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

Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

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

  • #61
    Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
    I think you know Larry Bird isnt' stupid enough to do this or really any trades before the deadline.
    He has to know Danny is not producing though. Danny is not being aggressive enough. He needs to be moved for someone else. There are options. Like I said, trading him for Stuckey. Both are expiring's. Stuckey backs up Lance, Copeland slides in to back up PG.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

      Last night sucked, but I think many of us kind of expected it. The reasons have already been stated; back to back, both on the road, high altitude, Shaw knew how to coach against us, and quite frankly our focus is just questionable right now as well.

      This team has proven over and over that it can look like garbage sometimes, yet give them some rest and refocus, and they turn back into titans. I'm not remotely worried about it.

      As to what this means about our playoff chances? It doesn't change anything to me, short of giving up a half game on our lead for 1st place. We're still going to win about 65 games.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
        I'll start to care about losses when we either have lost 3 in a row or have lost to Miami.
        It took a miracle for us not to have just lost 3 straight.

        By itself, this game isn't much cause for concern, but taken into context of the last three games and up-tempo West teams in general it's a bit worrisome. I'm actually at the point where I'm a bit more concerned about OKC and similar teams than I am Miami.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

          I hate to say it, but against these up-tempo teams we may want to consider going small. Roy and Ian just aren't very effective against these teams.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

            It would also be nice if every West team we face didn't shoot lights out against us.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
              I think we have more than enough offense in both units to win games. The problem tonight, as much as anything, was that our perimeter players would suck in to better positions for help defense, then got caught ball watching rather than recovering back to the proximity of their men. Their man would receive the ball and either put up the three, or drive as our guys finally attempted to recover. When they drove, our centers ended up picking up fouls.

              Denver executed their game plan using the quickness of their perimeter players. As in other recent games we seem to have problems with teams that load up quick perimeter players on us. The problem is not Hill alone. Lance and Paul have been failing miserably in their defense as well.
              Paul and Lance got smoked so many times the last few games it's not funny. Blame on Hill makes no sense. Green and Dragic got plenty of "Paul to cool them off" time and kept scoring, then the same thing happened in Sacto where Paul got assigned to cool down Thornton, and in Denver Hill had nothing to do with wing Chandler going 4-8 from 3.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                Will the real Roy Hibbert please stand up.
                'Forgot maybe iffy defensive fouls that he might not get called in Indy, what is with the return to NOV 2012 Roy offense? He just can't find his rhythm lately and if they had to lean on his offense it would get ugly quickly.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                  [QUOTE=Grimp;1776955]

                  West Coast Ref crews are not used to seeing defense /QUOTE]


                  I didn't realize that the NBA had crews of refs that ref'd west coast games and crews who ref'd east coast games. Not sure, but I believe you are mistaken.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                    Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                    That is a logical Fallacy. If the Thunder and Heat were as healthy as we have been they would both have better records. Weve had a cake schedule and only have the record by one game.

                    People keep saying we have the best record. But that doesnt mean crap in the playoffs if guys dont show up to play. Or if the team fails to make adjustments.
                    If Granger was 100% healthy, we'd probably have 5 losses. He's not remotely close to the same player. The fact is, we have a weakness guarding small, quick guards who can penetrate and shoot the midrange jumper. But teams competing for a championship will not use that method to defeat us. Instead, they are trying to get bigger. Also, Phoenix and Sacramento will not be in the finals. We will only need to worry about 1 team in the west and they will try to beat us another way.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      We're 5-5 on the second night of back to backs. We are 29-4 the rest of the time. Calm down. I know it's been a rough road trip, but every team has rough stretches.

                      I'd also like to point out that while we have had an easy schedule, it's been one of the most difficult in the east. The Heat have had the easiest schedule in the entire league. http://espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi/_/sort/SOS/order/false
                      The bad thing about back-to-backs: We are not particularly good at back end games.

                      The good thing about back-to-backs: They do not exist in the playoffs.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        It took a miracle for us not to have just lost 3 straight.

