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

Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

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

  • #46
    Re: Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

    MDJ may have the tools to be a good player, but I think that mental block/confidence thing is a very big obstacle and I don't know if he could overcome it. Would he even be able to handle being given the "point forward" role. He looks/plays like a guy who want to avoid that kind of responsibility IMO.

    One thing I feel pretty confident about is stating he is highly unlikely to ever be a legit 3 point threat. Again, I think he'd have more success if those open threes he continuously clanks were closer to mid-range shots.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

      Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
      Another great game by JO wasted. Best game of the season for him actually. Jermaine O'Neal is better then Amare Stoudamire in everything other then dunking good. But ohh well what can you do when you get triple teamed and not one of your teammates can make a bucket.

      GO PACERS
      I didn't think JO had a great game. He was good, certainly better than Amare. But, not great.

      Steve Nash was great. He played to perfection at clutch time, not only making shots and breaking our defense down, but made passes that made his teammates better.

      Seven turnovers for JO was way too many, especially since several came in crunch time when you most can't afford to make them.

      The turnovers and missed shots by JO, Armie, and teammates in crunch time nailed the coffin closed for the Pacers. When the game was really on the line, the Pacers panicked and played tight. The Suns and, especially, Steve Nash just executed and got the job done. That was the story and that is the sad truth. Steve Nash was everything we weren't when it mattered. Very discouraging.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

        Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
        I still cant figure out why Rick cant see that Foster and Quis should be starting.

        Every other team starts thier best pg, sg, sf, pf, c

        We on the other hand start our best pg , sf (most of the time anyway) and pf.

        Our best center and sg are coming off the bench and I just cant figure it out. I know some people think Quis plays best with the bench but thats just because we run more plays for him then. He should still be starting over MD
        I totally agree on both points. However, he's what you get when you start Foster w/JO...more of the same half-court sets with very little motion. The defense will continue to double-up on JO, and Foster doesn't pose much of, if any, offensive threat. So, Murphy gets the start by default only in an attempt by RC to open up the offense and keep some simbulance of an inside/outside game going. Only, it's not working. In fact, I'd argue that it's about as effective as having Al out there w/the only real difference being reboudning and slightly improved interior defense.

        MDjr isn't a starter, but w/Quis taking over the injury proned role formerly held by Tinsley , you have to stick w/MDjr and hope that he comes through for you. He has made some good plays - cutting baseline for some good scores and hitting a few deep ball shots, but he's so inconsistent w/the 3-ball probably more than Stephen Jackson was. (And yes, I'm saying it for the first time!) The only real difference here is MDjr comes in and fills is role, plays hard and complains little (publicly anyway). But, yes, if Quis could stay healthy, I'd much rather see him start over MDjr.

        Somewhere in this thread someone mentioned Granger being in a slump and that RC should start Shawne Williams. To that I agree, but only if Quis starts at SG. Otherwise, what you have is no plays called for Granger while paired w/Quis. Since Quis is more of a free-flowing playmaker, Granger would only get the ball on kickouts which may or may not come during the flow of the game. Regardless, one of these two guys needs to be the focale point when on the floor together. You just can't have them both out there in set-offenses.

        One other thing: I would much prefer starting Army over Tinsley. It's not that I think Tinsley is doing anything all that bad, but rather Army brings the defense from the Point, and if that's what's missing then put him out there and let the man do his thing! Tinsley could still get the lion's share of "starter" minutes, but I wouldn't start him at this point. The season is starting to go down hill fast. A shakeup is in order. Starting Foster, Army, Quis and Williams would certainly stir things up, and I believe for the better!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          MDJ may have the tools to be a good player, but I think that mental block/confidence thing is a very big obstacle and I don't know if he could overcome it. Would he even be able to handle being given the "point forward" role. He looks/plays like a guy who want to avoid that kind of responsibility IMO.

          One thing I feel pretty confident about is stating he is highly unlikely to ever be a legit 3 point threat. Again, I think he'd have more success if those open threes he continuously clanks were closer to mid-range shots.
          I've noticed this, too, and was screaming at the TV for him to just step inside the 3-pt line and take the shot. I like the guy, but a deep ball threat he is not!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

            Originally posted by sixthman View Post
            I didn't think JO had a great game. He was good, certainly better than Amare. But, not great.
            No offense, but I think you're crazy. JO was the only reason the Pacers didn't lose by 20. 6 blocks and who knows how many shots were missed because he challenged them. You'd be hard pressed to find a superstar player who's working as hard on the defensive end of the floor as JO is right now. He was brilliant last night. He had an impact on nearly every play during the game while he was on the floor.

