallas over Heat finals prediction.
                                PG24: "Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the moon!"

                                RT @Hoya2aPacer "When I play this game I love. I play to make my teammates better. But I'm a mouther****er on defense."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X