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

3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

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

  • 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    PLUCK THE HAWKS!


    -VS-



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: B. Spooner, K. Fitzgerald, O. Poole

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Atlanta Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / SPSO
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WCNN 680 AM, 93.7 FM
    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


    43-27
    Home: 28-8
    East: 29-16
    39-31
    Away: 17-18
    East: 27-13
    Mar 27
    Mar 28
    Mar 30
    Apr 01
    8:00pm
    8:00pm
    9:00pm
    10:30pm
    HIBBERT
    HANSBROUGH
    GEORGE
    STEPHENSON
    HILL
    HORFORD
    SMITH
    KORVER
    STEVENSON
    TEAGUE


    PACERS
    Danny Granger - sore knee (out)
    David West - back sprain (out)



    HAWKS
    Devin Harris - sore foot (day-to-day)
    Zaza Pachulia - sore right Achilles (out)
    Lou Williams - torn ACL, right knee (out)



    Tim Donahue: By The Numbers

    Who’s up for another installment of the By The Numbers series? It’s been a while, but
    with 13 games left, it’s worth looking at some of the key metrics for your Indiana Pacers.

    43-26

    The Pacers’ .623 winning percentage has been good enough to give the Pacers the second
    best record in the Eastern Conference and the lead in the Central Division. It also
    guarantees their second winning season in a row and clinches their third straight playoff
    spot.

    13, 9, 8

    Thirteen is the number of games left in the season.

    Nine is the combined number of Indiana wins and Atlanta Hawk losses needed for the
    Pacers to clinch homecourt advantage in the first round of the playoffs.

    Eight is the combined number of Pacer wins and Chicago Bull losses needed for the
    Pacers to clinch their first Central Division crown since 2004.

    101.4, 19th

    The Pacer offense has been the team’s Achilles Heel this season, but it is getting better.
    When the sun rose on New Year’s Day, this Indiana squad was averaging 98.6 points 100
    possessions over their first 31 games. While that’s a perfectly fine number, if you’re
    checking your body temperature, it absolutely sucks as an offensive efficiency. It was
    28th in the NBA, but it was also more than a point per 100 worse than the Pacers’ lowest
    offensive effort in their NBA history. (The previous low was 99.8, set by the 1984 edition.)

    However, it has gotten better.

    In the 38 games since the 2013 calendar year began, the Pacers have posted an efficiency
    of 103.6. This isn’t great. It’s 15th in the NBA over the almost-three-month period, and
    only about two-tenths of a point better than the NBA average. However, it’s a huge
    improvement, and close to good enough when paired with the next couple of numbers.

    95.3, None

    The Indiana Pacers have been the best defense in the entire league, statistically, for
    virtually the entire season. At 95.3, they are two full points per 100 possessions better
    than #2 Memphis, and 7.6 points per 100 better than the league average.

    None are better.



    Zero

    Zero is the number of Pacer teams in the franchise’s NBA history that have posted a
    better...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Kris Willis: Is Larry Drew at fault for Josh Smith's shot selection?

    Josh Smith has attempted a career high in three point attempts this season why
    shooting a terrible percentage. Does the blame rest with him or should Larry Drew
    share a portion of the criticism?


    Josh Smith has attempted a career-high 172 three-point attempts this season while
    making 30.8 percent. We already discussed his hilarious answer when he was asked
    about that on Saturday but I want to take a moment on discuss Larry Drew's role in this
    and what, if any, blame he should share.

    First a little background on Smith. He is a career 28 percent shooter from three-point
    range. His best season came in 2011 when he made 33 percent. This season he has made
    58 of 172 attempts or 30.8 percent so he is a little above his career average this season.
    To go a step forward, Smith is 9-40 (22.5 percent) in March per the AJC.

    Taking a step inside the arc Smith is shooting the second worst percentage of his career
    from 16-23 feet where he is 68-229 for 30.0 percent. Smith is attempting 4.0 shots from
    16-23 feet per game which is down from last season when he launched 6.3. His three
    point attempts have however gone up by nearly a shot per game to 2.5.

