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/Lakers postgame thread

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

  • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

    Roy Hibbert was a +18, in a game we won by 2 points.

    And it felt like he was even more important than that.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      It should also be said, that washed up JO would be a great addition to this team, right now.

      Why, because he could give us 6 fouls?

      More often than not, he looks old and decrepit.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Why, because he could give us 6 fouls?

        More often than not, he looks old and decrepit.
        He's still a very competent defender, and could provide quality depth at a position we have absolutely none.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          Sorry, but I don't buy this. Roy took 13 shots. All of them in the paint. Tyler took 5 shots. All of them in the paint. They combined for 18 shots in the paint. How many FTAs did they took? 0. Zero. Nil.
          True.

          The biggest disparity, though, was in that 1st quarter. And during that time, the Lakers were absolutely imposing their will on the Pacers.

          Luckily, we won the next three quarters.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            I'll take that forced 3 at the end of the 1st half to trim the Lakers lead to 3 anytime!!!!

            I absolutely loved the shot. He and Foster are becoming real 3 point threats.
            Hey, I'm not complaining. West did lots of good stuff. But he was clearly forcing his offense all game long. Early on it worked for him, later on it didn't.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Why, because he could give us 6 fouls?

              More often than not, he looks old and decrepit.

              Even though his fade away jumper is even more painful to watch than it used to be, he has a refined post game and is a good passer. His defense is still great and he is still one of the great shot blockers in the league. He would be a great back up to Roy.

              I'm all for it.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                I agree in your points about Tyler and Roy's hooks.

                I am not saying that we should have drawn lots more fouls. That was only the case in the first period and after that it evened out.

                What I am trying to refute is your insinuation that this happened because the Lakers were more aggressive. We were aggressive. We took the ball to the rim. They were just did not contest our shots enough to foul us. And what did we did? We scored. And we won. Roy exploited the fact that Bynum was not trying to alter his shot and scored at will. He was aggressive. He was the instigator. He took the game to him and he beat him.

                About the Lakers now. Bryant took 15 shots outside of the paint and 2 jumpers on the foul line (one at the stripe and one in the elbow). That equals 17 jumpers. That's more than half of the shots he attempted. Pau Gasol shot 7 shots outside of the paint. Fisher's shots were all jumpers against that weird floater. Murphy's 3 of 4 shots were outside of the paint as well. The ones who mainly attacked the rim was Bynum, Barnes, MWP and Morris. The rest of the Lakers settled mostly for jumpers and they bricked most of them.

                So, don't bring the aggressiveness argument. It has nothing to do with the disparity on the FTs.

                PS: If you take a look at the FTs you will see that they only took 14 FTAs more than us. In the first half they already lead with 10-11. So, the officiating past the first quarter was quite 50-50. And yes, in the first quarter they deserved more FTs. They attacked the rim better and we played bad. But that was not what happened at the rest of the game.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                  I've been a Pacer fan since 93-94, originally watching from my home city of Perth, Australia. I've been to games at Market Square Arena and Conseco. I love my Pacers. This is the most excited I've been about the Pacers since the mid-90s glory years. I'm way more excited about this team than the pre-brawl 61-win version.

                  I don't know if I've ever seen a team with 7 players averaging double figures in points. This is exactly the type of TEAM I like. It's still early but everyone appears to be on the same page and genuinely happy and excited for each other.

                  Roy's really maturing into a top center and his attitude is phenomenal. Danny's defense has been amazing this year. Once his shot starts falling with consistency (I'm confident it will) he'll be a great two-way player.

                  D. West has brought toughness and leadership to the 4. He's just a great steadying influence. George Hill has done exactly what we hoped for, being that prototypical combo-guard every team needs. Darren has proven much more steady at the point this year and Paul is showing some very nice signs.

                  Combine this with Hansbrough, Dahntay and Foster's hustle and I think we have great balance.

                  There will be some disappointing losses this year no doubt (this team is still young), but I feel like we can get the 3-4 seed in the East this year. I've got league-pass broadband up here in Canada, so for the first time in my life I'll be able to catch every game! Can't wait...

                  /rah rah post

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                    "That's a credit to the coaches. We put in schemes to take the ball out of his hands to force other guys to make shots and it worked tonight. We didn’t spring it until the fourth quarter. He was doing his thing but we were still in the game. We knew that when it came down to crunch time Kobe was going to get the ball in his hands and we wanted to get it out of his hands." - Granger on the defense against Bryant
                    "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                    "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                    "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                      Originally posted by gummy View Post
                      "That's a credit to the coaches. We put in schemes to take the ball out of his hands to force other guys to make shots and it worked tonight. We didn’t spring it until the fourth quarter. He was doing his thing but we were still in the game. We knew that when it came down to crunch time Kobe was going to get the ball in his hands and we wanted to get it out of his hands." - Granger on the defense against Bryant
                      Now that's fantastic. I'm gonna have to go watch that again. Great coaching job, right there.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Speak for yourself. Teams when games, STARS win championships. I'd trade almost anyone on our roster for a bonafide superstar
                        New York Knicks say hi.

                        What a great win that was.I couldn't stay up because it was a cruel hour and last time i checked we were behind by 10 or 11 if i can recall.I thought for the worst to be fair but what a nice surprise to see that we won the game when i woke up today.Roy went into a beast mode in the second half(broken nose must have given him extra motive).More or less all of the players helped a lot last night except for Lou(somebody should talk to him or ban him from taking any kind of shot unless there is a clear dunk or something) and Tyler probably.West kept us in touch with the score in the first half,Danny despite his 4-14,was good in both ends with some excellent D and crucial scoring.DC was good once again and Hill with his usual production coming off the bench.
                        Can't wait for the match against Orlando and the Bulls.
                        Last edited by Johanvil; 01-23-2012, 03:57 PM.
                        Never forget

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Yep if Roy doesn't comes back we lose that game.
                          That's right, but it's important for folks to understand that we lose that game even if we had a backup to a backup for Roy.

                          Having more depth (the kind we would add in the near future) would not likely have saved us against the Lakers in the end.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            I'm not discounting Bird knew the risks, but I truly believe he didn't expect what he's got from Foster so far either. The one person who should be able to relate to back pain is Bird. This is why I don't understand not having another quality b/u 5.
                            I think knowing what you would get out of Foster and getting another quality b/u 5 are two different things. Bird may still be trying to do this. I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

                            As I mentioned in an earlier post, we lose this game if anyone but Hibbert is there at the end, most likely. So I don't think depth at the 5 would have helped us win this one. Some games are like that. You hope that you have near-starter depth among the bench players at each position, but who really enjoys that luxury at center? Come to think of it, who really has a great center to start with these days?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Now that's fantastic. I'm gonna have to go watch that again. Great coaching job, right there.

                              Good strategy, not the greatest execution. We tried it in the playoffs against Derrick Rose and it backfired.

                              It will take some time for us to get good at this, but I think it's the right thing to do. Practice makes perfect, so I'm glad we're trying it early in the season against the best players.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Lakers postgame thread

                                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                                Good strategy, not the greatest execution. We tried it in the playoffs against Derrick Rose and it backfired.

                                It will take some time for us to get good at this, but I think it's the right thing to do. Practice makes perfect, so I'm glad we're trying it early in the season against the best players.
                                It's one thing to double off of Matt Barnes and hope he misses an open three.

                                It's quite another to double off of Kyle Korver and hope he misses an open three.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X