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/Bucks Postlame Thread

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers/Bucks Postlame Thread

    Am I crazy to think that Hill's defense on Jennings wasn't abysmal? Jennings was 7 of 10 from midrange. Most of those shots were of the step back variety with a hand in Jennings face. A good strategy against good scoring guards is to force them into midrange jumpers. Getting a hand in their face is a bonus. I don't think it is fair to blame Hill because Jennings was hot.

    Now, the 3 point foul... that was bad. But overall, it is lazy to look at the box score and blame Hill.
    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
    RSS Feed
    Subscribe via iTunes

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers/Bucks Postlame Thread

      Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
      Am I crazy to think that Hill's defense on Jennings wasn't abysmal? Jennings was 7 of 10 from midrange. Most of those shots were of the step back variety with a hand in Jennings face. A good strategy against good scoring guards is to force them into midrange jumpers. Getting a hand in their face is a bonus. I don't think it is fair to blame Hill because Jennings was hot.

      Now, the 3 point foul... that was bad. But overall, it is lazy to look at the box score and blame Hill.
      I agree, his defense wasn't terrible. But at some point, the defender or the coaches need to recognize the guy is smoking hot and force him away from the perimeter. Maybe not after burn #2, but certainly after burn #7.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        I thanked your post because you are the first person to admit that mistake.

        Not sure about being the first.

        I thought Green looked pretty good with the Nets, but that was a case of simply not seeing a player enough to realize all of his shortcomings. I blame the Pacers scouts for that

        But yeah Green has been horrible. Hopefully when Danny comes back Green can sit at the end of the bench.

        As far as the game - I thought the Pacers lost the game in the first half. Too many turnovers. Pacers should have had a 10-12 lead at halftime. The Bucks then came out in the third quarter and really played extremely well. Pacers started the 4th quarter playing really well. Yeah the first half is where the game was lost.

        I do give the Bucks defense some credit though, typical Skiles defense that always gives us trouble. I think the key with the bucks is when they have enough energy to play that defense they are good
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-19-2012, 08:19 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          I thought Green looked pretty good with the Nets, but that was a case of simply not seeing a player enough to realize all of his shortcomings. I blame the Pacers scouts for that
          I want to know what is different about the Nets that allowed him to play so well there, and so bad here.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers/Bucks Postlame Thread

            Yeah, I've tried to be patient with Green, hoping he would eventually establish something. At the time, I though it would at least be a decent signing, possibly even better.

            At the same time, I did recognize the risk involved in both the Green and Agustin pickups, and Mahinmi to a lesser extent. All guys who would appear to have the tools, but not a consistent track record at putting it all together. So we gambled a little on their potential (as opposed to established guys like Jones and Barbosa) with hopes that they would realize it. Mahinmi has been acceptable, but the other have failed miserably so far.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              I want to know what is different about the Nets that allowed him to play so well there, and so bad here.
              I would think Deron Williams would be a start.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

                Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                Kind of weird to pin it all on that play.
                For some reason,i blame that awful play too the most.It was like he killed any momentum we could get by scoring in that play.Can't hide the fact he enraged me even more than Hibbert does offensively this year.He didn't have a single clue what to do at that fast break.Lance did the same too.But I'm sick of Green's shortcomings.He's just not good enough and i will say it again.I dread the moment we go into playoffs and we still have him on our roster and still use him.Finally,regarding Hibbert,he missed yesterday several baskets that the ball "rimmed out".Thing is,this season,i have seen him missing tens of it.You could attribute it that much down to luck.He simply doesn't have the conviction when he gets up.Last night he got blocked twice i think.Here we are having a 7"2 center who is under the basket,he pump fakes like he's Nate Robinson and refuses to/can't dunk.
                Last edited by Johanvil; 12-19-2012, 09:42 AM.
                Never forget

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  I just finished watching the game. All I have to say is that I hate Dunleavy. He has a tendency to find ways to end up beating us.

                  Eff Dunleavy. That is all I have to say for tonight.
                  Wait, isn't that "Mike Dunleavy the worst defensive player ever to set foot on a basketball court since the invention of the peach basket"? Seems we should have torched him for 30 or 40 points, right? Isn't his offensive contribution misleading since he is so bad at the defensive end?

                  Or has he magically gotten better since he is no longer a Pacer...
                  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


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

                    Originally posted by HC View Post
                    Yeah, I am ashamed that I was actually excited when we signed him.
                    Weren't we all excited?! He looked like he could bring a good 3pt stroke as well as an "excitement factor" to the team during the pre season.

                    The thing that makes it worse is that here recently he's been getting himself good shots. He elevates so well on mid range J's as well as the open 3's, and he just can't get a damn thing to drop. IDK if OJ can do any better, but I'm sure he probably cannot do any worse so who knows.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Wait, isn't that "Mike Dunleavy the worst defensive player ever to set foot on a basketball court since the invention of the peach basket"? Seems we should have torched him for 30 or 40 points, right? Isn't his offensive contribution misleading since he is so bad at the defensive end?

                      Or has he magically gotten better since he is no longer a Pacer...
                      Though you're being sarcastic, you're right. he SHOULD have been getting touched, but instead PG wasn't up to the challenge. Kind of shows he hasn't quite turned the corner just yet. (Although, he should have had more FGA since West was in a funk)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers/Bucks Postlame Thread

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                        I still like Dunleavy. Always did.
                        I never figured out why we let him leave here for MLE money after paying him big money for all those years. I always thought PG could learn a lot from Duns, then Duns could be his and Danny's backup. Still don't understand it, but I don't blame him for putting a dagger in us every chance he gets.Oh, and I'd trade Green for Duns today!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers/Bucks Postlame Thread

                          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post

                          why're people talking about playoff seedings in the middle of December?
                          Same reason people talk about what players they'd like to draft this coming June w/o knowing what pick the Pacers will have or if that player would even be available.

                          As you alluded to, it's just too early to discuss... either one.
                          Last edited by Justin Tyme; 12-19-2012, 10:16 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

                            The first quarter I thought was very effectively played besides the turnovers. What bothered me was how impatient we became as the game went on with getting the ball into the deep post. When we are really good we don't pass the ball to Roy when he is outside of 6 Feet from the basket. If he gets muscled out, we just work the ball around until he re-establishes deep position. As the game progressed we became satisfied with him catching the ball 8+ Feet away from the goal where he has been relatively ineffective this season. We gotta get better

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers/Bucks Postlame Thread

                              Originally posted by presto123 View Post

                              know the boxscore but Hill was outplayed by Ben Hanbrough tonight. Hill's decision making was horrible tonight.

                              His 6-16 37% shooting didn't help either. It doesn't look good when your SF had more Ast than your PG who had only 3 Ast. 15 Asts in this game is pathetic. Terrible ball movement and poor shooting , 40%, were contributing factors. I'm not laying the cause on Hill, b/c if he had had his average of 5 asts it still was too low of a overall total # of asts for the Pacers.

                              The TO's in the 1st half dug the Pacers in a hole. You don't win many games having 20 TO's along with poor shooting.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread

                                Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post

                                I would trade Green and Augustin for Dunleavy in a heartbeat if it were fiscially possible

                                I said last year the Bucks got a real deal when getting Dunleavy at 3.75 mil. He's basically making the same money as Green and Augustin each do, and the combination of the 2 don't even come close to what Dunleavy overall produces for the Bucks. Dunleavy is money well spent for the Bucks. Great addition to their bench!

                                Then add in Dunleavy has extra reason to play hard against his former team, the Pacers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X