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

2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

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

  • 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

    NYET THE NETS



    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM EST
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: S. Wright, E. Lewis, V. Palmer

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Brooklyn Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / YES
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WFAN 660 AM, 101.9 FM / Bloomberg 1130 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


    31-20
    Home: 20-4
    East: 19-11
    29-22
    Away: 11-12
    East: 22-11
    Feb 13
    Feb 20
    Feb 22
    Feb 23
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    7:00pm
    7:30pm
    HIBBERT
    WEST
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    LOPEZ
    EVANS
    WALLACE
    JOHNSON
    WATSON


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)



    NETS
    Deron Williams - ankle tendinitis (out)




    Tim Donahue: The One That Got Away, Pacers Fall to Raptors in OT

    Not too long ago, the NBA world was buzzing about how the Indiana Pacers could ride
    Roy Hibbert and David West to victory over the seemingly invincible Miami Heat. In a
    league where teams are getting smaller by the minute, a squad with a 7’2” center and
    a bruising power forward presented a massive threat.

    In my younger days, I read a great deal of Tom Clancy. It was in those books where I
    was introduced to the concept that the most competent people – the most trusted –
    were also the ones in the position to fail the most spectacularly.

    That’s what happened tonight to the Indiana Pacers.

    “I just can’t be that careless at the end of the game with the ball. I second-guessed
    myself, hesitated a little bit, and threw it short. We just didn’t close the game the
    right way, and so, we didn’t get the win. They made the plays to close the game, and
    we didn’t.”

    That’s David West describing the pivotal play in the Pacers’ 100-98 overtime loss to
    the Toronto Raptors. Up two with six seconds left, Indy just needed to get the ball
    inbounds and hit free throws. That’s when West made an ill-advised attempt to hit a
    streaking Lance Stephenson that Rudy Gay picked off. An Amir Johnson putback at the
    buzzer got Toronto five extra minutes.

    That play will get the focus, with good reason. However, it was far from the only way
    the Pacers cost themselves a win. In a two-point overtime loss, the Pacers made 19
    turnovers (including two in the last minute of OT), gave up 27 second chance points,
    and missed 9 of 28 free throws.

    Late in a rocky fourth quarter, back-to-back threes by Paul George and George Hill
    looked to have given Indiana enough altitude to take the win. But they just couldn’t
    close it out. The Pacers led for most of the game, but it never felt like they really
    controlled it.

    West could feel...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Will Rauch: The fallacy of "the coaching bump"

    P.J. Carlesimo is no stranger to mid-season firings. The Thunder axed him in 2008
    after a 1-12 start and replaced him with current coach Scott Brooks, who rallied the
    young troops for a 22-47 record the rest of the way. Seven games is a small sample
    size, but if Carlesimo really is the Nets interim coach for the immediate future (as
    management has repeated ad nauseam), he may well be on his way to the so-called
    “bump” a new coach gets when taking over the reins of a team in disarray.

    But is this coaching bump real? Luckily, the coaching carousel of the NBA offers a
    large sample size to pore over. Of the 30 current NBA coaches, only Gregg Popovich
    (Spurs ‘96), George Karl (Nuggets ’05) and Doc Rivers (Celtics ’94) have start dates
    of more than five years ago. Off-season coaching changes are a far different animal
    than mid-season switches, so I'll focus only on the recent history of in-season
    changes to evaluate the “bump”.

    Dating back to the 2010-11 season, there have been ten in-season coaching changes,
    up to and including Avery Johnson and Mike Brown’s firings this year. Mike D’Antoni’s
    tenure in Los Angeles has gotten off to a shaky start, but it is far too early to tell if
    that move will work. Sticking to a sample with a full season of results, below are the
    eight new coaches from 10-11 and 11-12 and how they fared the rest of the way:


    It doesn’t take Nate Silver to see these results carry more noise than signal. The
    reality is that most of these teams were bad, regardless of the coach. The Jazz had
    the only winning record on the list before the switch, and the terrible record post-
    change had more to do with the turmoil of Jerry Sloan’s abrupt departure and the
    subsequent trading of Deron Williams than anything Ty Corbin did wrong. (Ty Corbin
    remains the Jazz coach today.)

    Nets fans might notice some familiar names thrown around as replacements for
    Avery Johnson on the fired side of the list. For better or worse, the talent pool that
    front offices choose to select from is often small, with fired coaches routinely being
    hired by new teams like an episode of Coach Swap.

    Frank Vogel and Mike Woodson represent the two most successful interim coaches on
    the list. The 39-year-old Vogel, who started as a video assistant for Rick Patino’s
    Celtics (I'm not saying, but I'm just saying), took over the Pacers for Jim O’Brien, a
    fiery coach that came under fire for inconsistent rotations and squandering a promising
    early season record (sound familiar?) in January 2010. Vogel led the young Pacers to a
    playoff berth, something O’Brien wasn’t able to do in his four-year tenure. The first
    time head coach then followed it up with a successful 2011-12 campaign, nearly
    upsetting the eventual world champion Miami Heat in the Eastern Conference
    Semifinals. He recently earned a contract extension.

    Woodson took over...CONTINUE READING AT THE BROOKLYN GAME




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


    Nets
    Tim Bontemps @TimBontemps
    Colin Stephenson @Ledger_Knets
    Nets Daily @NetsDaily
    The Brooklyn Game @TheBKGame
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

    I really wanted to see how we stacked up to them when they are healthy. Bummed about Williams missing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

      Violet??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        Violet??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
        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


        • #5
          Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

          This game strikes me as a win-lose situation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
            Violet??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
            Oh, we lost.

            She HATES us, always has. Game over.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              Oh, we lost.

              She HATES us, always has. Game over.
              No, I don't think bias is the issue. Competence, on the other hand...
              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


              • #8
                Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                No, I don't think bias is the issue. Competence, on the other hand...
                One thing we know for sure, if Violet or Heywoode are reffing, we get no close calls.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

                  Surprise early appearance from Danny Granger?!?!
                  "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


                  • #10
                    Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

                    Well, it is a must win game
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

                      whoever flops the most will win tonight, violet loves her some charging calls

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

                        Brooke's grown on me

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

                          Damn it... Not Palmer... we're screwed

                          Originally posted by Piston Prince
                          Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                          "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

                            Pacers need to take advantage of the pg spot tonight. Hill needs to take it to Watson all night.
                            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 2/11/2013 Game Thread #52: Pacers Vs. Nets

                              Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                              Pacers need to take advantage of the pg spot tonight. Hill needs to take it to Watson all night.
                              Took a screen shot of this.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X