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

Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

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

  • #91
    Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    Couple of things:
    1. Joey Crawford is a turd. He calls fouls that don't even happen, he called Lance for a foul on Melo when he was pressuring him on the Pacers base line after a rebound. Lance got up into him and Melo started swing his elbows high and Lance gets called for the foul even though he never touched him. Its not a foul, I can't believe that guy is allowed to make it up as he goes along. Lance could have easily been pressuring to try and force an 8sec violation. It makes no sense, and the TV crew on FSI couldn't even really explain it.

    .
    Say what you will about Joey and sure he made a few bad calls. but he made the most important call of the night when PG was fouled on the game tying three. Sure it was a foul, but on the road at the end of a game like that, some refs might not have called it. But Joey will call anything anywhere at anytime.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

      Honestly, if I were Mike Woodson, I would have fouled George Hill away from the ball and made him shoot FT's over letting PG get off a shot and end up fouling him instead. I think some team recently did that to the Rockets, kept fouling Howard away from the ball to force him to shoot FT's and extended the game and eventually won it.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Say what you will about Joey and sure he made a few bad calls. but he made the most important call of the night when PG was fouled on the game tying three. Sure it was a foul, but on the road at the end of a game like that, some refs might not have called it. But Joey will call anything anywhere at anytime.
        What was that big-time offensive foul he called in our favor last year where he even incorporated a dance routine?
        "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

        Bob Netolicky

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Say what you will about Joey and sure he made a few bad calls. but he made the most important call of the night when PG was fouled on the game tying three. Sure it was a foul, but on the road at the end of a game like that, some refs might not have called it. But Joey will call anything anywhere at anytime.
          Joey makes it up as he goes along. I've not no problem with calling a foul if it actually occures, every ref should do that. He calls fouls when none occur. The best Quinn Buckner could do last night was say that Joey was trying to keep something from escalating and thats why he called the foul on Lance under the basket.

          Vogel needs to take one for the team and stick up for his guys and take the ejection when the officials are blowing the calls like they have been.
          Last edited by graphic-er; 11-21-2013, 09:48 AM.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

            Great win, way to fight back against a very desperate team.

            Officials suck butt and they need to stop picking on Lance. Did you see the fits Melo, Smith and Shumphert was throwing around at the refs and nothing happened. Lance said, done what?
            Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

              I really hope we can move beyond the officials, afterall it seems to me the Pacers have received more than their fair share of calls this season. if you believe the better teams get the calls, the pacers are clearly one of the better teams. Also Roy gets a lot of benefits of the doubt calls in his favor, he really does. PG is starting to get his fair share also.

              I think to suggest the pacers have not gottten on balance a favorable whistle this season to date, is IMO just wrong

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                The Pacers definitely have a lot of calls going there way. The idea that there would be some conspiracy against them is insane. I just don't see it.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                  Promise I'm not trying to be overly critical with my assessment here, it's just boring the rehash the "Paul George is good" sentiment that's been echoed across three pages here:

                  1. Paul George is good.

                  2. But seriously, as well as Paul George played, especially when he engaged the kill switch, there is still room for improvement. I didn't think it was a particularly strong game on the boards for him, or in the post...mostly because Melo is just stronger, but there were definitely a goodly amount of moments where he allowed himself to be moved versus being forced out of a spot. For 3 quarters, my sentiment was largely "Paul George needs to play tougher", both on the glass and in the defensive post. He rounds out that part of his game? Unstoppable. That said, I don't know that you change something like strength or body type on a whim, overnight, or anything like that, so it may just have to be something we concede as PG24 figures out how to compensate for certain strength mismatches.

                  3. Didn't understand, at all, why the team shied away from Hibbert on offense, other than the fact he wasn't on the court for a good stretch. That's a mismatch I take every time. Worst case, he's shooting free throws. Just seems this team tends to fall in love with the jump shot sometimes, and if it sees one big coming up short (David West last night), it avoids the paint altogether (until PG24 started essentially driving for the win).

                  4. Eh, David West is gonna have nights like those. I think he left some on the court, last night, particularly on the boards, but you're not gonna win 'em all. Weird thing with West is I'd almost rather see him take a midrange jumper than anything within 5' of the rim, as he's been woeful close to the rim this year and dating back to the Heat series really. Look, he's still, in my book, a top-flight PF, and he's a rock you lean on. But there's no denying he's missed his share of easy looks for a while now.

                  5. A lot of people will be really upset with George Hill's game. I didn't think it was great. But I think, the more I watch CJ Watson, the more I understand how absurd it is to want anyone but Hill starting.

                  6. Speaking of Watson—can Reserve Watson channel Starter Watson? Please? If last night was just an off game for some, it's been largely an off season so far for Watson, unless he has been starting, but the sample size there is ridiculously small, to the point of being irrelevant. He's played some OK defense at time, but I expect more from him.

