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

1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

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

  • 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

    MORE THAN ONE WAY
    TO SKIN THESE CATS...AGAIN



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
    Where: Time Warner Cable Arena, Charlotte, NC
    Officials: R. Garretson, M. Boland, J. Goble

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Charlotte Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / SportsSouth Charlotte
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WFNZ 610 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


    23-15
    Away: 8-12
    East: 13-9
    9-28
    Home: 5-14
    East: 7-13
    Jan 16
    Jan 18
    Jan 21
    Jan 23
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    1:00pm
    10:00pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    BIYOMBO
    WARRICK
    KIDD-GILCHRIST
    HENDERSON
    WALKER


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)
    Roy Hibbert - back spasms (questionable)
    Lance Stephenson - foot (questionable)



    BOBCATS
    Byron Mullens - Left Ankle Sprain (out)



    Jared Wade: Indiana Falls Apart, Run Out of the Gym by Brooklyn

    The Pacers’ shooting chart for the first three quarters of their 97-86 loss to the Brooklyn
    Nets. After these first 36 minutes, during which Indiana shot 52.5% (32-for-61) overall
    and 61.4% (27-for-44) inside the three-point line, the Pacers led 75-69.


    Everything looked wonderful.

    Then the fourth quarter happened, and it all fell apart.

    They shot just 3-for-22 (13.6%) in the final period and allowed the momentum-fueled
    Nets to make 8-of-14 (57.1%). In all, they were out-scored 28-11, which was the fewest
    points any Brooklyn opponent has scored on in a fourth quarter this season.

    “I thought we stepped up our defense intensity in the last quarter,” said Deron Williams
    after the game. “We knew we had to get stops for us to have a chance to win the game.”

    Really, that was their only chance. And playing that badly in the fourth is just about the
    only way the Pacers could turn a game they controlled for three quarters into a blowout
    the other way.

    “We stopped executing, and we lost our composure,” said David West.

    According to West, the bleeding actually started a little earlier.

    He didn’t like the way Indiana ended the third quarter, as they continually put Brooklyn
    on the free-throw line, where the Nets narrowed the gap and got the Pacers into foul
    trouble. Seven of Brooklyn’s final nine points of the third came from the charity stripe.

    Seeing as how three of those fouls were on West, I’m going to speculate that he may not
    have agreed with all the calls. Meanwhile, Roy Hibbert and Paul George were both forced
    to the bench at different times after picking up their fifth fouls.

    George certainly wasn’t thrilled. “I think when we get 12 free throws and they have
    around 31, it is hard to overcome,” said George. “We have to do a better job at playing
    without fouling.” He added that he thought “we could’ve won this game, but some things
    you can’t have control over.”

    If you combine...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s


    Lineup Check Up

    The time has come to take another look at how specific Bobcats’ lineups have fared so
    far this season. If you remember, we first had a look at things back in late November
    when the Bobcats stood at 5-4. Record-wise, the team has not fared as well since
    their hot start. Upon comparing the current point differentials of some of the most
    utilized lineups to the numbers after only nine games, you begin to see why they’ve
    struggled as well as why it’s important to remember that it’s a long season. There are
    ebbs and flows but one thing is always for sure – the cream rises to the top.

    Let’ begin our look with the lineup that has logged the most minutes all season –
    Haywood, Mullens, Kidd-Gilchrist, Taylor, and Walker. After nine games, the lineup had
    posted a point differential of 12.2 (per 100 possessions). Since then though, the lineup
    has struggled mightily during the 95 minutes they’ve been on the court together,
    resulting in a point differential of -14.7. The lineup’s struggles can largely be attributed
    to Mullens’ play
    , but this is a story for another time. All in all, the Bobcats’ most
    used lineup has a point differential of -2.5 over 166 minutes of play so far this season.

    Eventually, Coach Dunlap elected to replace Haywood in the starting lineup with Bismack
    Biyombo. Fans rejoiced. Bloggers rejoiced. Everyone rejoiced. However, so far the
    results have not been praise worthy. To date, the lineup has seen the court for 55
    minutes (second-most often used lineup) and recorded a point differential of -22.9.
    So clearly Biyombo is the problem, right? I’m not so sure. What is clear is that this
    lineup gives up 43% of their opponent’s field goals close to the basket – a recipe for
    disaster. It may seem counterintuitive given the prolific shot-blocker Biyombo is, but
    in actuality the Bobcats fare better
    offensively with him on the floor and
    worse defensively
    . Whether Biyombo is to blame or not, the numbers scream that
    this lineup does not know how to play together, particularly defensively.

    Much in the way Biyombo could be blamed for the struggles of the previous lineup
    (I’m in no way advocating this kind of analysis), Gerald Henderson’s inclusion in
    the starting five in place of Jeff Taylor has resulted in far more impressive
    numbers for the Bobcats. Leading up to the Mullens injury, the newly minted
    starting lineup (Biyombo, Mullens, Kidd-Gilchrist, Henderson, Walker) had posted
    a point differential of 7.8 over 52 minutes of play on the court. Another productive
    lineup – albeit in less court time – has been the diminutive backcourt of Walker
    and Sessions paired with Kidd-Gilchrist, Mullens, and Biyombo. This grouping
    boasts a point differential of 13.2 over 32 minutes of play.

    How about some of the new lineups we may have seen with the likes of Hakim
    Warrick as well as the now healthy Tyrus Thomas? The results have been very
    good and very bad. The lineup...CONTINUE READING AT QUEEN CITY HOOPS




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


    Bobcats
    Rick Bonnell @rick_bonnell
    Ben Swanson @CardboardGerald
    Spencer Percy @QCsportscrave
    Brett Hainline @BrettQCHoops
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

    I would REALLY like to see DJ have a strong outing tonight to make up for his missed game winner early in the year.

    His improved play of late has been huge for us, and a dominating game against his former team may just be that extra little boost he needs to continue settling in with the Pacers.

    Comment


    • #3
      Should be an interesting game. Been a while since I've seen a bobcats game live.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

        There's way more Pacers fans than Bobcats fans.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

          This game didn't win the NBATV fan night vote!? Huh.

          NBA.com's Ten Before Tip blog reports Lance Stephenson will start tonight.
          Last edited by LG33; 01-15-2013, 07:58 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

            I expect us to win easily tonight with everybody healthy except Granger of course.

            "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

            Comment


            • #7
              ***** this place is empty....

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

                What's the money line on the Henderson-Hansbrough fight?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

                  Wow, and I thought we had bad attendance. If you didn't know any better you'd think this was a D-league game or something.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

                    Originally posted by PGisthefuture View Post
                    Wow, and I thought we had bad attendance. If you didn't know any better you'd think this was a D-league game or something.
                    Yet, somehow the bobcats have better attendance numbers than we do on the year.... hmm
                    "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


                    • #11
                      Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

                      So quiet.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

                        Nice play by Paul there. Hmm.. Dan Burke's left eye looks like it's almost swelled shut. Wonder what happened there?
                        Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

                          Did somebody punch Dan Burke? He's got quite the black eye.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

                            This might be the quietest crowd I've ever witnessed.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 1/15/2013 Game Thread #39: Pacers Vs. Bobcats

                              West and Roy eating Charlotte's lunch like they should.

                              "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X