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

AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

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

  • AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

    Pacers win as clock runs out

    MUNCIE, Ind. -- Randy Holcomb tipped in a rebound as the clock expired to lift the Indiana Pacers to an 85-84 win over the Washington Wizards in the preseason opener for both teams tonight.

    After Washington's Jared Jeffries tipped in a miss by Michael Ruffin with 9.7 seconds to play, Indiana's Eddie Gill drove the lane and missed a high-arching layup. Holcomb came from the backside to tip it in.

    Stephen Jackson was sharp in his Pacers debut with 19 points and seven rebounds at Worthen Arena on the campus of Ball State University.

    Jackson, acquired from Atlanta in an off-season trade that sent Al Harrington to the Hawks, scored 10 points in 10 minutes in the first quarter.

    He started for Ron Artest, who watched the game after missing two practices while attending his grandmother's funeral.

    Jermaine O'Neal also missed the game for Indiana with a sprained left foot.

    A slimmed-down Brendan Haywood had 17 points, seven rebounds and four blocks for Washington. Haywood's numbers would have been even more impressive if he hadn't gone 3-for-11 from the free-throw line.

    Washington made just 14 of 32 (49 percent) foul shots on the night.

    Pacers rookie center David Harrison looked good in his NBA debut, scoring 14 points in 24 minutes. He scored 12 in the fourth quarter, including a nifty three-point play that gave the Pacers a 78-72 lead.

    Washington used tough defense from Gerald Fitch to fuel an 8-0 run that put the Wizards ahead 80-78.

    Fitch hit a jumper, then got a steal and a layup in the spurt.

    Larry Hughes had 13 points and seven rebounds for the Wizards.
    This space for rent.

  • #2
    Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

    I was there; and while the 2nd/3rd quarters were pretty sleepy, it got close at the end, and had a great finish.

    We couldn't stop them from scoring to go up 1 w/ 9 seconds left. Timeout Pacers. They run a play, shot misses, everyone's scrambling to tip the ball in, and after 4 tries, the 4th ones drops at the LAST possible moment before the buzzer, crowd erupts, including Larry Bird, Pacers win. Great way to end the game.

    Oh, and David Harrision looked pretty decent. If he plays like he did tonight consistently, he should be the backup to Jeff.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

      By the way, why didn't Ron Artest play? It can't be the funeral, because he was there, warming up an hour before the game with the rest of the team. And yet, there he was in dress clothes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

        Rick said he missed 2 practices last week and they wanted to ease him back into the things.
        Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

          Sorry, but it smells of cover up to me. If you're back w/ the team, and shooting around before the game, and healthy, why would you not at least play the 1st period of the game. It doesn't make much sense. And since Ron's missed time before for "migraines" I can't help but suspect something's up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

            Originally posted by Hicks
            Sorry, but it smells of cover up to me. If you're back w/ the team, and shooting around before the game, and healthy, why would you not at least play the 1st period of the game. It doesn't make much sense. And since Ron's missed time before for "migraines" I can't help but suspect something's up.
            Come on , the man just had a family Death , and your hammering HIM ?????

            Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

              I wouldn't be if he wanted time away from the team for it. But he was already back, made the bus trip to Muncie, went through his normal pre-game workouts. If you're going to do all of that, why wouldn't you just play?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

                Originally posted by Hicks
                I wouldn't be if he wanted time away from the team for it. But he was already back, made the bus trip to Muncie, went through his normal pre-game workouts. If you're going to do all of that, why wouldn't you just play?
                Ask Rick , I am just telling you what he said , from what I understand he just got back into town today , most employers give 3-5 days off for funerals.

                I won't even Mention how much time JO , Mark Jackson and Tinsely didn't he have a family issue with a death also , sorry that's almost tasteless to assume such a thing.

                ed:ed:ed:ed:ed:

                Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

                  Not really. If the issue was needing time to morn, you don't come back to, travel with, and workout with the team, only to not play. You either take time away or you don't. Thus, I say it looks fishy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

                    Well from Ricks comments , Rick is the one who made the call not to play Ron , Not Ron.
                    Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

                      Hicks.

