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 Blazers post game

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers Blazers post game

    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
    I feel like that's happening more and more often. If he's not getting a lot of pass deflections, Hill has kind of turned into a lazy defensive player this year. He is routinely getting beaten on the defensive end, which is far different than his game last year.
    I wonder about his hip. Is it actually healed? Has he really gotten lazy or is he having trouble changing directions and dealing with his hips being constantly banged into by screens?
    "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


    • #62
      Re: Pacers Blazers post game

      Originally posted by gummy View Post
      I wonder about his hip. Is it actually healed? Has he really gotten lazy or is he having trouble changing directions and dealing with his hips being constantly banged into by screens?
      He was playing for a contract last year, plus he wasn't playing good defense until later in the season. He was getting owned by Nelson and DC bailed us out the rest of that series. Hill doesn't have the lateral quickness to deal with quick guards. I do expect him to step it up when it starts to matter, at least he better.
      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers Blazers post game

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Did you intend to post this in green?

        I am often the first one to accept and understand with the NBA schedule some nights the schedule (not the opponent) is going to beat you, but that was not the case against the Blazers at all. An early afternoon game and then a 10:00 PM game sjhould make it much easier to adjust.

        No, this game was a case where the Blazers played really, really well, and the Pacers weren't very interested until it was way too late
        I was making an observation based on my own experiences of being active at different times of the day. When you're messing with sleeping times, travel, and exercise, that can be a pretty big swing even if it may seem it's an easy switch. As I felt when I posted it, I don't feel like that caused us to lose by 20 points, but I do think it affected our team's ability to react on defense.


        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        Does your explaination mean I should expect losses the next 2 games due to player fatigue and their daily rountines messed up as well?

        Why don't we call it what it was... a poorly played game and quit looking for excuses to justify the loss.
        No thank you, because I don't believe that what I said was an "excuse." I only make excuses for myself It's an observation from me about what I think was going on, and i stand by it. You are welcome to disagree, but please don't just tell me i am wrong and try to ridicule me.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers Blazers post game

          Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
          He was playing for a contract last year, plus he wasn't playing good defense until later in the season. He was getting owned by Nelson and DC bailed us out the rest of that series. Hill doesn't have the lateral quickness to deal with quick guards. I do expect him to step it up when it starts to matter, at least he better.
          I thought even among quick guards, Jameer was a bit of an anomaly for Hill last year. He absolutely destroyed Hill. I personally think he's just devoting more energy to offense this season along with increased minutes. Maybe he's just tired, and letting him switch back and forth a bit guarding the 1 and 2 guards would help him a bit when we get to the fourth quarter.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers Blazers post game

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            This team has no clue how to run a fast break. Hill had the ball on a 3-4 to 1 fastbreak, and I knew he wouldn't give it up. This is the 8 mil PG who is suppose to be spreading the ball around and helping others be better players. Sorry, but 4 asts a game doesn't cut it for me from a starting PG. There are reserve PG's averaging more asts than Hill in less PT. I watch games where Paul gets more asts than Hill does. I want more at PG than a scoring PG who likes to shoot 3's and plays average "D". I like Hill's toughness, but it doesn't make up for his liabilites as a PG. I'm not saying I don't like him as a player for the Pacers, but not as the starting PG for the Pacers..
            I hear that! It was a 4-on-1 fast break. The same kind DC refused to give the ball up on last year and the year before. Makes me wonder if it's the players or the coach. Lance is the only guy who looks for other guys on the break or cutting to the basket, which is part of why we're probably (I'm throwing this out here without any research) dead last in the NBA in alley oops, despite having some high flyers in George, Green and Mahinmi (and Plumlee, not that he plays).

            With that said, Hill has still been solid. His biggest problem is he's always hurt, sick or recovering from being hurt or sick. I think the break will help him a lot. Not worried about his assists so much, because PG is probably going to be over 4 APG by the end of the season, so the system is allowing for other guys to make plays.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers Blazers post game

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post

              No thank you, because I don't believe that what I said was an "excuse." I only make excuses for myself It's an observation from me about what I think was going on, and i stand by it. You are welcome to disagree, but please don't just tell me i am wrong and try to ridicule me.

