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/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

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

  • #46
    Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

    Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
    When Paul George is snatching 14 boards, i find it hard to complain about anyone's rebounding being low. PG is just a damn good rebounder.
    I clearly remember PG snatching a board out of Lance's hands. That was bad for my fantasy team
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

      Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
      Roy actually had a pretty decent stat line. But good Lord was he getting pushed around like a little girl by a smaller Seraphin. Great interior passing by Roy tonight though!
      I don't really understand why people get upset over Roy getting pushed around. He routinely does get pushed around, yes. But he literally routinely gets pushed around. As in, his undersized defender puts two hands on his back and pushes him away from the basket. Because he's so big, referees assume that he should take more contact before calling a foul. He probably would havee had 16-18 points tonight if he had gotten the foul calls he should have earned tonight.

      It's the Shaq/Dwight complaint that they get hit hard a lot more often. Only in this case, Roy isn't quite as strong as them so it affects his offense even more. But you also notice he doesn't complain about it like other well paid centers. Those who think he needs to "put on his big boy pants" need to consider that.

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      I missed the game, but I was wondering about the Roy comments as well. If he'd been hitting 6 of 11 all season long he wouldn't be getting any flak. Of course, 4 rebounds ain't gonna cut it, but overall his rebounding hasn't been a problem.
      The past couple of years, when Roy doesn't get rebounds it's not normally because he's being weak. Usually I find it the case that he just happened to lose more rebounds that game because he was working hard at routinely taking away rebounding position from a player or two on the opposing team. Sometimes he gets beaten to a spot, and against the strong freaks like Cousins he gets outmuscled, but he wins the battle most trips.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

        Roy made some really strong post moves in the first half, but then the second half he was back to playing kinda weak.

        Typical Green tonight. The last two games we've got nothing from our backup wings. Something needs to be done with the rotation. If it were up to me, Green and Young would never be on the court together at the same time. It's just doing a disservice to the rest of the players on the court with them.

        DJ played good D tonight, I was impressed. If he keeps playing well, I'm hoping he takes some of Green or Young's minutes. We could take out Hill early and put him back in for Paul or Lance at the end of the quarter, that way there would always be someone on the wing that can play offense. It'd also allow DJ to play with the starters more. He seems to have good chemistry those guys, especially D. West. He got him several good shots today out of the PnR, D. West just missed them.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

          Oh yea, I forgot, during the post game Roy basically called out the bench. Good for him.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

            question - do you guys think Orlando Johnson can *eventually* be somewhat of a Jordan Crawford type player?
            Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

            Comment


            • #51
              The best part about Paul is that it almost seemed like a "quiet" 29 points.
              Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                re bornready...

                I'd like to find out. Can't be any worse than what we're gettin now at the backup positions.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                  Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                  question - do you guys think Orlando Johnson can *eventually* be somewhat of a Jordan Crawford type player?
                  No.

                  Jordan Crawford was born with the scoring gene. As Bill Simmons would say, he's one of those "irrational confidence" guys. Orlando, from what I've seen/read about him, doesn't have that in him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                    I doubt Orlando Johnson can do anything because he can't make it on the court with a team that lacks wings. Young is NOT good, so why can't Johnson replace him? It makes me doubt his talent.

                    Green is struggling to find his role, but he hasn't exactly played well. So somewhere between our backup wings there are minutes to be found by someone who is just beyond terrible. Yet the coaches are reluctant to give him the chance so I don't put much hope in Orlando.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                      Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                      question - do you guys think Orlando Johnson can *eventually* be somewhat of a Jordan Crawford type player?
                      Unless we get ravaged by injuries at the guard and wing spots in the next year, I don't think we will ever know.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        I don't really understand why people get upset over Roy getting pushed around. He routinely does get pushed around, yes. But he literally routinely gets pushed around. As in, his undersized defender puts two hands on his back and pushes him away from the basket. Because he's so big, referees assume that he should take more contact before calling a foul. He probably would havee had 16-18 points tonight if he had gotten the foul calls he should have earned tonight.

                        It's the Shaq/Dwight complaint that they get hit hard a lot more often. Only in this case, Roy isn't quite as strong as them so it affects his offense even more. But you also notice he doesn't complain about it like other well paid centers. Those who think he needs to "put on his big boy pants" need to consider that.



