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 >, <, or = Nets?

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

  • Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

    I'm probably wasting my time there, so I thought I'd let you all take a shot at this. Here are the thoughts of a Nets fan on a thread debating who is better between us and New Jersey:

    Martin is averaging 18 points and 10 boards per game.

    He's also shooting it at 50% from the floor.

    Statistically, he's even with O'Neal, who's averaging 20/10, but shooting the ball at a miserable 43% clip. O'Neal is a better player, but you're seriously underrating Kenyon Martin. Not to mention Martin is also a better passer than Jermaine.

    Artest is even worse from the field- 41.9%. His steals + blocks per game are the same as Martins. Like Artest, Martin is more of an on the ball defender. O'Neal for example, gets his blocks through team defense. Martin averages 18 points per game. Artest is at 17.9. 9.9 boards per game for Martin to 5.3 for Ron.

    Jefferson is not MUCH better than Harrington, but he has been averaging 18 per game for the last three months and has developed 3 point range. He's also a good passer, dishing out three per ball game.

    Kidd is an impact player- a walking triple double who can take over games even more so than O'Neal. Again I reference the 43.5% shooting of Jermaine. Terrible for an all-star power forward who is supposed to be a dominant low post player.

    Martin has the ability to shut down Jermaine, and come playoff time he could very well do this.
    What do you think?

  • #2
    Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

    Martin may have hte ability to shut down Jermaine, like the playoff series a few years ago in the first round, but has he lately???

    Jermaine is no longer 1D. He can go anywhere now and hit it...

    Pacers > Nets

    The reason

    [marq=left:aeb8c18fa1]THE X-FACTOR[/marq]

    WE

    HAVE

    ANTHONY JOHNSON

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

      I'll wait until after the "we just fired the coach" phase. Yes they are 7-0 since they hired Franks, but we don't know if that is just his coaching or if players are using the firing as motivation...
      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

        Martin may have hte ability to shut down Jermaine, like the playoff series a few years ago in the first round, but has he lately???

        Jermaine is no longer 1D. He can go anywhere now and hit it...

        Pacers > Nets

        The reason

        [marq=left:1c588523fa]THE X-FACTOR[/marq]

        WE

        HAVE

        ANTHONY JOHNSON

        We also have the Z-factor:

        PRIMOZ!!

        Plus, what naturallystoned said. Remember how good the Raps were for a couple weeks after that trade? NJ's game vs. Detroit should be a good gauge.

        IndyToad
        Cooler air arrives tonight

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

          This year

          acers: >

          I've never liked to use the theory that just because a team was better last year, they're still the better team until somebody knocks them off in the future. Teams are different each year, players are different each year as they grow and mature, coaches come and go for better or for worse. I'm sure the following season after MJ retired, and they dismantled their championship team that they weren't still the best in the East from what they did the previous season.

          The Nets have won the East the past two seasons, but those teams are in the past. Right now the Pacers have the best record in the East, we've won at New Jersey twice, we've got two All Stars, and the coach who's coaching in the All Star game. Right now the Pacers are the better team, but the question is will we hold onto it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

            and their style of basketball is the kind most likely to be able to handle the Pacers in any playoff series.
            What, their legendary half-court game? Surely we won't let them run on us in that series any more than we let them the last time we played them. I don't think they ran too much then. They had spurts, but we cut it off from them later and won the game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

              We were the better team at this point last season too. I know, I know, everything is different this year. But you can't underestimate the talent New Jersey has, and their style of basketball is the kind most likely to be able to handle the Pacers in any playoff series.
              but they don't have Anthony Johnson anymore...

              WE DO!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

                But like I did say, what a difference a year can make for a team.

                We've eclipsed our start from last season, our players are older and more mature, and we've got a better coaching staff in my opinion.

                I'm not sold on the Nets, they were only 1 game above .500 not too long ago and I think they're riding some serious mojo.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

                  and their style of basketball is the kind most likely to be able to handle the Pacers in any playoff series.
                  What, their legendary half-court game? Surely we won't let them run on us in that series any more than we let them the last time we played them. I don't think they ran too much then. They had spurts, but we cut it off from them later and won the game.
                  You act like I'm a Net fan or something. I was at the first New Jersey game. They're more than capable of beating us, especially the way Jefferson has improved his range the last couple months. I expect us to beat them in a series. I wouldn't be quite as surprised as many if they beat us.
                  Where did I say you were a Net fan?

                  If my post seemed strong, it's because it was. But that's only because I was taken back a bit when you said their style is the type that beats us. I'd say Milwaukee has the type of game that beats us. They run, they flourish. We play great team D and get back on defense well.

                  I was at the 1st NJ game (in Indy, that is) too, and well, I can't say that game was much of a measuring stick. We played like ***, Ron barely played, and it was scrubs vs starters most of the 4th. What I'm saying is it wasn't exactly your typical Nets vs Pacers game.