              Sounded like an excuse to me, and that's why I made the reply saying so.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers Blazers post game

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                This team has no clue how to run a fast break. Hill had the ball on a 3-4 to 1 fastbreak, and I knew he wouldn't give it up.
                I understand keeping the ball when it could go either way, so avoid the pass/turnover and head straight to the hoop. But when it's 3 or 4 on 1 and the pass is so obvious, George Hill needs to give it up. Pitiful and maddening.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers Blazers post game

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Why did Lance play 40 minutes?
                  There are some weird things going on with Lance, it seems.

                  First of all, it appears he has gained a lot of Vogel's trust. I see Lance extremely focused on the defensive end and being the person on the team most willing to make the easy pass, the quick pass, the simple pass that provides no accolades. DJ and Hill don't seem to be willing to make this pass.

                  On offense, Lance seems to be the last person to get the ball on the perimeter to initiate the offense. First, it's Hill and Paul. Then it's DJ, even when Lance is playing with him. And when OJ was in there, Hill came his way to run plays more than to Lance's side.

                  I'm not saying it's a grudge against Lance (although it might be), but it also seems Lance has lost a little initiative in trying to get the ball on the perimeter to initiate the offense. He's focused on defense and getting guys the ball--primarily Paul and West, and giving guys like DJ great looks on the perimeter. And this attitude seems to be earning him large amounts of minutes.

                  I almost wonder if Vogel has been telling him his time will come when Danny starts again and Lance will be called upon to initiate a lot of offense for the second unit. Until then, Lance is content to play a role that fans don't notice but coaches appreciate.
                  Last edited by McKeyFan; 01-24-2013, 09:41 PM.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers Blazers post game

                    lance is a lot faster then i thought, he needs to sprint up court a lot more when he gets the ball after the rebound or outlet, every time he did it last game it really caused problems for the blazers

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers Blazers post game

                      Question - when do you get to have "reasons" for losing instead of "excuses"?

                      Is it just that anything other than "we sucked" is an excuse?
                      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


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers Blazers post game

                        I was thinking that it's more of an advantage of every western team when the east visits. I think it contributes to the west having a good record against the east in general.
                        "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers Blazers post game

                          Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                          I was going to say something about that in my original post too, but I back spaced it off. I didn't want to upset the born ready lovers here. Glad to see you mentioning it.
                          I'm not mentioning anything. I really don't know; it's an honest question. I appreciated McKeyfan's post. If you've got thoughts to bring to the table, then go for it.

                          I didn't see the game, but to see a guy play so many more minutes than usual, I'd expect to see from the stats that he was killing it. It doesn't look like Lance was killing it. So why refuse to take him off the floor?
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers Blazers post game

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            I'm not mentioning anything. I really don't know; it's an honest question. I appreciated McKeyfan's post. If you've got thoughts to bring to the table, then go for it.

                            I didn't see the game, but to see a guy play so many more minutes than usual, I'd expect to see from the stats that he was killing it. It doesn't look like Lance was killing it. So why refuse to take him off the floor?
                            It's a combination of a few things. The Pacers ran out of wings as they weren't planning to play Green in this game and have no trust in McGuire. Paul got 2 fouls in the first quarter and 3 in the first half so a few of his first half minutes went to Lance instead. And whether because of the deficit or his recent entry into the rotation, they didn't trust Orlando to play in the 2nd half much (only 3 of his 11 minutes were in the second half). I don't think they intended to play Lance 40 minutes, but the game situation/status of the other wings just ended up leaving him out there quite a bit.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers Blazers post game

                              Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                              It's a combination of a few things. The Pacers ran out of wings as they weren't planning to play Green in this game and have no trust in McGuire. Paul got 2 fouls in the first quarter and 3 in the first half so a few of his first half minutes went to Lance instead. And whether because of the deficit or his recent entry into the rotation, they didn't trust Orlando to play in the 2nd half much (only 3 of his 11 minutes were in the second half). I don't think they intended to play Lance 40 minutes, but the game situation/status of the other wings just ended up leaving him out there quite a bit.
                              Also, people can poo poo the plus/minus stat, but every time Lance came out, we immediately started getting further behind. Vogel kept sticking him back in to try and stop the bleeding.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X