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

Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

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

  • #16
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

    I think Frank's comments after the game might shed a little light on the timeout confrontation

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...-option-Pacers
    "I've really talked emphatically what we need to do on the defensive end, and when our assignments are clear and they're getting broken, I want to do something about it," Vogel. "If it means calling a timeout or taking a guy out of the game, whatever I have to do."

    From what I saw during that time Danny had missed at least two assignments in defending Hornbets pick and rolls and that was why Frank called both time outs and evidently in the second timeout Danny and Frank got a little heated. I'm not one to get too worried about a heat of the moment type thing like that. As long as play and coach are on the same page, I don't think it is a big deal. It is worth watching and seeing if it continues though.

    I will say the player coach relationship between the team's best player and the coach is critically important, so if there is any slippage overall in the Danny - Frank relationship it will tear the team apart.

    As far as the game, I just thought our offense lacked ball movment - way too much one-on-one from Danny, George, Darren. Our low assist totals for a game in which we scored 117 was really low. 18 assists on 44 made FG is not a good %.

    Is 10,500 the lowest attendance ever at the fieldhouse. (that is tickets sold or distributed) who knows how many were there
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-22-2012, 09:31 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

      Question, guys, as I don't have replay, only saw it once and didn't think much of it until after the game: on the final play of regulation, where PG24 missed the shot to win it, did the Pacers draw up the play for George and not try to get it to Granger, or did the Hornets just deny Granger?

      I only ask because the final shot should always be in the hands of Granger unless it's impossible to get him the ball. Say what you want about the man's other faults; he's undeniably clutch.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

        Wow, Peck being Debbie Downer this morning. Personally, I was fairly impressed with last night's win. NO just kept hitting shots. After awhile they start hitting shots inspite of the defense, which was good. Jack hitting that leaner as the shot clock expired would be one example, and Bellanelli hitting a 3 from 40ft would be another. At some point you just gotta tip your hat and say good shot.

        I thought the Pacers showed real determination and focus. Instead of hanging their collective heads, they just went right back to work.
        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

          Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
          Question, guys, as I don't have replay, only saw it once and didn't think much of it until after the game: on the final play of regulation, where PG24 missed the shot to win it, did the Pacers draw up the play for George and not try to get it to Granger, or did the Hornets just deny Granger?

          I only ask because the final shot should always be in the hands of Granger unless it's impossible to get him the ball. Say what you want about the man's other faults; he's undeniably clutch.

          I only saw it live, but I thought they drew it up for PG. I could be wrong. I'll say this, too. If that shot would have fallen, PG's confidence would have gone through the roof.
          Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

            The final shot in regulation was drawn up for George. He got a good look, just missed it. I wanted either Danny or West to get that shot. Danny was hot oin the 4th quarter and West had just hit a nice shot a few minutes earlier. Didn't think there was enough time to get the ball into Roy

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Is 10,500 the lowest attendance ever at the fieldhouse. (that is tickets sold or distributed) who knows how many were there
              I don't think that's a record, but it was probably the most apathetic crowd I've ever been a part of.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                I felt like the biggest problem with our defense is when we try for the turnover rather than defending the basket. Too many times we leave a guy an open lane to the basket because we've dived past trying to smack the ball away - and how many of those guys standing wide open at the arc are left there because we can't recover from trying to double a ballhandler and force the turnover?

                They come by this honest, to be sure, since there is a HUGE emphasis on disrupting the ball in our defensive scheme. However, there's a place for some moderation, especially when guys are good enough ballhandlers that they just shift the dribble and watch you sail merrily by.

                That's not to say those are our ONLY defensive issues - the inability to get through screens is a pretty serious one. In the 4th I was just about to remark to UB that Collison was actually doing a pretty decent job with the screens for a change, then he went so wide around one that I think he was heading to Starbucks for a latte before coming back on his man.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Is 10,500 the lowest attendance ever at the fieldhouse. (that is tickets sold or distributed) who knows how many were there
                  Don't know about previous years, but last year there were three games that didn't officially crack 10k. And the Atlanta game earlier this year was 10,334.....
                  PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I thought the Pacers showed real determination and focus. Instead of hanging their collective heads, they just went right back to work.
                    For most of the game I thought they were taking their All-Star break early. I was happier when they came out hard in OT. If it hadn't been for that, we'd probably have a loss to be griping about. With it, though, I have hope that the alarm clock went off.

