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

Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

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

  • #16
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

    For all that Collison seemed to give us problems when he was on offense, whenever we were smart enough to take advantage of his tendency to travel three states away to avoid a screen we were able to capitalize on our end. Every time I saw DC head to Austin to get around the pick I remembered why some of those hairs on my head were missing.
    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


    • #17
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

      Originally posted by dohman View Post
      Something has been really wrong with lance over the past month or two.
      I don't know that he has done anything but lost a little control on the floor. His confidence went up so he doesn't play as well within the flow and far too often rushes shots, outruns the ball he's dribbling, or forgets there are other players on the floor he could pass to ion a 2-on-1 or 3-on-1 break.

      He needs to remember what got him to this point and come back to earth a little. He's not as single-handed a weapon as he sometimes thinks he is.
      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


      • #18
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Peck, there was a quote from Carlisle that I read yesterday from the Dallas Morning News, saying how rare the pacers are to be the 5th best offensive rebounding team and yet the best team in the NBA at not allowing fastbreak points.
        Am I missing something here, or is Carlisle missing something here? An opponent would have a hard time running fast breaks if the Pacers are rebounding their own misses. Seems pretty simple, and hardly rare.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
          Am I missing something here, or is Carlisle missing something here? An opponent would have a hard time running fast breaks if the Pacers are rebounding their own misses. Seems pretty simple, and hardly rare.
          The point is most of the best transition defensive teams don't send players to the offensive boards to rebound, they sprint back. pacers are able to do both. That does put a lot of pressure on us to not make mistakes and we rarely do.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

            Originally posted by Tom White View Post
            Am I missing something here, or is Carlisle missing something here? An opponent would have a hard time running fast breaks if the Pacers are rebounding their own misses. Seems pretty simple, and hardly rare.
            To be so good at offensive rebounding means you aren't sending guys back on defense as soon as a shot goes off. Even at 5th best you aren't rebounding ALL the misses, so this means that the Pacers are finding the right balance between going after offensive rebounds and putting players in the right place to disrupt the fast break.

            It is more astonishing when you realize the Pacers defense hasn't been focused on offensive rebounding for something like 20 years, including time under Carlisle.
            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


            • #21
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

              I don't see any reason why we won't keep Lance and Orlando around for years to come. May the best man start.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                As far as Lance's performance drop it could be he is getting a bit worn out from going basically no meaning playing time to full time starter is a big jump. His body may just becoming fatigued by the season, and he needs a bit of rest.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post

                  BTW, exactly who was so important to keep on the Mavericks roster that they decided to let Chandler walk? I mean I get if they felt the need to keep Dirk but anybody else should have been dumped or whatever could have been done to make room to keep him, he was the only physical presence they had.

                  Anytime you can breakup a championship team that lost three combined games against the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat, you have to do it.

                  I understand that the Mavs were a very old team, but blowing it up immediately after the championship so that they could make a failed run at Deron Williams has proven to be a bad move. If I were Dirk, I'd be upset that the last years of my career were being spent on a team with a poorly constructed roster.

                  I like Cuban, and he has obviously been a tremendous owner for the Mavericks. But he has made two terrible decisions over the last decade:

                  1) He declined to match the Suns' six year $63 million offer to Steve Nash, and instead chose to give Erick freaking Dampier a seven year $75 million dollar deal. What if Dirk and Nash had kept playing together throughout the 2000's?

                  2) He dismantled a championship team that steamrolled the Lakers, Thunder, and Heat, all so he could make a failed run at Deron Williams.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                    Dallas let Chandler go to free up cap space to make a run at Deron Williams or Dwight Howard. Unfortunately, they got neither, so it looks terrible.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      • Damn Tyler Hansbrough. Just when I felt comfortable giving up on him he goes and has this series of games where he has never played this well this consistently for his entire career.



                      Originally posted by Peck
                      • D.J. Augustine has made me actually appreciate the time that Darren Collison spent here.
                      It's funny that Collison reportedly didn't want to backup G.Hill, then goes on to back up ol' man Fish and Mike James...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                        Imagine how this Team could have been if the Pacers just signed Mahinmi as a UFA ( and therefore not do a S&T involving DC and Inferno ), kept DC ( while figuring out a way to play him 24 mpg ...which could have been possible given Granger's absense ), buy out Inferno and decided to rely on Young and OJ to be the backup Wingmen ( instead of signing Green to a long-term contract ) .
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                          How about those refs in the first quarter? I believe Joey Crawford actually called a foul against David West and there was no possible way on earth that Joey could have seen it happen. He just calls it, and David West explodes in frustration. Just an insane brief moment there.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Imagine how this Team could have been if the Pacers just signed Mahinmi as a UFA ( and therefore not do a S&T involving DC and Inferno ), kept DC ( while figuring out a way to play him 24 mpg ...which could have been possible given Granger's absense ), buy out Inferno and decided to rely on Young and OJ to be the backup Wingmen ( instead of signing Green to a long-term contract ) .

                            Why would we want DC to play 24 minutes per game. He's not very good, although better than DJ. Also it didn't seem as though DC was going to be satisfied being the backup here.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Why would we want DC to play 24 minutes per game. He's not very good, although better than DJ. Also it didn't seem as though DC was going to be satisfied being the backup here.

                              I don't understand the notion that Collison is a good player. For god's sake they have FAT MIKE JAMES STARTING over him. Collison is mentally weak and is prone so some WTF TO's.

                              He folds under crunch time with some stupid TO's. DJ hasn't been our knight in shinning armor but DJ>>>>>>>Collison. The one stinker DJ had was in Boston where the whole team came came out flat.

                              Collison has cost the Mavs 5-6 games with just some bad BBALL IQ. I have seen lot's of Dallas games as I live in Cali and for some odd reason they come out a lot here on TV.

                              Collison cannot be trusted with the ball in his hands once crunch time starts, He is George Hill bad shooting clutch FT's esque. Although, To Hills credit he has improved a ton lately.

                              We are a much better team with Dj than with Collison. He isn't anything but a back up PG. Just not there mentally he just checks out. Also, Did anyone notice Hill rip a rebound a way from Collison in the 4th?

                              My god that was so sexxy, Serves him right after that little taunt he pulled at our bench and coach..



                              Also, If Kobe Jones was here we would not be playing Lance as much nor we would have seen Pulp in action as he would still be in the Dleague. Plus no Iam would = A lot more Chumlee and god knows he's not ready yet.

                              I love that we have 3 legit 7+ Footers, Plumlee is going to be a good one in the future. Right now he's just shy and big men take a while to develop. But Plumlee has great athleticism and great size. I do agree that Gerald

                              does suck though. My goodness I cringe every time he shoots the ball. Such a low BBall IQ player.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Road Warriors

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                Imagine how this Team could have been if the Pacers just signed Mahinmi as a UFA ( and therefore not do a S&T involving DC and Inferno ), kept DC ( while figuring out a way to play him 24 mpg ...which could have been possible given Granger's absense ), buy out Inferno and decided to rely on Young and OJ to be the backup Wingmen ( instead of signing Green to a long-term contract ) .
                                i honestly don't think the team would be any different.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X