                        The past couple of years, when Roy doesn't get rebounds it's not normally because he's being weak. Usually I find it the case that he just happened to lose more rebounds that game because he was working hard at routinely taking away rebounding position from a player or two on the opposing team. Sometimes he gets beaten to a spot, and against the strong freaks like Cousins he gets outmuscled, but he wins the battle most trips.
                        Not only this, but there are times when Roy has to rotate over to contain penetration and he ends up blocking or altering the shot and someone else gets a rebound. I'm watching this game now - I am midway through the second quarter - and I've seen Roy do this twice and the rebound ended up going to PG. I think we have to figure that playing more with DJ (who has been good offensively with the starters, but we can all agree that he is a really bad defender) is going to have an impact on his rebounding numbers because he often has to pick up DJ's man when he gets into the paint.

                        I'm ecstatic with 6 of 11 shooting for Roy.

                        Edit: Midway through the 3rd quarter and I've seen Roy tip the ball out to DWest, who gets the offensive rebound recorded in his column. So that's three rebounds that someone on the team got in large part because of something positive Roy did. When you combine these things with the fact that he was limited to 24 minutes I'm not in the least bit bothered by the 4 rebound total.
                        Last edited by gummy; 01-03-2013, 01:18 AM.
                        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

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

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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                          Originally posted by mattie View Post
                          I doubt Orlando Johnson can do anything because he can't make it on the court with a team that lacks wings. Young is NOT good, so why can't Johnson replace him? It makes me doubt his talent.

                          Green is struggling to find his role, but he hasn't exactly played well. So somewhere between our backup wings there are minutes to be found by someone who is just beyond terrible. Yet the coaches are reluctant to give him the chance so I don't put much hope in Orlando.
                          I don't expect our coaches to lose patience to their players that easily. I think that they believe that OJ needs a year in the D-League before getting substantial minutes. I think that they want to develop him first.

                          Lance did not play a lot last year either (granted, he played more than OJ). But he has talent and he's proving it this year.

                          In general, we seem to take it easy with our youngsters. I expect OJ to be part of our rotation in the next season.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                            Sorry, but I just don't buy it regarding Roy.

                            What I will give Hibbert is that he is 10x the defensive player that I ever thought he would become. He started out as a player that could not guard very well at all. He took up room and that was about it. The following year, although he wasn't a great man on defender, he occasionally registered the block on help defense. How the hell he ever became the rim protector he has become is beyond me, but being a person who emphasizes defense over offense, I must confess that he impresses the hell out of me. He isn't great far from the basket, but that is exactly why a good defensive PG like Hill is so important at the point.

                            But as much as he has improved on defense, I swear I think he has regressed just as much on offense.

                            I was spot on about his hook. His form and grace absolutely sucks. With the height and reach advantage he has on nearly every player in the league, with any form at all, a hook should be bread and butter from 5-10 feet. And anything inside that range, I would absolutely command him to dunk. Whether a dunk or a hook, I see no need for him to lower the ball or put it on the floor. If the shot isn't there, or his footwork/timing gets messed up and the shot clock allows, pass it out rather than putting up the shot. There is absolutely no excuse for his shooting percentage and efficiency not being much better than what it is.

                            I really thought that Hibbert would improve slightly over the offensive player that we saw last season. But it's just not the case. I don't buy that he's getting "handled" nearly as much as he is failing to cut hard, drop and hold position. I will say that it is possible that the presence of Granger might make that task easier for him.

                            But right now, whether Granger were on the court or not, other than the form of his hook shot, my biggest problem with Hibbert is that he does not show the same level of intensity and perseverance at the offense end as he does at the offensive end.

                            How strange is it that it is possible to make a statement like that about a player? Almost always we make statements like that about a player's defensive efforts. But I believe Roy still has a lot to work on offensively.

                            If Roy were being "handled" as much as some seem to think, considering how poorly he holds position, he would be flying all over the place and more fouls would be called.

                            I do hope the Pacers retain West. Roy has a lot to learn from him regarding the little tricks like footwork that are required to earn good positioning. Now, if the Pacers could just get Kareem to teach Hibbert how to properly release a hook shot. And, if Kareem is not available or unwilling, they can give me a call, because at age 60 mine is much better and certainly finds net on a much more frequent basis.
                            Last edited by beast23; 01-03-2013, 01:19 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                              Lance Stephenson may be the most entertaining Pacer since Ron Artest. His circus shots during games are a coaches worst nightmare, but as a fan I have mixed emotions. The dunk miss was terrible, his rucker park half spin reverse layup attempt was actually very creative and it was unfortunate the finish was just not there. Regardless, Lance is entertaining.
                              *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 1/2/13

                                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                                Oh yea, I forgot, during the post game Roy basically called out the bench. Good for him.
                                What did he say?
                                "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

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

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X