                  I agree though that Jefferson is dangerous as ever, if not moreso.

                  However, the flip side to that is he can't guard Ron or Al to save his life, and he's a good defender. The reason I say that is while he could frustrate both on the outside, if either posts him up he's done.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

                    "btowncolt I expect us to beat them in a series. I wouldn't be quite as surprised as many if they beat us.
                    I can't argue with that logic... nor can I argue with a Purple Hippo doing a slap dance anyway!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

                      The purple hippo claims another victim........
                      We have too many weak minded posters... ed:
                      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

                        Personally I think that when you start comparing Kidd to JO you are comparing things you can not compare, so I'll leave that one out of the equasion.
                        Martin or Jefferson are both 100 to 1 shots to stop JO come play-off, I for one remeber his play in the last one, it wasn't JO that lost those series

                        As for the comparison with Ron ? where Ron is candidate for Defensive player of the year those guys are not even in the running, despite the fact that they put up the same offensive numbers. And as we've seen last night, percentages don't mean the world.

                        The fail to mention the rest of the Pacers, I mean I can understand him running out of options on comparison, but I believe we have some more "intangibles" such as there are Al ? (let's forget all other players on the team )

                        Oh yeah no uhh oops 43 % 3 pt shooting over the season mr. Clutch himself got completely overlooked there to, geeeez

                        MOUAH, not worth considering this hopefull recap of the nets, Let them try and get even in the series against them first, no matter how "hot" they are right now, let's see them playing some real opponents first, until now they all faded away after a nice run, and the P's are still there.

                        They are (just recently) the only team with a winning record in their division and their road record is just one game on the plus, please come back when you're less then 7.5 games behind, they would barely be in third positions in the Central division.

                        And finally let's look somewhat closer to their last 10:

                        @ San Antonio L 99-76 .654
                        @ Miami L 85-64 .404
                        Boston W 110-91 .442
                        @ Philadelphia W 94-76 .404
                        @ Orlando W 89-79 .245
                        @ Houston W 88-77 .580
                        @ New Orleans W 91-70 .529
                        Miami W 99-88 .404
                        Orlando W 120-99 .245
                        Philadelphia W 99-87 .404

                        Average percentage today of those opponents: .431

                        the loss against Miami is just as bad as the win over Houston is good, but the rest ? sorry, I'm not impressed, had they gone any worse they would have a hard time getting to the play offs at all.

                        as for the pacers: (7 -3)

                        @ Atlanta W 100-97 .327
                        Detroit W 81-69 .635
                        Houston L 78-74 .580
                        @ Washington L 107-96 .327
                        Phoenix W 101-79 .340
                        Boston W 99-98 .442
                        L.A. Lakers W 85-72 .625
                        @ New York L 97-90 .481
                        @ Toronto W 83-77 .490
                        Miami W 97-91 .404

                        Average percentage today of those opponents: .465

                        Naw, again, not impressed

                        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

                          I think one thing that is being overlooked is...How will the Jersey coaching staff make adjustments. I believe that Lawrence F. will have his metal tested when our point guards stay in front of Kidd and slow down the break. I still say that we will pound the inside with J.O. then when their guards come to double....move the ball for a gold mine of open shots. I just hope we can knock them down!!!
                          ...Still "flying casual"
                          @roaminggnome74

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

                            What a bunch of crap. That person is just trying to justify his claim that they are better. He seems to have not mentioned a few details.

                            How is he even with JO??? I don't even see that. Martin is a good player, yes, but he is NOT in JO's league. JO is top 5 big man in the league. He can take over a game himself and win it. I don't see KMart doing that.

                            Martin is more of an on the ball defender? Last time I checked, defense was played by guarding the guy with the ball....hmm...and you can't really add steals and blocks together. JO is a better blocker than KM, and it really doesnt matter how you get them. Fact is, he changes peoples shots frequently, KM doesnt. Is he suggesting he is a better defender than JO or Artest? Ha. Fat chance. Artest is arguably the best in the league, and JO is up there with Duncan.

                            RJ has been doing well, and he and Al probably negate each other. If you make the case RJ is a decent passer, than you can say Al is a decent rebounder.

                            Kidd is an impact player, yes, but he's still not in JO's league. Last time I checked, JK's FG% was somewhere below 40..hmm...ah yes, 39.7. Well well.

                            Martin has done well against JO in the past, but in the playoffs, JO just gets on fire. I think I remember 24 and 17 last year...
                            Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers >, <, or = Nets?

                              But I digress. Until someone beats them in the playoffs, they're the best team in the East.
                              I disagree. Winning never proves you are the best except at the moment you won. Winning the East simply made them the champion until they are beaten, it doesn't make them the best. Who is best is decided at the end, not the start, not mid year.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X