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

Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

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

  • #16
    Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

    ^^Well that's how it is. I mean if you start to get worried for a preseason match let alone the first of it, then you're wrongly reading too much into it. This is the time to test systems and player sets and your fringe players to take playing minutes.
    Never forget

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

      Bad effort was the rebounding problem. They weren't chasing the ball at all.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        The national media and most of the basketball world is probably discounting the Pacers after this game.
        Wait what?
        DG for 3

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

          Danny reminded me of Michael Redd on his second come back in Phoenix, slow, no hustle, hanging out around the 3 point line a lot, he was so lost on defense that brought a lot of bad memories back(the JOB years).

          Copeland is what I expected, a longer version of Gerald Green the guy shoots open or not, he doesn't give a damn about passing the ball and taking a better shot.

          Mahinmi? meh.

          West, Paul George, Lance, Hill and Hibbert looked in really good shape, Paul George was showing us a little bit of his "super star" mode.

          Scola didn't hit shots but is nice to see a guy not quitting on plays he is going to be great, same with Watson.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            Bad effort was the rebounding problem. They weren't chasing the ball at all.
            That was the deciding factor IMO and it wasn't just Granger although he was guilty of it as much as anyone. We did have a couple of bad calls and I hope our staff keeps pushing going vertical with the league. That call against Roy with Rose jumping into him was BS. It's worth it for the front office to make an issue of how that's called with the league.
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Danny reminded me of Michael Redd on his second come back in Phoenix, slow, no hustle, hanging out around the 3 point line a lot, he was so lost on defense that brought a lot of bad memories back(the JOB years).

              .
              All I would say here is that I agree with some of what you say. He didn't hustle and didn't look good on D, several of our players didn't. Granger didn't just stand around the 3 point line though. He moved very well with the ball which gives us an indication that his knee was not an issue. I'm not worried about him picking it up in the next few games. That alone makes it a positive game for Danny.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                All I would say here is that I agree with some of what you say. He didn't hustle and didn't look good on D, several of our players didn't. Granger didn't just stand around the 3 point line though. He moved very well with the ball which gives us an indication that his knee was not an issue. I'm not worried about him picking it up in the next few games. That alone makes it a positive game for Danny.
                Danny actually had a few moments of "burst" (fastbreak layup he missed, and a few catching the ball on the move in half court) where he got to where he wanted, but couldn't finish. In fact I only remember 2 3pt attempts (edit: he took 3) so he definitely wasn't hanging around the 3pt line.

                Physically he looked fine, mentally though the game was a bit too fast for him.
                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 10-06-2013, 11:21 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                  Our rotations played heavy minutes because we don't play until Wednesday. They will be on a plane for 18 hours. They played heavy minutes not to win, but for conditioning.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Physically he looked fine, mentally though the game was a bit too fast for him.
                    Agreed. There were repeated instances where Danny hesitated just a little, which threw off a shot or a rebound. This is why they're feeding him minutes right now; to break off the rust and let him gain confidence in the knee.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                      Not to make this a political discussion, but sometimes I wish the government shutdown would have covered I-65. The vermin in red was THAT bad last night. I saw one getting carried out of the next to G2 by the security guard lovingly known as Lurch and getting cuffed by two IMPD officers before being led out of the building, and the ones to the left of Area 55 weren't much better.

                      Bloody vermin. Im pretty sure they thought they won the preseason championship or something.
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                        Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                        Not to make this a political discussion, but sometimes I wish the government shutdown would have covered I-65. The vermin in red was THAT bad last night. I saw one getting carried out of the next to G2 by the security guard lovingly known as Lurch and getting cuffed by two IMPD officers before being led out of the building, and the ones to the left of Area 55 weren't much better.

                        Bloody vermin. Im pretty sure they thought they won the preseason championship or something.

                        It's probably the first and last time most will ever see a Bulls game in person.
                        PSN: bhm184

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                          Haven't watched the game, can't comment much on how our guys performed. But to me I think they tried to be a little experimental given the minute spread-out and the different lineup combinations they played throughout the game. I guess it's better that they remove the bad out of their system here in the preseason while it's not counted as a loss.

                          Well, at least Danny played out without minding much of his knees while playing a good amount of minutes. I don't really mind much if we win or lose in the pre-season for as long as we'll get our guys in game shape on October 29 onwards. As I mentioned in the win-loss prediction thread for the pre-season games, I see them lose about half of the games and not take these too hard.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                            I was at the game so I'll give a little.

                            Well I sat behind the backboard and I have to say there was a lot of
                            bulls fans there ha. Towards the 3rd quarter a few Pacer fans were arguing with Bulls fans about whos better. I was like "whaaat? its preseason chill" they got into a heated arguement for a good 10 minutes that it even lead to a Colts and Bears arguement haha.

                            Anyways I'll discuss some players:

                            Granger: You could defiantly tell he hasn't played in forever. He missed so many easy layups and airballed half of his shots ha. I didn't think anything about it against for a good laugh. Do you expect him to
                            come out with 25 and 6? Not gonna happen. Give him time.

                            George: I don't know how he fouled so much. I swear Rose was getting crappy calls towards him which causes George to get in foul trouble. He is going to br awesome this year. In the 3rd quarter when he went on his little scoring spurt was an awesome sight. I sat there thinking "Man this guy was so quiet his first two seasons." Now you can tell he wants to win.

                            Hibbert: Yea he missed a lot of bunnies around the rim but he had a lot of hustle. One of his fouls when he went straight up with Rose was BS though. I feel like Hibbert tried to play out of his game yesterday. He seemed to try jumpshots and a lot of spin post moves. Usually you see him just back his man down.

                            West: You can see he lost so weight. He had his jumper on lock but I didn't really notice at all throughout the game. He played a small spurt of great defense. Besides that I didnt notice him.

                            Stephenson: He seemed to attack the basketball but I don't think i saw him attempt many jumpshots really.

                            Scola: He missed a lot bunnies and didn't seemed to know how to play defense.

                            Copeland: He didn't reall do anything but jack shots up. He looked like a 2K game where they wing ball to the shooter and he misses and they swing the ball to him again and he misses and so on haha.

                            G. Hill: He did alright. He looked like a PG more than he usually has. Seemed like he was looking to open other people up. he did't really do anything else.

                            S.Hill: He is going to do alright in this league. The way he played yestersay reminded me of a younger Tony Allen. That layup had me laughing like crazy though.

                            Mahinmi: I could see us trying to trade him by the deadline. He just can't keep ahold of the ball and a liability on offense

                            Its just Preseason though.
                            Why you Grimpin?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              The national media and most of the basketball world is probably discounting the Pacers after this game. I would say we have something to prove at this point. That's not a bad situation to be in. I thought we had passed the Bulls, but that may not be the case at all.
                              Preseason game, no one pays attattention

                              Bulls are good, not based on this game, but they are good.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Observations from the first pre-season game vs. the Bulls for 13/14 season.

                                I don't think the Pacers were really trying to win this game. If they were, Frank would've played the starters more. This game reminded me how much preseason basketball stinks. Poor shooting, turnovers, and weird rotations are a staple always seem to be what we get from the Pacers every year. IMO, the coaching staff was more interested in evaluating the bench and new players than they were in winning the game.

                                Danny doesn't look like he can jump over a phone book right now as evidenced by those missed layups. He had a lot of trouble with his transition defense. Overall he just looked rusty.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X