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

The Hammer turns Chicago out

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

  • #16
    Re: The Hammer turns Chicago out

    Of course I realize that Rose being out was a huge factor, but he was out the entire time so the reference is to a nasty turn in the schedule impacting the current group and their healthy road record.

    Seeing Danny look rusty tells me that Rose might also be 5th fiddle when he returns, and will be starting even later than Danny has. And let's be fair, Danny was never as much to the Pacers as Rose (MVP) was to the Bulls. Both are huge impacts, but it seems less likely that Rose will soon be back to having his normal level of impact where as Danny need only fill his normal "one of the 5" role.


    Also technically still part of this is the Bulls loss to the Cavs without Irving. So take that surprise Atlanta win, Bulls threw one away like Pacers did with Toronto.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Hammer turns Chicago out

      The Bulls looked really bad at times against Cleveland. I think they are at a tipping point, they either suck it up til Rose gets back or feel sorry for themselves and fall apart. Tibs is a great coach but I could very easily see him pushing a little to hard and losing them, or maybe I'm just hoping.
      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Hammer turns Chicago out

        Kings crush Bulls 121-79 for easiest win of season last night. The Bulls are now 35-29 and 5 full games behind the Pacers in the Central Division. They are tied with Boston record-wise. The Hammer really has done a number on them and I doubt it's going to get much better.

        Originally posted by YahooSports!
        The Associated Press – Thu, Mar 14, 2013 1:46 AM EDT

        SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Chicago Bulls coach Tom Thibodeau was standing next to his team's bench late in the fourth quarter, hands in his pockets and a grimace on his face.

        The pained expression and the negative body language were the result of another Bulls loss, this one in embarrassing fashion.

        Tyreke Evans had 26 points and seven assists in the Sacramento Kings' most lopsided victory of the season, a 121-79 rout of the Bulls on Wednesday night.

        The Kings opened the second quarter with a 26-4 run against the lethargic Bulls to hike their lead to 34 points. It was an almost error-free first half for the Kings, who committed just one turnover and took a 65-36 lead into intermission.

        The Bulls have dropped a season-high five straight road games and have a 7-12 record since beating Milwaukee on Jan. 30. It was the most one-sided loss all season for Chicago and Sacramento's largest margin of victory ever against the Bulls.

        ''It was embarrassing, man. It's hard to put into words,'' Bulls forward Carlos Boozer said.

        Boozer will get no argument from Thibodeau. The Bulls shot 38 percent, missed 19 of 21 3-point attempts, and committed 17 turnovers.

        However, what was not in the stat sheet afterward was effort. The Bulls were lacking in that department as well.

        ''Our level of intensity was very poor. Our readiness to play was very poor,'' Thibodeau said. ''But I'm probably most disappointed in me. It's my job to have them ready. We can't come out like that, that's on me. I have to drive (them) harder and I will.''

        Boozer scored 21 points and Nate Robinson had 19 for the slumping Bulls, who lost their second straight and fourth in five games.

        Short-handed Chicago played without injured forward Taj Gibson (knee) and veteran guards Richard Hamilton (back) and Kirk Hinrich (foot), who are all out indefinitely.

        ''We're not playing well offensively or defensively,'' said Joakim Noah, who had six points and nine rebounds. ''It's no time to make excuses (about injuries). We need to find a way to bounce back. We just have to move on fast and get ready for Golden State (on Friday). They are a lot better team than this team (the Kings).''

        The Kings shot 54 percent, had a season-low five turnovers and scored 27 fast-break points. According to Elias Sports Bureau, it was the Kings' largest margin of victory since Jan. 2, 1993, when they beat the Philadelphia 76ers 154-98.

        Making his first start of the season, Patrick Patterson had 14 points and nine rebounds, and Jason Thompson had 12 points for the Kings, who snapped a five-game losing streak against Chicago.

        ''I was just picking and popping and my teammates were finding opportunities for me,'' said Patterson, who came to the Kings in a February trade with Houston. ''I was just being in the right place at the right time.''

        At least for one game, it mattered very little that Sacramento played without DeMarcus Cousins, the Kings' leading scorer and rebounder. He missed the game due to a sore left knee.

        Cousins picked up his 12th technical foul of the season and was ejected from Sunday's game against Milwaukee after picking up a Flagrant 2 for elbowing Mike Dunleavy in the head.

        Though there was speculation Cousins would be suspended by the NBA and miss the game, the volatile center was spared of his third league suspension this season.

        ''We just opened the court up a little more (with Cousins out) and had our guards attack,'' guard Isaiah Thomas said. ''We were in attack mode from the jump. We know they're a great defensive team and we wanted to just stay back in attack mode. I think Tyreke started it off and that got me going a little bit, then other people got going.''

        There was no letting up in the third quarter for the Kings, who didn't allow the Bulls to cut into their 29-point deficit. Thomas had 11 points and continued to push the tempo for Sacramento, which took a 93-60 lead into the fourth.

        Evans had 18 points in the first half, when the Kings shot 58 percent. Sacramento began the second quarter with an 11-2 run and the lead remained in double figures the remainder of the game.

        ''It's not so much the winning or losing right now, it's the way we're playing,'' Noah said. ''Is it the readiness? I wish I knew.''

        It was a horrible first half at both ends of the court for the Bulls, who shot 35 percent, committed eight turnovers, and allowed 15 fast-break points. Boozer was the only bright spot for Chicago with 16 points.

        Patterson helped get the Kings off to a fast start, making all five shots and scoring 11 first-quarter points. Sacramento shot 65 percent in the opening quarter and led 34-20.

        ''We need to get our swag back; get our confidence back,'' Boozer said. ''The only people that can fix it are in this room. (Maybe) we need a game like this to wake us up. The playoffs will be here in the blink of an eye.''

        Notes: Former league MVP Derrick Rose worked out before the game. Rose, who tore his anterior cruciate ligament in his left knee last April, is still contemplating a return to the Bulls this season. . Evans has averaged 23.7 points in his last three games. . Kings reserve forward James Johnson missed his second straight game due to personal reasons. . Attendance was 14,426. ... Marco Belinelli missed all nine shots for the Bulls, including five 3-point attempts.
        http://sports.yahoo.com/news/kings-c...4085--nba.html

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Hammer turns Chicago out

          Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
          They've been hit by the injury bug as much as any team I can think of. Taj Gibson out for a little while with sprained MCL now.
          Tell this to the Wolves. Combined 215 games missed!
          If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

          @LetsTalkPacers

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Hammer turns Chicago out

            Wilbon says they're gassed. Easy to believe considering how long they were playing well without their superstar and others.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Hammer turns Chicago out

              I agreed with everything Naptown_Seth said in the OP but I think that no one saw that massacre in Sac-town coming.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment

              Working...
              X