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

What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

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

  • #31
    Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    Making that mistake with a timeout left - yeah, that gets close to the definition of a choke.
    Wouldn't the opposite be more true. I mean here he is knowing there are no timeouts, knowing he has to get the ball in, so he panics and throws the ball long. But he knew the were timeouts and he threw the ball quick, he wasn't close to a 5 second count.

    Is it possible that he thought Lance was running free and je just didn't see the defender and the pass he threw wasn't a perfect throw.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

      To me, choking is when a team has the lead, and they lose the game through their own mistakes. Turnovers, easy missed opportunities to score, poor defense.

      Obviously, the other team is going to have something to do with it, but I think the idea is that the leading team/player had control..and they lost it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Wouldn't the opposite be more true. I mean here he is knowing there are no timeouts, knowing he has to get the ball in, so he panics and throws the ball long. But he knew the were timeouts and he threw the ball quick, he wasn't close to a 5 second count.

        Is it possible that he thought Lance was running free and je just didn't see the defender and the pass he threw wasn't a perfect throw.
        I think it is consistent with my definition. No timeouts, have to get the ball in, make a bad pass - that's a situation where the defense has a big part in forcing the turnover. I would only call it a "choke" if it was done while missing other safe passes. As I recall the rest of the team was pretty covered up (the Raptors pressed hard the last few Pacer inbounds).

        A choke really has to be based on making a game critical mistake when other options existed and were possible. In this case, the timeout option was definitely possible, and would have been a better call.

        Bottom line is that a choke is an unforced error made under game-changing circumstances when the possibility existed of maintaining the lead (i.e. you can't choke if you are the team coming from behind). A choke is a subcase of a mistake.
        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


        • #34
          Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

          Even David West himself basically said he choked.

          He said he second guessed himself and threw the pass. With a timeout we could've advanced the ball to half-court but he panicked.

          It was a very bad pass to make in any circumstance, and it was well out of the realm of what David West normally does.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

            OK, maybe I should ask this. Is choke one of the worst things you can say about a player. or is it somthing that happens to them all - they all do it from time to time.

            I always considered choking to be about the worst thing you can say about a player - in fact it is the worst thing you can say about a player

            Maybe I'm wrong

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I mean I guess Reggie called the Knicks chokers in both the 8 in 9 second game and in the 25 points in the 4th quarter game.

              OK, I just thought of when a team did choke. I think the Knicks choked, or maybe were in shock after Reggie scored 8 in 9 seconds, Starks missed two free throws and Patrick missed a rebound putback. In that situation it was such na shocking swing, that I think the Knicks couldn't process just what happened and it impacted Starks shots.

              Brad, we were thinking the same thing at the exact same time


              Comment


              • #37
                Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                Alright. Is panicked the same as choked?

                I see a bad decision from a guy that is normally pretty reliable at crunch time.

                To me a choke is more of when you're in a situation to do what you do best, but fail at the most crucial time.

                I also think in an 82 game season that we should never make too much out of one single game.

                You start seeing something over a series of games and it matters more.


                Did Reggie choke at the end of Game #6 of the 2000 Finals with those two badly-missed threepointers that could have extended it to Game #7?

                Did Rifleman choke at the end of Game #5 in 1991 when we could have defeating ****ing Larry Bird and those ***hole Celtics?

                (yes. to both of those.)
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  OK, maybe I should ask this. Is choke one of the worst things you can say about a player. or is it somthing that happens to them all - they all do it from time to time.

                  I always considered choking to be about the worst thing you can say about a player - in fact it is the worst thing you can say about a player

                  Maybe I'm wrong
                  All players choke from time to time.

                  There are players who have a pattern of choking. I think calling a player a "choker" (aka, has a pattern of choking) is the worst thing you could say about a player.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                    I am now convinced that the term choking serves no real value and shouldn't be used, because it has no real standard of meaning.

                    Although some players are better under pressure than others, and some are more mentally tough than others, and some are just better than others.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                      West choked twice on the Toronto game, Hill also choked, s*** happens.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        West choked twice on the Toronto game, Hill also choked, s*** happens.
                        Exactly. Toronto was an anomaly, not the norm, our two best crunch time players made unusual mistakes. It's not a big deal, but it was a choke. Fatigue, sloppiness, just generally not giving a **** against Toronto (which we all know does happen in the NBA) who knows why exactly it happened, but it happened. In terms of games that I actually wouldn't mind losing that Toronto game is right up there, yeah we should have won against a bad team, but I'm glad we beat CHI, ATL, and PHI and if losing to TOR was the trade we had to make to do that I am ok with it (as long as we take care of BKN tonight)


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                          I look at choking as a consistent trend toward not being able to close out a game. Sometimes people have a bad game here and there where they underperform, but I look at their overall trend. David West is not a choker. In fact, he's been consistently good down the stretch when we have needed someone to step up.

                          I also look at who steps up to try and make things happen. Half of being clutch is having the cojones to step up and take the shot or make the play, let alone hit the shot.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                            I define it basically the way it is described when Will Galen cited a definition the other day. It's letting nervousness or anxiety beat you and cause your mind/body to perform at a lower level than normal and therefore resulting in you failing to execute in clutch situation. I think the term literally derives from that concept; your throat feeling tight or dry because you are nervous, and those same nerves being the reason why you perform at a lower level than your norm.

                            Robert Horry was always cool as a cucumber. If he missed a shot late in a game, I would never ever consider that a choke job because I know he's not nervous. He just missed a jumpshot.

                            There are other players that seem to get too nervous and shrivel in those big moments. They would be chokers/choking.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                              Here is a good video showing why people called Lebron "Lechoke"





                              Note that West and Hill don't choke all the time so they don't qualify as chokers.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: What is your definition of "Choke" in sports terms

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                Exactly. Toronto was an anomaly, not the norm, our two best crunch time players made unusual mistakes. It's not a big deal, but it was a choke. Fatigue, sloppiness, just generally not giving a **** against Toronto (which we all know does happen in the NBA) who knows why exactly it happened, but it happened.
                                So basically any time they fail, it's a choke? Looks like you're more interested in the outcome, as opposed to the reason why it happened.

                                Chocking is a subcategory of failing, and it revolves around the "why."
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X