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: First game of the 2012/13 season...

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

  • #31
    Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

    Originally posted by daschysta View Post
    West's ownage in the fourth was far, far larger than Bargnani's "ownage" in the first. 25 points 12-19 vs. 16 points on 4-15 (most of which were scored when West as out). He only had 3 rebounds himself, so I don't know what else you would call it besides West owning the matchup. West scored in the fourth only 2 points less than Andrea scored all night, you must have a really strict definition of ownage if that doesn't qualify in your book.

    Actually Bargnani only scored 2 points while West was on the bench. Yes, like I already said West owned Bargnani in the fourth. That doesn't negate that Bargnani owned him in the 1st, and West didn't play well in the second or third either.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Way to watch the game, and read what I typed.

      Stop assuming you know what I am saying because you obviously didn't take the time to actually read anything I have said.
      Here's what I know. Bargnani scored 11 points in the first quarter and 16 for the entire game. Of those 11 in the first quarter, 7 could be directly attributed to D-West. From then out, 3 of Bargnani's whopping 5 points scored were from free throws from Roy Hibbert fouls, only two points were scored directly against West the rest of the game.

      You said West was owned in the first quarter and then you said it didn't get any better for West in the 2nd or 3rd quarter did you not? How could you possibly say that? Clearly his defense got significantly better. Bargnani only scored 5 points on anyone for the last 39 minutes of the game. This is Toronto's BEST individual scorer, how did West not get any better in the 2nd and 3rd quarter? During this same time period, West scored 11 of his 25 in the 2nd and 3rd. So how exactly did West (your words not mine now) "struggled for the next two quarters before he got hot in the 4th."?


      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        OK let's leave it at West got owned by Andrea for 2 and a half quarters and West destroyed Andrea on the 4th quarter and got his dignity back? happy? West ended up winning at the end right? once again the stats don't show what we saw yesterday, there is a reason why Tyler played that long, not only because West got in foul trouble but because he was getting owned and sucked on D.

        I still don't understand why you guys need to defend West on everything by the way, pointing something out doesn't mean that people are hating on him, because it's true.
        How did Andrea own West for 2 and a half quarters? In the 2nd and 3rd quaters, West had 11 points and Andrea had 3. I haven't said once you're hating on him. What I am saying is that what you are saying is not true. He "owned" West (if you want to call it that) for maybe 5 minutes. For the rest of the game David had overall more of an impact on the game.


        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          I still don't understand why you guys need to defend West on everything by the way, pointing something out doesn't mean that people are hating on him, because it's true.
          We don't defend him on everything, but we do defend him seemingly more often, simply because you seem to bash him more often...
          Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            How did Andrea own west for 2 and a half quarters? In the 2nd and 3rd quaters, West had 11 points and Andrea had 3. I haven't said once you're hating on him. What I am saying is that what you are saying is not true.
            There is a reason why you watch the game, even West said that he didn't play well in the first half are you going to say that he is lying? remember that he is "an straight shooter" and never lies
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

              Here is what I love Vnzla acts like I am coming at him because he is hating on West. I never used the word hating. This is his classic deflection technique instead of addressing the issue. He will play it that I am only disagreeing with him because I think he is "hating" on West. No, I just think he is wrong.


              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                There is a reason why you watch the game, even West said that he didn't play well in the first half are you going to say that he is lying? remember that he is "an straight shooter" and never lies
                Never said he played "well", but I am saying he outplayed Bargnani in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Isn't that the argument we're having or are you going to try and change the subject on me?

                Also, I watched the game. So come at me with something stronger than that or don't come at all. Just because you say it doesn't make it true

                West did not play what I would call well in the 1st or 3rd. I would say he played alright in the 2nd and he was dominant in the 4th. I would say Bargnani played well in the first and was terrible in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. I would say West clearly outplayed Bargnani in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Which I thought that was the discussion we were having? But now you are trying to change it to whether or not West played "well" in the first half.
                Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-01-2012, 01:22 PM.