                      It's the preseason, for Pete's sake.

                      The man didn't play in the FIRST preseason game after not being with the team for 3 days.

                      You're reading WAY TOO MUCH into this

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

                        anyways ..SJAX had 19 Pts in 22 mins
                        Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

                          I was there, I will try to assemble what I saw.

                          Hicks is correct, David Harrison really stood out to me as well. He was in there banging, trying to establish position, and on the other end trying not to allow his man position.

                          I also noticed that he was playing against their starters a bit, when we had 2nd and 3rd stringers in, I saw Arenas, Hughes, Hayes, Jefferies, and Haywood for their 5 a lot.

                          I also noticed what people are always saying about David Harrison being very emotional on the court.

                          When he would be running with his man down the court, he was wrestling with them a lot, fighting for position, and I also noticed this on blocking out for free throws as well. He was getting into it quite a bit when playing against that 7'3" Peter John Ramos, from the Puerto Rico Olympic squad.

                          This is not a bad thing to me, he was under control the whole time, and I was very impressed, he was going all out on both ends of the floor.

                          I will say this, and I know it's only one game, and preseason no less, but folks, David Harrison is a banger in the post.

                          He is not this buttery soft, over-emotional, out of shape player that some media and writers have made him out to be.

                          It will take time, but I can see him being our starting center, no doubt. The skill is there, the effort is there, the size is there, and the desire seems to be there.

                          Ok, I apologize about the length of that part on Harrison, now for the rest of what I saw at the game.

                          I know a lot of people have been skeptical about the Stephen Jackson for Al trade, but he stood out to me as well.

                          He has amazing skill, appears to be a solid defender, his shot looked really good, and he can get to the basket.

                          I loved having Al on the team, but I think Stephen Jackson might make people less sour about the trade as soon as more people get a chance to see him play for us, he is exciting to watch.

                          James Jones looked pretty good, but he won't get any PT this year unless there is injuries.

                          Foster and Croshere looked like their usual selves, hitting the boards hard, Jeff getting scrap buckets, and Austin getting to the line.

                          Pollard looked only slightly improved, still has stone hands, but looks to defintely be in better physical condition.

                          He had one nifty spin move in the paint, that got him an easy layup, but he traveled bigger than ****, so it wasn't something I expect to see from him on a rgular basis.

                          Jamaal looks to be in great shape, and has his quickness back that he had in college. He was getting into the paint no problem, and wasn't making too many mistakes with the ball, but his shot wasn't falling all that well. If he stays healthy, he will have a great season.

                          Fred Jones had a hell of a game for the time he was in there, it will be hard for the coach to keep him off the floor, we may have to go with a short, quick lineup sometimes.

                          Reggie was on for the time he was in there, he looked good, but only played like 10 minutes or so.

                          The rest of the guys fighting for a roster spot; Desmond Farmer hit a couple shots and looked decent, but we won't need another SG.

                          Rashad Wright didn't play enough for me to base an opinion, neither did John Edwards.

                          Eddie Gill hustled when he was out there, hit the boards, and defended his man ok, but couldn't score worth a ****, he is definitely 3rd string.

                          Holcomb got that winning tip at the end, and crashed the boards well for the time he was in there, but he won't get a spot.

                          Jermaine, Ron, and JB obviously didn't play, but I am very excited about this year from what I saw, as long as we can stay healthy for 82+.

                          We are as deep as we have ever been, and I really think if Harrison works hard, he will be able to work his way into the lineup sooner than later.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

                            Hicks,
                            Maybe the Pacers have a trade for Artest on the table?

                            -Bball
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: AP Recap... decent. Need more info! Who saw this game?

                              You know, reports are that Peja still believes he won't be in Sac by the trade deadline since he is still saying he won't resign (or activate his player option)after his contract expires next year.

                              If he sticks by that the Kings would be smart to move him this year as they lose a lot of power in a player's last year of a contract (that is, in a good player's last year.)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X