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/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

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

  • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

    Originally posted by mattie View Post
    Also, in an indirect way, Vogel has announced PG is the primary option on offense when Danny gets back. This is significant and worth mentioning I think. (If he's catering to PG's needs, I think that suggests he considers Paul more important)
    I'll be worry if Vogel and the Pacers didn't consider Paul George more important than Danny Granger.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

      Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
      Is it just me, or does it seem like Ian is growing into what is pretty close to a starting caliber Center?
      Absolutely he is... If he didnt miss every other pass directed at him, he would easily be a double digit scorer. He is exactly what we need off the bench

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

        Maybe Vogel has in mind playing Paul at the 3 and Granger some at PF. In order to keep Lances minutes at 30+ I believe Hibbs minutes will decline. Seems like Hibbert is only effective for about 24 minutes a game anyways.

        Hill, Lance, Paul, Granger, West/Mahinmi

        not something i would expect pacers to start out a game with obviously but against certain teams (NY, MIA, ATL) it could be done.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          I'll be worry if Vogel and the Pacers didn't consider Paul George more important than Danny Granger.
          I mean of course they do. But them considering Paul the number one option now regardless of Granger's contribution is significant. Especially since at the moment, Granger is still the more dangerous offensive weapon.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

            Great win I don't care who wasn't playing any roster that suits up under Thibs is going to be a tough team to beat......Loved the offensive flow and rhythm we were consistently getting open looks and moving the ball extremely well. Great game for George Hill where have these performances been this year from him? I mean he has been solid all year but he seems like he is capable of having more games like this than he has this is only his 7th 20 point outing of the year, he seems like he should have more than that with his skill set on offense (and yes I know he is taking a more of a facilitator role this year than previously, but still). Lance Stephenson is playing great lately and major props to Vogel for again using a players slump to try to reinvent the player and get the best out of him in upcoming games (now can he get through to Roy please!!). Lance is playing at a level that has made me feel at ease knowing that Granger may have to be dealt in the the off-season or the near future to make the numbers game work, and this is coming from a huge Granger supporter. If we get the right deal and it helps us keep DWest for the numbers game it will no longer upset me due to Lances continued growth.

            Now onto Roy, first I'll start off saying I like aamcguy have been vocal about defending Roy for his offensive struggles siting that Hawks fans didn't complain about Mutumbo's lack of offense etc. But wow I have to agree with Mad Man Mario here I don't care if you are no longer a focal point of the offensive anymore Roy, but you can't be a downright liability on offense anymore. His lack of production may very well make life much tougher for David West come playoff time is the thing that most concerns me. If teams watch Roy not be able to put up any production against guys like Taj Gibson defending him then what is to stop teams like the Bulls from just always putting their best big bodied defender on West in the future. Logically you would think that in a 7 game series against the Bulls that Thibs would have no choice but to put Noah on him for the series, but if Roy continues at his current rate that is no longer the case he could easily get away with hiding Boozer's defensive ineptitude's on Hibbert and forcing West into the much tougher task of scoring against the likes of Noah. This is the scary part not that I care if we are capable of going to him or not during stretches of the game because like aamcguy has said when Granger comes back we will have 4 good scores around him to offset that need, but the fact that he is so inefficient on simple put backs and simple finishes around the rim after good passes is getting very alarming, and throw on top of that that it is getting so bad to the point where he isn't even a go to option when they have a player like Taj on him is very alarming. Trust me teams will take note of this and because of this it is going to cause much tougher match ups for West come playoff time. The frustrating part is that most of us know that it has to basically be a mental thing, we have seen him capable of finishing these high percentage looks too often in the past to just write it off to him being a bad offensive player. This season he just seems far too rushed in the post, very indecisive, and very off balance under any kind of contact situations. These are all things he was good at last season, last season he was very patient in the post, very decisive with his play-making and scoring, and he has always been a bit awkward and fairly easier to push off balance but not to the degree that he seems to be this year. I hope he figures it out if only for the simple reason of getting a higher shooting percentage on rim finishes and for the reason of not making life tougher for West come playoff time.
            Last edited by VideoVandal; 02-05-2013, 02:21 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
              Exactly, a left wing and a right wing. Like hockey.
              Best explanation yet. Thanks for that.

              "Shooting Guard" and "Small Forward" simply don't have a meaning in this system.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                But Danny is a far less superior distributor/creator/penetrator.

