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

Postgame vs Lakers

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

  • #31
    Re: Postgame vs Lakers

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    Anyone else feel bad for that woman they put up during the Oscar lookalike timeout?
    Yes, I like Judi Dench, but I would be mad if I was a woman that was supposed to look like her.

    Wouldn't mind having her money though.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Postgame vs Lakers

      AWESOME...

      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Postgame vs Lakers

        Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
        Yes, I like Judi Dench, but I would be mad if I was a woman that was supposed to look like her.

        Wouldn't mind having her money though.
        Yeah just a little too far on their part

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Postgame vs Lakers

          I also want to say: man I hate D'Antoni as a coach. He gives me terrible O'Brien flashbacks.

          Aside from the Lakers' terrible shot selection, he put Wesley Johnson, who's 6'7" and 215, on David West defensively. And save for a short period of being guarded by Jordan Hill, West then had Ryan Kelly on him.

          It reminded me of one of O'Brien's last games, when he put Roy Hibbert and then James Posey on Blake Griffin (instead of Hansbrough, who was put on DeAndre Jordan?????), and then Blake went for 47.

          Puke.

          Anyways, I'm pretty sure David West drew 8 fouls in 3 quarters tonight on Johnson/Kelly.
          Last edited by imawhat; 02-26-2014, 12:32 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Postgame vs Lakers

            evan defense wasnt that bad, paul george got burnt a few times tonight too

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Postgame vs Lakers

              Originally posted by daschysta View Post
              Evan Turner had 6 field goals tonight in his first action. Through 27 games the most field goals in a single game Danny Granger hit was 5. Evan's ability from midrange, ability to create for others, and handle the ball under pressure can potentially be invaluable.
              Excellent point. Other than Scola our rotation bench played great tonight. Especially Turner. Allen even looked decent enough in his garbage minutes.

              To be fair Scola did have some good tonight, but for the most part it was a bad night.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                Evan Turner had 6 field goals tonight in his first action. Through 27 games the most field goals in a single game Danny Granger hit was 5.
                I don't really see much significance to this stat. Granger usually only took 7 or 8 shots because that was all that was asked of him. He wasn't really given the freedom to shoot more. When Granger first came back, he scored 12 points on 8 shots in his second game back. He shot over 50% in 4 of his first 10 games back. The bench also saw a huge upswing in production for about 10 or so games, and everyone was singing the praises of Granger.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  I don't really see much significance to this stat. Granger usually only took 7 or 8 shots because that was all that was asked of him. He wasn't really given the freedom to shoot more. When Granger first came back, he scored 12 points on 8 shots in his second game back. He shot over 50% in 4 of his first 10 games back. The bench also saw a huge upswing in production for about 10 or so games, and everyone was singing the praises of Granger.
                  How do you know he wasn't asked to shoot more than he did? I'd guess he was green lighted. I'd be surprised if he was not with that unit, but he just wasn't as capable creating his own offense as he used to be thus low shot totals. That line up needed an instant offense type guy so if he was not asked to be aggressive on offense then I think that was bad coaching. My guess is though he was asked to be aggressive but he gave us all he could, just unfortunately his age and injuries made that not enough.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    I don't really see much significance to this stat. Granger usually only took 7 or 8 shots because that was all that was asked of him. He wasn't really given the freedom to shoot more. When Granger first came back, he scored 12 points on 8 shots in his second game back. He shot over 50% in 4 of his first 10 games back. The bench also saw a huge upswing in production for about 10 or so games, and everyone was singing the praises of Granger.
                    Not getting Granger the ball when he was open which resulted in not getting him the shot attempts we should have was my biggest gripe about the way we used Granger. It's all water under the bridge now. I really hope we can use Turner more effectively and the 12 shot attempts isn't a fluke any more then the 22 shot attempts Hibbert and West had. It's one game though and we usually don't get 101 shots off in a game. If we revert to only getting Turner 6-7 shots like Granger often had then the trade becomes a waste. I'll hope tonight is the new norm but wait a few games before declaring that.
                    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      Decent game by Turner, but he is terrible defensively. If he lets guys like Jodie Meeks or Bazemore make him look like a turn-style, he is gonna have world of trouble with the elite guards. Constantly over pursued the 3 pt line and his man just went on buy with a good angle. Like what I saw offensively though.
                      Really? It's one game. He still has to learn the defensive schemes. He's going to improve. And i wouldn't really say he was terrible either, he wasn't great, but not horrible. I definitely expect him to improve greatly before the playoffs. What do you expect from a guy that just came from the sixers?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                        We've gone from guarding Andrew Bynum with Troy Murphy when the Lakers roll into town, to the Lakers guarding David West with Wesley Johnson when the Lakers roll into town. How the worm has turned!!

