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

12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

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

  • #16
    Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

    Originally posted by rock747 View Post
    Oh boy.
    I think you meant "Ugh"
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

      Thank god this road trip is almost over. Within 9 days we will have played the Clippers, Blazers, Spurs, Thunder, and Heat.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

        Tandem VS Team

        Paul George & Kevin Durant!!!!
        Ok we're all salivating for this.
        Paul will certainly carry almost all of the defensive burden against the splendid KD. The reverse however will not likely be true.
        The greatest challenge for Paul will be to play his usual brand of stellar D WITHOUT foul trouble. Kevin gets exactly twice the foul shots per game as PG. In fact it is the most significant difference statistically between them. Kevin's going to get some home cookin' We need Paul on the floor.

        Po' George Hill against Russell the blur.
        Another big night for our home town kid. With DRose down there's really no one else with the slash and burn athleticism of RW. We need a lot from Hill tonight. He must be our point man to knock the shine off one of the worlds best transition games. In the half court he must just TRY his best to stay in front of his guy long enough, and consistently enough, to keep our bigs out of foul trouble.
        We need him to keep a steady pace. The Pacer's pace. We should look to win in the nineties. OKC will give us some shots. They wanna run and play something almost like street ball. We do not want that. A loose couple of quarters followed by one of our droughts and we're done. Irritate them with a slower pace. A grinding game will kill the fun in it for them and they'll lose focus.

        Battle of the BAMF's
        Statistics may show this year that we come up a little short here. Serge is quite a physical specimen. Young and strong. Taller than DWest has a plays with a chip on his shoulder. Likes to block shots. He may get a block or two on our guy but he doesn't scare me. David has a good history against OKC. I think he put like 25 a game on them last year. David's long arms and experience makes up the difference here and we can depend on him to hold up his end here.

        Mount Hibbert
        They start KPerkins. Formerly one of the best post defenders in the league and still very capable. His minutes are not quite those of a starter. He shares time with Steven Adams, a rookie who has been somewhat effective in limited minutes. He gives them 5 and five pretty quick. OKC will also play some small lineups. sometimes with out a center, sometimes with three guards. We should be able to find minutes for West and Scola together if we want to. They are the leagues number 1 rebounding team but there is no reason for them to punk us on the glass if we play with energy.

        Other than their big three Ok likes to spread out the minutes. Ten or eleven guys will see significant time. They have some pretty good players to do it. Guards Reggie Jackson, and Jeremy Lamb both score near the double figure mark. Sefolosha starts at shooting guard for them. He's a good defender. Look for him to get a lot of time on PG. We'll also see Nick Collison, Perry Jones, Derrick Fischer, and probably even Thebeet and Ryan Gomes.

        Make no mistake about it though this is essentially a two man team. Serge will contribute no doubt but this team flies on Durant and Westbrook.
        Those two WILL get their points. They will shoot until they do. We must make them struggle for it. Make them take a lot of shots to do it and starve them for the ball. Slow the pace. Make it one and done for them and they will crack.
        Don't foul out!!

        This is the game I thought most likely we would lose. Mostly because win or lose we'd have no legs after last night in San Antonio. Funny how things worked out! We were able to rest our guys just a little. I hope it was enough. We are a better TEAM. I am not worried about these guys in a series but this game is pretty unpredictable. If we are not too wore out I see us putting together a nice little 8-10 point lead by the third quarter and then holding on. If we're gassed it could get ugly.

        I'll go with:
        Pacers 99
        Thunder 94

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

          This vogel interview looks like it was taped in the mid 90's. Like i just put in the vhs tape to watch this one.
          "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


          • #20
            Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

            Why are the two announcing groups together? This seem like its going to be weird.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

              Denari is trying too hard to smile when the OKC broadcasters are talking haha

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                Looks like FSI was able to combo with OKC's team to cover the game, I give kudos to those guys for helping out.
                "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                ----------------- Reggie Miller

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                  Originally posted by 31Since1990 View Post
                  Why are the two announcing groups together? This seem like its going to be weird.
                  I think they're separating after the commercial, they just wanted to show they were working together, I'm guessing you'd see the same camera angles and everything that the OKC game will have.

                  I'm not exactly sure though.
                  "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                  ----------------- Reggie Miller

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                    Originally posted by 31Since1990 View Post
                    Why are the two announcing groups together? This seem like its going to be weird.
                    Hot fox on fox action

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                      Originally posted by TheDon View Post

                      Hot fox on fox action
                      yeah, if OKC wasn't signed with Fox we'd be SOL

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                        Ah, hit that, Lance.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                          kendrick perkins is a bad passer
                          "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


                          • #28
                            Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                            Ouch.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                              We look terrible.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: 12/8/2013 Game Thread #21: Pacers Vs. Thunder

                                Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                                kendrick perkins is a bad player
                                corrected for accuracy

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X