                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                  Originally posted by TheDavisBrothers View Post
                  We don't defend him on everything, but we do defend him seemingly more often, simply because you seem to bash him more often...
                  I don't bash him, I try to bring people down to earth when they overrated the crap out of the guy, way different, I have done the same thing with different players before not just him, I did the same with DC last year and I was a "DC hater" until people started to come to my side.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    7 could be directly attributed to D-West
                    9, I don't know where you are missing the last two unless you either don't count the free throws Bargnani made on after West fouled him before going out, or if you aren't counting when West was beat off the dribble resulting in a Hibbert foul?

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    You said West was owned in the first quarter and then you said it didn't get any better for West in the 2nd or 3rd quarter did you not?
                    Stop right there I did not say it didn't get any better. I never said anything like that. I said West didn't do anything to "disprove the idea". Meaning he still played like crap, but I did not say Bargnani continued to own him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                      It's pretty apparent everybody agrees that West played much better in the second half, and had a better overall output. We won the game, why does the degree to which one player won a matchup matter?

                      David West always struggles with long 4's who can step outside and knock some shots down anyway.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Never said he played "well", but I am saying he outplayed Bargnani in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Isn't that the argument we're having or are you going to try and change the subject on me?
                        Go back and watch the game, it's the only thing I'm going to tell you, West said it himself, that he sucked in the first half, Tyler was put in for West for a reason.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          9, I don't know where you are missing the last two unless you either don't count the free throws Bargnani made on after West fouled him before going out, or if you aren't counting when West was beat off the dribble resulting in a Hibbert foul?



                          Stop right there I did not say it didn't get any better. I never said anything like that. I said West didn't do anything to "disprove the idea". Meaning he still played like crap, but I did not say Bargnani continued to own him.
                          Huh? He outplayed Bargnani in the 2nd and 3rd quarters, just because he didn't play well or up to his own standards does not mean that he didn't disprove the idea that "Bargnani was owning" him or as Vnzla put it so eloquently, he was pretty sure that he "saw West ironing Bargnani's shirt at some point on the sideline" unless Vnzla was talking specifically about the first substitution in the first quarter I'd say he is making an incorrect statement at any other point in the game.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                            Back to what Peck said on the possibility of starting Sam Young, just read this report:

                            "We will stagger the rotation so that the second unit doesn't all of a sudden become Lance [Stephenson] and Sam Young out there together," Vogel said. "They may see some minutes together, but I'll try to keep Paul or Gerald on the court at one time."
                            (Rotowire.com)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I don't bash him, I try to bring people down to earth when they overrated the crap out of the guy, way different, I have done the same thing with different players before not just him, I did the same with DC last year and I was a "DC hater" until people started to come to my side.
                              I'm speaking in complete generalizations so don't get too hung up on my statements, but generally speaking I do think the board has a slightly higher opinion of West then I do, but at the same time it's feels like you are trying to overcompensate their slightly higher opinion of West with an overly negative view of him...
                              Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: First game of the 2012/13 season...

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Go back and watch the game, it's the only thing I'm going to tell you, West said it himself, that he sucked in the first half, Tyler was put in for West for a reason.
                                Haha, you are hilarious. This was not the discussion we were having. Whether or not West played well. That was not the topic. It was how West did in relation to Bargnani after the first quarter. He outplayed him in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. That does not mean West played well. I never said he played well. I never said he didn't suck in the first quarter or that he didn't play all that well in the second.

                                Go back and watch the last 7 minutes of the 2nd quarter. West and Bargnani check in at nearly the same time. They both don't do much from there on out, but West won the individual matchup even if neither of them was spectacular. He stole the ball from Bargnani and I believe he also had two buckets. Bargnani had no points and was a net negative on defense. The same thing happens in the 3rd quarter for the most part other than Bargs getting a block or two. He scores I think 3 more points in the 3rd while West puts up 7 and already starts to get rolling. West was already showing positive strides in the 3rd quarter even if some of you are just going to act like he suddenly showed up to the game in the 4th.

                                I'm glad West thinks he sucked. He strikes me as the type of guy that probably holds himself to a really high standard, wouldn't you agree with that?
                                Last edited by Trader Joe; 11-01-2012, 01:30 PM.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X