                        By itself, this game isn't much cause for concern, but taken into context of the last three games and up-tempo West teams in general it's a bit worrisome. I'm actually at the point where I'm a bit more concerned about OKC and similar teams than I am Miami.
                        You most certainly should be more concerned about OKC. We have built this team to beat Miami. We may or may not accomplish that, but we've got them very concerned and for good reason.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                          Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                          We may be guaranteed a spot in the conference finals. But this team needs HCA advantage the way they have played. And that is not all but assured. We are what 3 games back of the Heat with 2 more games against them. Thats nothing.

                          These slow starts are costing us games that could be very important when its all said and done.
                          I don't think our or the Heat's chances are good in regards to beating a healthy OKC.....
                          What you own is your own kingdom
                          What you do is your own glory
                          What you love is your own power
                          What you live is your own story

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            'Forgot maybe iffy defensive fouls that he might not get called in Indy, what is with the return to NOV 2012 Roy offense? He just can't find his rhythm lately and if they had to lean on his offense it would get ugly quickly.

                            We simply don't go to Roy enough. Roy is still Roy 2012. We just don't go to him enough. We always post West more.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                              Originally posted by joew8302 View Post

                              One loss on the 2nd night of a back to back is not the end of the world.

                              Granted BUT how many of the Pacers losses have been the 2nd game of BTB?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Nuggets/Pacers Postgame

                                [QUOTE=Justin Tyme;1777057]
                                Originally posted by Grimp View Post

                                West Coast Ref crews are not used to seeing defense /QUOTE]


                                I didn't realize that the NBA had crews of refs that ref'd west coast games and crews who ref'd east coast games. Not sure, but I believe you are mistaken.

                                Not always. But it happens very often in the NBA that ref crews who do teams home games? Usually do those games more than once a season. For example, the ref crew we get in Indy? We will get them more than once in a season. As do most teams. That keeps from having to fly too many refs all over the place. Also for example, if there's a ref crew that does Bulls games often, they'll alternate them between Bulls, Pacers, and Bucks home games. Just like the refs who do Laker home games often, will also show up at Clipper, and Warrior home games sometimes too. It's easier for the league to do it that way. Now in the playoffs, it's different....because teams are not going all over the place. They're either home, or traveling to 1 particular city at least 3 times in one series. So it's not zooming around the country every day.


                                Also in some cases refs can be part of the team's community, if they come from the same city originally or live there. In the case of Denver...not saying they didn't play a good game, but when we're playing track meet teams like Denver, or Sac, or PHX....we're just not gonna get calls. And they're gonna foul us and get away with it. Because the refs who do Nugget home games often....not always but often, don't see our style of play all but once a year. When they're reffing games that result in 115+ scores 95% of the season.

                                Wilson Chandler for example got 3 and 1's against PG in the 3rd quarter. You honestly believe that's possible? One? Ok, but he got two in the same spot, and then another going to the basket. Seems the refs just kind of packed it in, and maybe didn't want to officiate an overtime game. I still say that Indiana needs more offense off our bench. At the end of one quarter, in a b2b game. Where we won in OT in Sac? We trailed by just 4 points. When our bench came in, that's when Denver built their huge lead. Then we scored 40 pts in the 3rd. But again, our bench came in and we couldn't get any closer. Scola and Watson are fine. They just are not facilitators. They never were. So we need to put Copeland in to back up PG, and back up center and back up 2 guard for Lance, needs to be dealt with via a trade.

                                Lance I think in games like this? Despite his motor....could have used rest. That's why we need a legit back up 2 guard at 6'6 or 6'7 who can create and score. So Lance can rest for the 3rd quarter, and come in for the last quarter and give us a burst. Trading Danny is the only way to go. He had a good comeback, and it worked for awhile, but he is not the offensively aggressive or efficient player we need right now. Also, his flaws from years ago are even more visible now. He can't create his own shot off the dribble.

                                His spot up shooting isn't what we need off the bench. We need someone who can get their own shot, facilitates, and wants to score. And Ian has got to go, Larry couldn't get Robin Lopez in the off season. So I think before the deadline he'll try for someone else. But he knows Ian has to go. Bynum isn't an option anymore I don't think.
                                Last edited by Grimp; 01-26-2014, 02:05 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X