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

1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

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

  • 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

    I'VE HAD IT WITH
    THESE MOTHERBUCKING
    DEER ON THIS
    MOTHERBUCKING PLANE!



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: M. Smith, M. Boland, N. Buchert

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Milwaukee Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / FOX Sports Wisconsin
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WTMJ 620 AM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you


    19-14
    Home: 11-3
    East: 9-6
    16-15
    Away: 7-7
    East: 14-7
    Jan 08
    Jan 10
    Jan 12
    Jan 13
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    SANDERS
    UDOH
    MBAH A MOUTE
    ELLIS
    JENNINGS


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)
    George Hill - right groin strain (game time decision)
    Lance Stephenson - strep throat (probable)
    Sam Young - sprained left ankle (out)


    BUCKS
    Beno Udrih - sprained right ankle (questionable)




    Jared Wade: How Lance Stephenson Has Been Critical to the Pacers’ Success

    I wanted to try really hard to bail on this game, but the truth of the matter is that there
    was nothing else to do, and I was too lazy to try really hard. Despite my first version of
    these grades, I ended up watching the whole game, which really came down to the
    Pacers showing up and being absolutely dominant for one quarter, then making plays
    down the stretch.

    Early in the season, the Pacers looked lost without Danny Granger. The offense was
    abominable. Despite a relatively easy schedule to start the year, Indiana simply could
    not put points on the board.

    The season-long numbers have not changed much. The Pacers still have the league’s
    third worst offense
    , producing a measly 98.4 points per 100 possessions. The absolute
    bottom limit that should be considered acceptable for an NBA team is one point per
    possession, and Indiana needs to show some sustained improvement to reach even
    that paltry benchmark.

    As with most of the Pacers’ problems, however, a lot of this is due to the bench. Since
    Thanksgiving, the starting lineup has actually been producing.

    One of the key reasons has been Lance Stephenson.

    Stephenson came off the bench in the team’s first six games of the season. To replace
    Granger, coach Frank Vogel first tried Gerald Green (for three games). That didn’t work,
    as Indiana dropped a game to the Bobcats and needed an overtime to beat the Kings at
    home. In the process, Green missed 14 of his first 19 shots and looked more like the
    guy who played his way out of the NBA than the man who resurrected his career last
    year in New Jersey.

    Sam Young then got the nod.

    Indiana lost those three games.

    Sitting at 2-4, with an offensive rating of 92.3 points per 100 possession, the team
    turned to Lance. In his first start, he scored 12 points on 5-for-7 shooting as the Pacers
    beat the Wizards. It was, after all, just the Wizards, but Vogel found something that
    worked and he stuck with it.

    Stephenson has started every game (as long as he has been healthy), but especially in
    the early going, the fourth quarter lineup varied. It almost always included the four
    undisputed starters (George Hill, Paul George, David West and Roy Hibbert), but
    Stephenson was sometimes interchanged with Young or Green depending on the game
    situation.

    Lately, however, Lance has been playing so well that his production has demanded he
    get the vast bulk of the important minutes on the wing next to Paul George.

    “My trust level with him, on both ends of the court, is as high as it’s ever been,” said
    Vogel of Stephenson in a pregame press briefing on Monday. “But it certainly needs to
    maintain itself — he needs to maintain the play — to keep that trust. He’s still a young
    player. He’s still going to have some inconsistent moments. And he’s got to keep building
    that trust.”

    Coaches love certainty. They abhor not knowing what they will get from a player.

    No doubt, Stephenson is still a wild card. He has his bad games, he blows defensive
    assignments, and he over-dribbles at times. But compared to the other options at Vogel’s
    disposal, the flaws are something the coach will likely just have to live with until Granger
    returns.

    One chart shows all you need to see.


    (statistics as of January 2)

    The numbers are indisputable: the Pacers have not been able to score when Gerald
    Green and Sam Young play with the four true starters, but they have put the ball in the
    hoop just fine when Lance Stephenson plays alongside Hill, George, West and Hibbert.

    The number of minutes played by each does allow for some statistical noise, but all the
    lineup data points in one direction. The Pacers shoot better and score better (and turn
    the ball over less, which isn’t show in the chart above) when Stephenson is on the floor
    with the starters. They also have shoot a blistering 40.7% from three-point range,
    thanks in large part to Lance’s 39.0% shooting from behind the arc this year.

    Yes, Lance Stephenson has been the Pacers’ best three-point shooter this season.

    And this offensive output hasn’t come only when he plays with the starters.

    In addition to the 497 minutes Stephenson has played this season with Hill, George,
    West and Hibbert, he has played another 294 minutes in various other lineups. Overall,
    the team has scored 104.7 points per 100 possessions with him on the floor versus a
    depressing 92.1 when he sits. That is the type of differential you would expect from the
    2006 Cavaliers without LeBron James or the 2007 Celtics without Paul Pierce.

    Not Lance Stephenson.

    To put that 10.6 point swing in perspective, it is exactly the same difference that exists
    between the NBA’s best offense, Oklahoma City (at 110.6 per 100), and the 22nd “best”
    offense, Minnesota (100.0 per 100).



    Lance Stephenson’s individual numbers don’t bowl you over.

    He generally produced throughout December, finishing the month by scoring double
    figures in five straight games, including a season-high 16 points — not to mention a
    career-high 7 assists — during a win in Cleveland on December 21. But given his high-
    minute totals, there isn’t a single stat line that makes you say “Whoa Boy.”

    It has just been steady contributions paired with accurate shooting.

    Setting aside individual numbers...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s




    Pacers
    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows


    Bucks
    Charles F. Gardner @cf_gardner
    Jeremy Schmidt @Bucksketball
    K L Chouinard @AnaheimAmigos
    Frank Madden @brewhoop
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

    Someone needs to stop that motherbucker Monta Ellis from tearing us a new one tonight. Be nice to not lose 3 straight to the Bucks. Be REALLY nice if Roy Hibbert found his man pants and went attack mode against Sanders who has called him out for being a wuss already this season.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

      Must win.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

        Yep gotta win this one before the Miami and New York games or theres a potential for a 4 game skid....
        Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

          Bucks are wearing those red uniforms that I hate! If the Bucks lose I blame those unis.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

            Are we wearing a cool jersey? That would be cool...
            witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

            Originally posted by Day-V
            In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
            Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

              Hills playing or supposed to.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Hills playing or supposed to.
                has been supposed to last 3 games....
                "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                  We desperately need a win here after last night's performance.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                    PG complained about the no call here.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                      Lance
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                        Nice plays by PG and Lance, attack the rim, play with force!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                          crowd sounds loud tonight
                          "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                            Lance had a nice start but he got 2 early fouls
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 1/5/2013 Game Thread #34: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                              Great. Now both Lance and Green have 2 fouls.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X