                While Lance may be currently not quite as good as Danny/PG/Hill, it isn't by too much, and the gap is growing thinner all the time. Arguably, Danny/PG/Hill are similar offensive players. Lance is something very different.

                I am excited about Lance moving to the second unit, because I want to "Free Lance." But I think some people may be disappointed in the offensive flow upon Danny's return. Right now, we have two hammers and a wrench starting. We are about to replace the only wrench with another hammer.
                And yet last year's starting unit was far superior on offense to this year's starting unit. Sure, Hibbert is worse, but West is FAR better. George is on another level compared to last year. So why was last year's team so much better on O?
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                  Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
                  Lance Stephenson is playing great lately and major props to Vogel for again using a players slump to try to reinvent the player and get the best out of him in upcoming games (now can he get through to Roy please!!).
                  The point about Lance was VERY WELL said... It can't be overstated, that the one thing about Frank, is that he is genuinely appreciative of players that leave their heart on the floor, and he also recognizes their strengths and gets the most out of their ability, playing off said strengths... (The ANTI- D'ANTONI)

                  Which is what they have been doing with Roy, and he is sloooowly coming around. They said, "Roy, you are a great defensive Center. That's what we expect out of you!" It has taken the pressure to carry the team, offensively, off of him and his #'s are starting to come around a little.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                    Anyone got a video of that lance crossover when he shook Cook?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                      I think Lance changes everything on the 2nd unit. I think he's that kind of playmaker. He passes the eye test. He's playing incredible right now. Put him with DJ/Green/Mahimi/ and Tyler. I think thats a tough second unit with Lance making plays. His aggressiveness/control has been amazing. He is not a liability at all. That's one of the best compliments i can come up with. He can play with any combo unit we throw out there and he is absolutely not a liability. What a draft by Larry. Seriously. They'll write columns about that draft some day.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                        I think Lance moving to the second unit benefits Ian/Tyler so much. Hell, even DJ will benefit.

                        Lance has that uncanny ability to get the ball to a big early in the shotclock, before the defender is prepared to defend a pass. Tyler runs the court so well, he'll be the recipient of many of Lances incredible passes IMO. I can just see Tyler getting deep position on a mini-break and actually receiving the ball because Lance isn't afraid to try to thread the needle.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                          Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                          I think Lance changes everything on the 2nd unit. I think he's that kind of playmaker. He passes the eye test. He's playing incredible right now. Put him with DJ/Green/Mahimi/ and Tyler. I think thats a tough second unit with Lance making plays. His aggressiveness/control has been amazing. He is not a liability at all. That's one of the best compliments i can come up with. He can play with any combo unit we throw out there and he is absolutely not a liability. What a draft by Larry. Seriously. They'll write columns about that draft some day.
                          Except for including Green I agree

                          What a waste he's been.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            Best explanation yet. Thanks for that.

                            "Shooting Guard" and "Small Forward" simply don't have a meaning in this system.

                            Or, as Larry Brown has said since at least the mid-90's, if not before, the 12-man roster consists of five guys that can defend the post, four interchangable wings, and three point guards.

                            Now in this system, I think we're running with three wings and two post guys. Not a four-out/ single post system as David is clearly a high post player. But George Hill is closer to a wing than a traditional point. It works because Vogel's system is flexible about what to do with Hill (and Lance). If you are going to run Granger as a fourth wing with Hill, Lance and Paul, then I think you need Roy in the low post vs. David in the high post. Otherwise, you risk becoming a donut team.

                            I think Hill-Lance-Paul-Danny-either David or Roy could be a good defensive lineup vs. Miami. That's fair. But I don't think any of us would like the "skip the ball around the perimeter of the donut" offense that would ensue.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                              Originally posted by Derek2k3 View Post
                              Except for including Green I agree

                              What a waste he's been.
                              If you can talk Green out of running to the 3 point line, I think Lance would put him on a highlight film every single night.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread 2/4/13

                                The crazy thing is that I was a huge Lance hater the last few years. I dont know what changed with him, but whatever it is, he's made me a believer. I think we'll have to pay this guy or let him go. He's going to be really good. I dont know how good, but with his size, ability, court vision. He's an outstanding player. Enjoy it right now. I hope we can resign him. I think he's gunna be a championship player in all honesty. I cant even believe i'm saying this. But i've seen enough to realize how hard he's working. It needs to be recognized. He's been huge in just about every big Eastern Conference showdown we've had.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X