            The Pacers lost this game on offense, and it wasn't JO who lost it.

            Did anybody notice how much more controlled DA played when he knew he was going to get major minutes?
            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

            - Salman Rushdie

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

              Anyone who knows anything about the Suns knows that they can run for 48 minutes a game. They play rope-a-dope with the other team, baiting them into a run-and-gun style. When the other team finally runs out of gas, the Suns take over. And that's exactly what happened to us.

              This team just isn't good enough. I don't blame the effort last night at all, we just aren't good enough. The biggest problem is, we have no identity. We're too busy always trying to outplay other teams at their own game that we can't get any kind of rhythm going out there. That's why you see us having 20+ turnovers trying to play a style we're not used to playing.

              On top of that, Foster (or Baston...yes, I said Maceo Baston should start) and Quis should be starting. Murphleavy is going to end up being vastly overpaid bench help, as I suspected from the start. Hello, Austin Crosheres II & III.

              This team is poorly assembled and poorly coached.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                No offense, but I think you're crazy. JO was the only reason the Pacers didn't lose by 20. 6 blocks and who knows how many shots were missed because he challenged them. You'd be hard pressed to find a superstar player who's working as hard on the defensive end of the floor as JO is right now. He was brilliant last night. He had an impact on nearly every play during the game while he was on the floor.

                The Pacers lost this game on offense, and it wasn't JO who lost it.

                Did anybody notice how much more controlled DA played when he knew he was going to get major minutes?

                Do the 7 TO's count for anything? JO, played a good game, but he is not CLUTCH, and never will be.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Post Game - Pacers lose to Suns

                  Now that i've cleared my head and had time to think and even rewatched the game here are my thoughts about some things that could have been done in hindsight to maybe help the team out.

                  Like many of you already say is Rick should start Marquis Daniels, everyone else starts with their best players on the floor but not good ol' Rick . It's pretty much obvious that needs to happen, but I think they're too worried about doing something like that would shatter Dunleavy's confidence and he would end up sucking in any other role. That's the only reason I can think that we keep Dunleavy as a starter. The crazy thing is the guy puts up pretty good numbers from his position, even watching the game closely paying attention to him I'm always shocked to see the box score at the end of the game or for Denari to bring up his stat line for example the game against the Kings 18 points 9 rebounds 4 assists and 1 block. Those are pretty fantastic numbers from a shooting guard only thing that I can harp on is Dunleavy relies on his jumpers and outside shot and you're not going to see him drive to the rim as often as a Marquis and create his own shot for a higher percentage shot in and around the basket. The only time you're gonna see Dunleavy driving to the basket is if you see Jermaine is down on the low block with the ball in his hands Dunleavy will cut to the rim and that does two things at once and is actually one of the few brilliant things Rick has drawn up. It pulls a defender away from JO and it gives Dunleavy an opportunity in and around the basket where her normally wouldn't get that kind of a shot.

                  Another thing that I forgot that consistently ticked me off was watching Troy Murphy stand out on the 3 point arc WIDE OPEN he'd plant and look like he was gonna shoot head fake, take 1 jab step towards the basket than pass off to the guy that's like 3 feet away from him, in which the Pacers would have to repost JO he'd throw it back out and we'd swing the ball around two or three times for an open 3, but honestly Murph should have been taking at least a few of those shot attempts. Another thing about Murphy was as soon as he picked up that 4th foul he had a giant target on his back, the suns just kept running right at him and he became a huge vulnerability and the suns exploited it badly.

                  Which makes me wonder WHERE is Maceo Baston in that situation he would have been fantastic to run against the suns and he plays good enough defense. Another option would have been to put Ike in as the PF(Had 7 points in 7 minutes) and have JO slide over to center, both would have been a good decision JO was owning Amare all night long anyways it's not like he had to slide over to guard Yao Ming or Shaq. I think sometimes the reason Rick doesn't make these obvious subs other than the fact his little card doesn't say it's time to put this player into the game yet, is because he is also horrible at making in-game adjustments which everybody knows. If ONE thing deviates from the norm of what is expected and what was practiced we might be able to pull out a win, but you can expect it to be tight the whole way.

                  Hopefully rick takes a LONG hard look at the game film and takes notice of some of these things, but I doubt it cause what is blatantly obvious to what's left of this fanbase is completely a mystery to Rick.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X