    So to summarize, 6.5 of Smith's 15.7 shot attempts come from at least 16 feet where he
    is making approximately 30 percent of his attempts.

    The AJC's Chris Vivlamore first reported the career high attempts for Smith and asked
    Larry Drew for his thoughts:
    "No," Drew said when asked if he thought Smith would take so many 3-
    pointers in the new offense. "I thought when we put our offense in and
    looking at our personnel with Kyle Korver, DeShawn Stevenson, John
    Jenkins, Anthony Tolliver is a stretch-3. We've got a number of guys.

    "The 3, no, it's not the first shot of choice I want him taking because he
    is such a dominate force down on the block. He causes a lot of problems
    when he posts up, particularly when I move him to (small forward). The
    thing about him is he is a willing passer, which makes it all the better
    because if you are open and the double-team comes down, he is going
    to get the basketball out to the open guy.

    "I love that about his game. He has the versatility to move in and out.
    Seeking the early 3, no."

    When pressed a little further Drew talks about shot selection and getting three point
    attempts within the offense. Its early threes after one pass or sequences where Smith
    holds the ball only to launch a long attempt over a defender that Drew dislikes the
    most.
    "He knows the shots I want him to take and when I want him to take
    them," Drew said. "It's got to be something within our offense. It's not
    something where he just comes down and starts launching all over the
    place. That's not how we play. That's not how we want him to play."

    Drew's motion offense takes advantage of several of the Hawks strengths yet at times
    Smith routinely ends up in the corner or beyond the three point line. Its an offense that
    takes advantage of players that are multi faceted but it also brings into question whether
    this should include Smith. Clearly is better the closer to the basket he gets. So why does
    his coach allow him to take 6.5 shots from beyond 16 feet?

    Great question but...CONTINUE READING AT PEACHTREE HOOPS



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


    Hawks
    Chris Vivlamore @ajchawks
    Co Co @cocoqt81
    Jason Walker @JasonWalkerSBN
    Kris Willis @Kris_Willis
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

    D west gonna play?

    edit: pacers.com has him listed as out. Bumski. Big game just got bigger. Roll Tyler.
    Last edited by Pacers4Life; 03-25-2013, 01:22 PM.
    Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

    Passion. Pride. Pacers.

    It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
    #31 & Only

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

      Chris Vivlamore ‏@ajchawks 11m

      Devin Harris will not play tonight vs. Pacers after injuring left foot Sunday. #ATLHawks
      Expand
      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

        I don't think we lose much without West with the way that Hansbrough is playing so I still think we have this one in the bag.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

          Welp. No Hill, Lance, David or Danny.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

            Hill, Stephenson, West out. Wonderful.
            There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

              Wow, this game could get ugly. Hopefully PG goes off.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                Yikes. FOUR starters out...

                Against a team that we routinely cannot beat.

                Let's hope the guys rally around their hurt teammates and gut out a W, to send a message if anything.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                  Wow, they're ALL out? Tough when they're fighting for a 2 seed.
                  "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: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                    Paul George vs. Atlanta Hawks

                    LESS GO!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                      So, whose going to be the break out Player this game?

                      I'm thinking OJ.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                        I'm not looking forward to this one at all

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Is having 3 starters out (not counting Danny) a "reason" yet? Or is it still just an "excuse"?

                          Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            So, whose going to be the break out Player this game?

                            I'm thinking OJ.
                            I'm going with Sam Young. I believe that Vogel will start him instead of Green, and slide George to the SG.

                            Sent from my XT901 using Tapatalk 2


                            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 3/25/2013 Game Thread #71: Pacers Vs. Hawks

                              Might as well start Augustin, OJ, Greene, Pendergraph and Plumlee.

                              Seriously i would like to see Plumlee get minutes to see if this guy will ever be NBA material.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X