                    We'll see how they come out tonight. This one is tailor made for them to take for granted and completely mess up - worst team in the league playing at home and hot for a payback, second night of a back-to-back, last game before the break...
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      I felt like the biggest problem with our defense is when we try for the turnover rather than defending the basket. Too many times we leave a guy an open lane to the basket because we've dived past trying to smack the ball away - and how many of those guys standing wide open at the arc are left there because we can't recover from trying to double a ballhandler and force the turnover?

                      They come by this honest, to be sure, since there is a HUGE emphasis on disrupting the ball in our defensive scheme. However, there's a place for some moderation, especially when guys are good enough ballhandlers that they just shift the dribble and watch you sail merrily by.

                      That's not to say those are our ONLY defensive issues - the inability to get through screens is a pretty serious one. In the 4th I was just about to remark to UB that Collison was actually doing a pretty decent job with the screens for a change, then he went so wide around one that I think he was heading to Starbucks for a latte before coming back on his man.
                      Here is what worries me. Roy pops out on the guard and makes contact with his butt/hip almost every time. Jarrett Jack isn't going to necessarily get that call, but D. Rose will. I don't want our 7'2" center getting into foul trouble 25 feet from the basket come playoff time. Just a concern of mine.
                      Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                        Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
                        Here is what worries me. Roy pops out on the guard and makes contact with his butt/hip almost every time. Jarrett Jack isn't going to necessarily get that call, but D. Rose will. I don't want our 7'2" center getting into foul trouble 25 feet from the basket come playoff time. Just a concern of mine.
                        He needs to hedge in order to give DC a chance to get through the screen. However, he wouldn't need to make so much contact if DC would put more of an effort into going over the top of the screen, rather than always going underneath and forcing Roy to commit so hard.
                        Last edited by Mackey_Rose; 02-22-2012, 09:49 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          He needs to hedge in order to give the DC a chance to get through the screen. However, he wouldn't need to make so much contact if DC would put more of an effort into going over the top of the screen, rather than always going underneath and forcing Roy to commit so hard.
                          I kept waiting for JJ to start selling the contact more last night and he finally did late in the game for the foul call. I know I would have been flopping all over the place if I was him. There was contact on damn near every play.
                          Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            There was a confrontation between Danny Granger & Frank Vogel on the 20 second time out in the first quarter (you know the time he had to use a second time out to wake us up). Frank, you could see, was mad when he called the time out and he yelled at Danny as soon as he walked up to the bench. Danny yelled right back at him to which Darren Collison yelled at Danny. This didn’t last for very long, a few seconds at best, but needless to say it was not fun to watch. You could see Roy being physically uncomfortable at that point.
                            Ah the exact time of Coach Vogel's "Come on guys, you are better than this" p!ssed off speech. Looked like he could chew through nails. Makes me wonder as we've heard several players want to run through walls for Frank, but what about Danny?
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                              Granger was pretty terrible the first 42 minutes of the game. He did much better the last half of the 4th and OT.

                              I'm not worried about words being exchanged on the bench or the decision to give PG that shot at the end of regulation. I don't think there's any doubt that Danny would have had a tough time beating Ariza whereas Paul got a good shot off against Bellinelli (I think, either way he had the better matchup there). If we had lost the game I might be a bit concerned about the effect those two things could have on the team, but winning solves all and if George Hill is back tonight I think he'll give us a nice injection of positive attitude as well.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                                Originally posted by RWB View Post
                                Ah the exact time of Coach Vogel's "Come on guys, you are better than this" p!ssed off speech. Looked like he could chew through nails. Makes me wonder as we've heard several players want to run through walls for Frank, but what about Danny?
                                I think people are reading too much about the incident. The 1st half has been setting frustrations to players and coaches, so I just see it as a "heat-of-the-moment" type of thing. It's not like it is regularly happening so I'll start to worry when these types of incidents happen more frequently than usual.

                                As for the game, I thought it was a good win by the Pacers. The fact that they won despite some hot shooting from NO. And let's not forget that Kaman is still an above-average center when healthy (and he's been doing great the past few games), so let's not go crazy over the supposed "bad win" because it's a close game despite them having a depleted lineup.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X