                        Anyway, I liked what I saw from Evan Turner. He's very confident, skilled, willing able to pass, I dug his post up turn around shot on the baseline against smaller players, and he seemed to already have a pretty good idea of what was going on with our team offense and defense. At one point he made a rotation on defense and was point Lance to where Lance was supposed to be rotating on the floor. Not bad for his first game here. I also liked how comfortable he was shooting off the dribble from mid range; very nice to see that.

                        Defensively, I guess I didn't see the flaws that some were seeing; he looked active and engaged to me. Sometimes I think when he's getting 'burned' he's a victim of the same thing as George Hill: Pressing up on people / chasing them over screens to funnel them to Roy and Ian, on purpose, and leaving some fans thinking they suck on D when they don't. But that's just me. I'm not saying he was great defensively, but I certainly wasn't cringing, either.

                        Enjoyed it a lot when Paul took over the game in the 3rd quarter, specifically on defense but of course he also started knocking down his shots, too.

                        Scola picked it up a little bit late, but overall he's still struggling. Quinn said he was knocking down his shots in practice again the other day, so maybe that will translate to the games soon; hope so.

                        Ian did play well, too.

                        Lance frustrated me tonight with dumb passes and some over-dribbling, and I think when contrasted with Turner it looked worse, too. It's only one game, so I don't read too much into it. I just know that for the time being, I feel like I'm going to liek Turner better than I like Lance, but there's lots of games to be played and my opinions could change a lot. But for now, if the Pacers are going to have to choose between paying Lance 10-12m per year, or Turner 8-10m per year, I know which one I'd prefer.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                          Glad to see some positivity when we win like we should. Didn't get to watch the game, though I did watch this delightful interview with George on NBATV: http://www.nba.com/video/channels/nb...aul-george.nba.

                          And some post-game locker talk, mostly on ET: http://www.nba.com/pacers/video/2014...225f4v-3173203
                          You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                            Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                            And some post-game locker talk, mostly on ET: http://www.nba.com/pacers/video/2014...225f4v-3173203
                            The take away from this video:

                            Frank Vogel has set plays for Ian Mahinmi to throw alley-oops to Paul George.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                              Turner just gave the bench an extra hop in it's step. They played quicker and the offense was just more smooth. Having another guy who can create his own shot just gives the bench a nice spark. The fact that Granger couldn't create his own shot really stung the second unit. I felt that people were way too tough on Lance's play with the second unit in recent weeks. What was he supposed to do, make chicken salad out of chicken *****? The two people who were supposed to give us scoring off of the bench, Granger and Scola, were absolutely dreadful lately. Sure Lance was forcing some ugly stuff, but the low quality of play by the second unit forced him to do that. I expect Lance's second unit play to improve a lot now that we have another legit offensive option in Turner. Hopefully some of it rubs off on Scola.

                              I appreciate that we have a superstar like Paul George on the team, but he just forces way too many ugly shots. The more he misses, the more he feels compelled to jack up an even worse shot next time down to make up for it. That iso at the end of the first half where everyone just stood around while PG dribbled a bunch of seconds off the clock and clanked one at the buzzer has just become way too predictable. Sure he deserves to get a substantial amount of the shots in that situation, but it seems like he shoots it every freaking time we are in one of those situations. The other 4 players don't even move anymore on those plays because they know they aren't getting the ball. He forces shots as if he is Kobe Bryant on the untalented 2006 Lakers. This team is just way too talented for a player to force ugly shots. PG attempted 18 shots while George Hill only attempted 9. Hill was efficient with those shots as he has been most of the time lately, so I think that 3 or 4 of PG's ugly shots should have gone to Hill. Like I said, I appreciate PG's greatness, but I just don't see the need for such forced shots from a player on a team as stacked as this. There were multiple attempts last night where he ignored open teammates or shot a long J when he should have tried to get a closer look.

                              Pau Gasol played damn good D on Hibbert and kept him from getting good position. Gasol has been such a great player for a long time. The rest of that roster is pretty garbage right now. Bazelmore played pretty good I guess.

                              As mentioned in the game thread, this team is just lethal when everyone ball hawks on defense. That led to some nice transition plays in the second half.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Postgame vs Lakers

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                That iso at the end of the first half where everyone just stood around while PG dribbled a bunch of seconds off the clock and clanked one at the buzzer has just become way too predictable. Sure he deserves to get a substantial amount of the shots in that situation, but it seems like he shoots it every freaking time we are in one of those situations.
                                I think a lot of this is on the coaches. There is plenty of time to get into a play and it just doesn't seem like one is even getting called from the bench.

                                I had my share of issues with the late 90's teams and their shortcomings with defense & rebounding but man it was sure nice to know those guys were going to get a good shot in those situations almost everytime. They were great with out of bounds plays after timeouts too.

                                Lack of execution in these situations will really hurt if (when) the Pacers get into a lot of one & two possesion games in the playoffs. I almost feel this group will better off jacking up any shot they can with 5-seconds left on clock and then just going after it for a put back.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X