                  7. My biggest problem with Lance Stephenson, honestly, is never going to be the wild shots or offensive rollercoaster. You're just going to get that. That's just Lance. Hell, you're going to get wild drives and circus shots in a Good Lance game. Either you concede that and take the good that outweighs the bad, or you don't. My problem with Lance on the season has been his lack of attention paid, particularly on the defensive end. I look at a guy like Scola, and I know he's getting beat because he lacks ability, not because he's not paying attention. But I look at a guy like Lance, with all the ability in the world, and too often he's falling asleep on backdoor cuts, getting stuck under screens, not finishing his end of the defensive rotation, not boxing out, not sealing off his man on a tip, etc.

                  Lance just does dumb things. I think he does more good things than dumb things, but it's hard to argue that he doesn't pick up dumb fouls, dumb techs and generally cost the Pacers at least a few points each game. I don't doubt that he's matured, because I remember what Lance was like three years ago, and that's evidence enough. But because he's maturING does not mean he is mature, and it's worth keeping that in mind. He'll have games where playground ball works and he's a runaway freight train that can't be stopped. And then he'll have games where he seemingly does everything in his power to keep the other team in the game, or spot them a lead.

                  8. Interesting to see Copeland earning a spot in the rotation. Struck me as an experiment of sorts. Honestly, I thought he did fine. Played some good D on Melo, though you would NEVER want to keep him matched up there. Not his best shooting night, but in that unit, I'd much rather see Copeland shooting a three than CJ Watson shooting an anything, or Bad Lance doing something, etc. In other words, shots didn't fall, but they were often the best option the team had on that possession, so I have no real problems with them.

                  9. I've been a huge Ian Mahinmi supporter to begin the season, but the last 2 games have left me wanting. I'm never going to expect anything from Mahinmi at the offensive end, which is fine, but I haven't been impressed with his rim defense or rebounding in the last 2 games either, and those are the two things he should really excel at if conceding an offensive game.

                  10. So for all my nitpicking, I'll say this: JR Smith has that night once in a blue moon. More often than not, he's off. You throw in a scrub PG who just happens to hit everything in the building, on a desperate team with Melo giving one HELL of an effort, and it's a close game. Pacers are going to be in a lot of close games this year. Teams are out for blood because they know the Pacers are good. Remember that feeling we would get when the Pacers would beat the Heat 2-3 years ago? That's how teams feel about beating the Pacers now. Every night. So, yes, "bad" teams are going to pose challenges to the Pacers, because 1) it's the NBA and 2) the Pacers are a benchmark. So the question becomes: how do the Pacers continue to evolve and develop winning habits? Because if you develop winning habits in these kind of games, you're going to feel a lot more comfortable in the same situations come postseason.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                    [QUOTE=Justin Tyme;1738977]
                    Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post


                    Our guys need to work on their FTs. /QUOTE]

                    Nothing different than last year. The Pacers FT shooting just frustrates the carp out of me at times.
                    Ah, I see what you are doing there. We've gone from cows to fish I see.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                      Here is a great photo from the NY daily News of the foul call on Paul's three.

                      http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Here is a great photo from the NY daily News of the foul call on Paul's three.

                        http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball
                        The NY media is so brutal when they report on the Knicks. Always, when it doesn't go right they have nothing positive to say.

                        I mean in a similar situation, like say last year if the Pacers had lost to a superior Miami team, the Indy media would have simply called it as it was. But the NYC media just kills them.

                        I bet the players/coaches don't read the papers...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                          I mean, if I'm the Knicks that game was awesome. A superior team had to get overtime to beat them. I mean, losses suck but you can't say the Knicks didn't show up. They sure as hell showed up yesterday.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Here is a great photo from the NY daily News of the foul call on Paul's three.

                            http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball
                            Joey almost seems to be smiling in the background...
                            http://www.nba.com/gamenotes/pacers.pdf

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              I mean, if I'm the Knicks that game was awesome. A superior team had to get overtime to beat them. I mean, losses suck but you can't say the Knicks didn't show up. They sure as hell showed up yesterday.
                              If the Knicks can play like that against other teams they are going to win a lot of games this season. I thought their defense last night was second only to the Bulls defense against us so far this season.

                              One thing I don't believe has been brought up in this thread was our lineup of Scola, Copeland and Paul George as our front line., it was only for about a minute, but defensively it was hard to watch (even though Cope defended Anthony well) but without Roy or Ian in there or at least West our interior defense was nonexistant
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-21-2013, 10:44 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame Thread

                                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                                I mean, if I'm the Knicks that game was awesome. A superior team had to get overtime to beat them. I mean, losses suck but you can't say the Knicks didn't show up. They sure as hell showed up yesterday.
                                no felton and amare are addition by subtraction.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X