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 / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    So much for getting back to Inside Out play.
    Well we did try to feed the ball to West and Hibbert in the first quarter, they both let Brewer poke it away from them more than once.

    Roy in particular is being extremely indecisive in the post. If he has to dribble the ball more than twice it is basically a guaranteed turnover or miss. Is this on Roy not getting good position, on the passing of the guards, or a combo of both? Probably a combo, but it's a major issue right now.


    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      I want to think more and then I might be back in here to post some more thoughts, but Roy was benched for pretty much the whole 4th quarter last night. I wonder what the message was.....
      Didn't the T-Wolves go small and if we would have kept Roy in he would have been guarding Love. I realize it is a small point, but I don't think there was a message being sent in how Roy was used.

      And no I do not at all in the least believe this feels like 2003. The team back then quit on isiah, so unless Seth believes this team is quiting on Frank, this isn't anything like that

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Didn't the T-Wolves go small and if we would have kept Roy in he would have been guarding Love. I realize it is a small point, but I don't think there was a message being sent in how Roy was used.
        Dunno, we kept Ian in over Roy, but I thought they went back to Turiaf eventually (just checked, duh yeah they did, he had the spot up jumper as the shot clock was runnning down when had cut it to 5, and then he got hurt) and then Cunningham came in after.


        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

          Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
          When players seemingly go anywhere else and are productive off the bench, you have to start thinking its probably not the players.

          Also, this team has not been the same since Danny got back. Probably has something to do with it.
          They won 13 of their first 15 games with Granger back in the rotation.


          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            This game was like a bad JOB flashback. We refused to put the ball in the paint for pretty much the entire 1st quarter.
            Just not true at all.

            Very first offensive play of the game for the Pacers ended with a Roy turnover when Rubio stole it from him.

            2 minutes later got West the ball in the post, he missed.

            2 minutes later, Roy got the ball again, and missed.

            2 minutes later, West gets the ball again, and turns it over.

            This is the 6 minute mark where Scola checks in.

            5 minute mark, Scola gets the ball, misses.

            Not exactly a post up play, but at the 4 minute mark Lance goes inside and is blocked.

            At the 3 minute mark, one of our post guys FINALLY does something positive on offense, Scola gets an offensive rebound and puts it back, but then 30 seconds later we try to feed him again and it is stolen from him by, guess who, Brewer.

            One minute mark, Scola is fed again cutting to the hoop, he fumbles it out of bounds.

            So I mean, I guess we could have given the ball to our post guys more, but the simple fact is Roy and Scola are pretty terrible on offense right now and West had to check out 6 minutes in for foul trouble and honestly he didn't have too hot of a start either.


            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              As a big Granger fan that is a very noticeable difference in his demeanor. He used to be such a firery, competitive player. Now he's kind of a bit more complacent, playing hard physically but going through the motions emotionally. He is lacking fire right now.
              Yeah, it is weird. Maybe there is still pain. I don't know.


              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                1. The Pacers aren't getting calls. The concern isn't that they're not getting calls; it's that they still have yet to figure out WHY they're not getting calls. Pacers have to be the whiniest team in the league right now. It's leading to easy transition points the other way, and it's pissing off refs. Refs aren't going to give this team calls until they shut up and play basketball. Even David West is whiny these days. That example filters down.
                DISCLAIMER: In no way am I saying officiating is the reason the Pacers lost.

                But, why is that acceptable? Rule books don't make differentials between players attitudes, and whether or not fouls should be called. This hurts the product, and it leads to the frustrations that boil over.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  Larry Bird needs to think long and hard about keeping Lance Stephenson at this point. He is NOT THAT GOOD. Dude's head is about as big as the Sky right now.
                  This season, he has been the second best player on a team that has the best record in the East right now. Yes he has been sloppy at times lately and yes Vogel should reign him in a bit, but he brings skills to the team that no one else possesses. West and Hibbert put Lance and PG in a bind early when they couldn't do anything on the offensive end. Lance forced some bad shots, but he still had 10 rebounds and only turned the ball over twice (PG turned it over 7 times). West couldn't hit anything and Hibbert had one of those classic games where he looked like he was playing offensive basketball for the first time in his life. Just awful. My main criticism of Lance and PG last night was that they should have let Hill have the ball more.

                  What is Lance supposed to do with the second unit? Go out of his way to pass to Scola and Granger so that they shoot some garbage percentages? A bad shooting game from Lance last night (33%) is roughly what Scola and Granger have been averaging over the last month and a half or so. When it comes to the second unit, I'll put my eggs in the Lance basket until someone else shows that they deserve more shares of the offense.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                    Also, we have not been great at defending the 3 for a while now. I don't think we are closing out hard engouh. Honestly, this team may just need some tough love. I don't know who has to take that bullet, but Frank may just need to put a boot up somebody's ***.


                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Also, we have not been great at defending the 3 for a while now. I don't think we are closing out hard engouh. Honestly, this team may just need some tough love. I don't know who has to take that bullet, but Frank may just need to put a boot up somebody's ***.
                      Frank/Bird say you can only go postal on your team about 3 times a season before they start looking at you as a joke. Gotta wonder if/when those 3 instances have been used, or if they'll be used. Something has gotta wake them up.

                      Also, Lance is giving me Travis Best flashbacks. Good lord man, pass the damn ball before you run out of nails to pound.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                        Bynum could give this team a nice shot in the arm if he's reasonably healthy. He's been yucking it up lately with guys on the bench.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Didn't the T-Wolves go small and if we would have kept Roy in he would have been guarding Love. I realize it is a small point, but I don't think there was a message being sent in how Roy was used.

                          And no I do not at all in the least believe this feels like 2003. The team back then quit on isiah, so unless Seth believes this team is quiting on Frank, this isn't anything like that
                          Agreed, UB. I don't get that same vibe at all. This feels like the opposite this team needs Frank to sit on them, to give them a kick to the rear. I would like to see Cope play more, the starters in particular I think need a stern message. The season ain't over. Right now Lance is acting like he's a superstar and he's not. If he's not careful he's going to turn into Tyreke Evans. How many 3s did he take in the first quarter? 3? Plus another pull up mid range jumper? This is not his game.


                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Frank/Bird say you can only go postal on your team about 3 times a season before they start looking at you as a joke. Gotta wonder if/when those 3 instances have been used, or if they'll be used. Something has gotta wake them up.

                            Also, Lance is giving me Travis Best flashbacks. Good lord man, pass the damn ball before you run out of nails to pound.
                            I feel like they've got to have 2 of those left. I don't see many other times they may have gone postal, maybe after the back to back losses in Dec.


                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Bynum could give this team a nice shot in the arm if he's reasonably healthy. He's been yucking it up lately with guys on the bench.
                              And he's here the real doozy of a conundrum, who has given the best effort since the all star break and played the most above his ability? Ian, of course. So it's not even like putting Bynum in is this simple idea.


                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pacers / TWolves Post Game Thread - 2/19

                                Just realized GHill was 4-8 last night for 13 points. We need to make him a bigger part of our offense I feel like. He's just been playing so well on that end since mid-Jan and with Roy slumping so hard we should be finding ways to get Hill touches. I know finding the mix of ball handling between him, Lance and PG is tough but it needs to be done. We at least need to be better at changing on the fly on nights like last night. Clearly we should have made a more concerted effort to get some of Lance's looks to Hill.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X