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

Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

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

  • #46
    Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    AJ Price Happens. I've never seen a 3rd string point guard who takes as many shots as him.
    Price shoots less than Hill does. And gets the ball to Tyler almost every time down the court.

    He's taking less shots because defenses are completely focusing on him, and he's passing more.

    Actually, he's taking around the same amount of shots as he has been for a while. (His 3 attempts for tonight is misleading, he shot 8 free throws)

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

      Pacers had "8" asts for the game against Cleveland while Cleveland had 24 asts!!!! AGAINST CLEVELAND!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
        Price shoots less than Hill does.
        PER36 Attempts
        12.1 Price
        10.6 Hill

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

          I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

            Originally posted by Asher99 View Post
            PER36 Attempts
            12.1 Price
            10.6 Hill
            Hill plays more minutes, so putting the PER36 up there doesn't mean a thing in terms of why Tyler isn't getting more shots. (Or why you think he isn't..)

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

              Hill does play more but Price shoots the ball more than Hill and Tyler at a per 36 rate.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                Its like that legendary 5 game win streak, it's just gonna be an aberration. I can't think that this team will be like this.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                  Originally posted by Asher99 View Post
                  PER36 Attempts
                  12.1 Price
                  10.6 Hill
                  Ooooo 1.5 more shots per 36 minutes, he takes soooo many more shots. Not to meantion according to your stats Price has been one of the best shooters on the team recently. Anyways the facts are Hansbrough is shooting less because of Hansbrough and/or coaches, not because heisn't getting the ball.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                    Originally posted by flox View Post
                    Its like that legendary 5 game win streak, it's just gonna be an aberration. I can't think that this team will be like this.
                    That's an interesting point. That 5 game win streak made us think the Pacers were better than they were. Maybe this one is making us believe we are worse than we are.
                    "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                      This game started as badly as the Miami game overall was, but it didn't end as badly as that. I think we'll eventually bounce back from all of this and this stretch will just be a bad memory eventually. Many thought it was all over during our 6-game losing streak with Vogel last year, too.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        Ooooo 1.5 more shots per 36 minutes, he takes soooo many more shots. Not to meantion according to your stats Price has been one of the best shooters on the team recently. Anyways the facts are Hansbrough is shooting less because of Hansbrough and/or coaches, not because heisn't getting the ball.
                        1.5 more shots per 36 is too many, also Price is a hooper in garbage time just like most NBA players but when its not his percentage is bad, he's over 80% from the field after the dogs have been called these last 2 games.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          Ooooo 1.5 more shots per 36 minutes, he takes soooo many more shots. Not to meantion according to your stats Price has been one of the best shooters on the team recently. Anyways the facts are Hansbrough is shooting less because of Hansbrough and/or coaches, not because heisn't getting the ball.
                          It's not worth it.

                          You'd think a Tyler fan would like AJ though...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                            It's not worth it.

                            You'd think a Tyler fan would like AJ though...
                            I don't dislike AJ or anyone of the team but the fact remains he shoots too often, I Honestly don't know how anyone can dispute that. If AJ is shooting at a higher rate than anyone on the bench and a couple of the starters we have an issue.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              Pacers had "8" asts for the game against Cleveland while Cleveland had 24 asts!!!! AGAINST CLEVELAND!
                              It's pretty difficult to register an assist when quite often the offense has one if its players dribbling the ball outside the 3-point line with 4-5 seconds on the shot clock.

                              I don't know how many times this happened, but I have a hunch is was probably greater than 10 times. I really shouldn't have referred to what was going on as an offense, I usually think that in order to call it an "offense" that it must have a plan and serve a purpose.

                              But then, I suppose we really cannot use the term "defense" then either, can we?

                              I suppose it logically follows that, since basketball involves playing something called offense and something called defense, that we must have been playing some other sport.... since we obviously could not claim to have played either offense nor defense.

                              But, I won't panic yet.... we ARE a better team than what we have been showing the last 2-3 games.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Cleveland/Washington generals 2.0 postgame thread

                                Originally posted by Asher99 View Post
                                I don't dislike AJ or anyone of the team but the fact remains he shoots too often, I Honestly don't know how anyone can dispute that. If AJ is shooting at a higher rate than anyone on the bench and a couple of the starters we have an issue.
                                I don't think he shoots too much simply because I don't typically have a problem with the shots he takes, and I also understand in the "Lance, AJ, Dahntay, Tyler, and Lou" bench unit, there is a severe lack of scorers.

                                I don't think you can get mad at AJ for trying to do what's best in the situation...get some points on the board. It's like I said earlier about DC, at the end of the day, whoever has the most points wins.

                                Tyler's struggling to get shots right now, and Price is getting wide open ones. He better take them. At some point, team's will adjust, and come out and defend AJ, and Tyler will have an easier time getting shots. But as it is right now, AJ's agenda, coming down the floor (so long as Granger isn't in there with him) is almost always "Get the ball to Tyler and see if we can get a good shot out of it." It's just simply working less and less because the opposing defense is entirely focused on Tyler. (There are actually times when all five defenders have sunk in on Tyler when he's got the ball.)

                                I agree with you, in that Tyler should be the #1 option, but opposing teams are forcing the rest of the bench to score. AJ's got a better chance of hitting a jump shot than Lance or Lou..and despite percentages, probably Dahntay as well.
                                Last edited by Sookie; 02-16-2012, 01:24 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X