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/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

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

  • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

    Earlier in the year ( I don't remember which game), Paul George was absolutely on fire. Tie ball game, we have the last shot, we run a PnR for Hill/West which fails. The board in general is upset that we didn't "feed the hot hand" and give PG the ball for the last shot in regulation, and I find myself defending the PnR because it was a safe play. Fast forward to now, we're in the position of the game we are in because Lance and PG changed the complexion of the game. We run a PG iso, it fails. The board is now upset we didn't run the PnR. Both times "bad coaching" has been cited. In both cases, there are very good reasons for picking the play we did.

    The funny thing is, we actually ended up winning the game earlier in the year. My point is, it's easy to criticize a play as "bad playcalling" when it doesn't work. When in reality, our Hill/West PnR has about the same success rate as our PG isos do at this point in the season.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
      Alittle of both. I can't stand running Hill and Augustine together, like they have been. Johnson is not a quick defender and he isn't quick or long enough to make up for his mistakes. We were handling the best teams in the league with Green getting 15-20 min a game because even with his terrible shot selection he was not giving up easy buckets.
      Agreed. OJ has been disruptive in a few games because no one on the other team expects him to do much. No disrespect to the dude (I really like what we've seen from him so far.), but opposing defenses and offenses won't plan for a minute how to deal with Orlando Johnson. OTOH, if Green is coming off of screens, running the fast break, recovering on D, or coming for a weak side block, that is taken into account. All the following things are true about Green. His shooting has been abysmal. He needs to keep his eye on his man off-ball, and make sure he's in position to box out. He needs to cut more and more effectively.

      (Actually, while we're there, every ****ing guard and wing on this team needs to move better without the ball. West and Roy are two of the best bigs in the league at hitting guys going towards the basket. Considering how often our wings telegraph passes, West and Roy may actually be better at the delivering the ball.)

      Like Ben Hans, OJ was a breath of fresh air. He played hard and with heart, and showed out a few games on offense; he is a much better player than BH. But expecting a rookie still figuring out that he belongs in the league to be consistent over 82 games is a lot to ask. Despite their poor play this season, Augustine and Green are on other teams' radars because of their skill sets. Green needs to shoot much better and become more reliable. But not having him as an option is going too far the other way.
      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
        Earlier in the year ( I don't remember which game), Paul George was absolutely on fire. Tie ball game, we have the last shot, we run a PnR for Hill/West which fails. The board in general is upset that we didn't "feed the hot hand" and give PG the ball for the last shot in regulation, and I find myself defending the PnR because it was a safe play. Fast forward to now, we're in the position of the game we are in because Lance and PG changed the complexion of the game. We run a PG iso, it fails. The board is now upset we didn't run the PnR. Both times "bad coaching" has been cited. In both cases, there are very good reasons for picking the play we did.

        The funny thing is, we actually ended up winning the game earlier in the year. My point is, it's easy to criticize a play as "bad playcalling" when it doesn't work. When in reality, our Hill/West PnR has about the same success rate as our PG isos do at this point in the season.
        I doubt anyone has actually flip flopped. You can look it up, maybe people have, but many of us who are calling for a Hill/West PnR are calling for it because it is a good solid play.

        I'd never ask for an ISO. Ever. Now sure, a PG/West PnR wouldn't have been a bad play and I'm certainly never opposed to that, but an ISO, especially an ISO against Iggy, is not a good play call.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

          Originally posted by bunt View Post
          If you think George clearly fouled Iggy, then you and vnzla must think that George was clearly fouled by Iggy on the play prior. Any way you look at it it was a terrible last 5 seconds for the refs.

          So for your "homer" comments, either your clueless on how basketball is played and called, or you're just fitting things into your own little narrative...
          His running mate stated multiple times in the game thread that he didn't believe George was fouled by Iguodala, so I doubt you have luck there.

          Some posters on this forum seem to make a point of rooting against our team and players. It's not trolling, just a way of protection themselves against disappointment. If you convince yourself your team has no hope because of an abundance of "evidence," you get to pick and choose when to "know" that the results are fools gold or be pleasantly surprised. If you expect an 0-82 record, you can't ever be disappointed.

          It's a defense mechanism, of sorts.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

            It's funny how if we hit 1 more shot in each of these games, we are all happy about the 3-1 road trip. Literally nothing would be different about the team, but people would be way more optimistic about it. I'm not worried about the state of the Pacers. I know what we can and can't do and I still think we are one of the top teams in the East.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

              I'm all for running the Hill/West PnR because both of them have made some good shots in late games and the individual play gives us two solid options that will almost guarantee a half way decent shot. If they trap Hill, we go to West, if not Hill can at least get a decent drive towards the basket. It's a good play, not saying it will work.

              On the other hand, no matter what the play call is, I'm not sure I ever agree calling a play when either Iggy or LBJ are involved playing defense. They're too good and you do not want to attack them. (as an example, if we decide at some point that a PG/West PnR is the best option, in the playoffs against LBJ, I'd switch to a Granger/West PnR and have him do the play just so LBJ wasn't there to blow it up)
              Last edited by mattie; 01-29-2013, 01:24 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                Lol listen to the homers on this board... George clearly fouled Iggy at the end of the game, and anyone who disagrees is a straight up homer.
                1) Every non-Nugget fan in the RealGM General Discussion GB thread was saying that this wasn't a foul and that the Pacers got denied of the opportunity to win the game.

                2) Every reporter that wrote a recap about the game mentioned that the call was at least questionable.

                3) I was talking with a guy that we're in the same fantasy league and is a Suns fan. He thought that the calls were tragic and ridiculous. He is a Phoenix Suns fan.

                4) The Denver announcers themselves could not believe that they got that call.

                I understand your need to feel "cool" by saying the exact opposite of what most people think. I understand the need for this "holier than thou" attitude. It obviously makes you feel better about yourself. Have fun with it.

                But don't even think for a moment that you're being impartial. Don't lie to yourself.

                Anyway, I'll stop it now because I'm not contributing anything to this thread.

                In fact, I don't think that I will comment on this particular basketball game. There is no value at all. I'll just say on last thing.

                A team that has not hit a field goal in the last 5:35 minutes of the game does not deserve to win a game at the FT line.

                That's it.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                  Originally posted by mattie View Post
                  I doubt anyone has actually flip flopped. You can look it up, maybe people have, but many of us who are calling for a Hill/West PnR are calling for it because it is a good solid play.

                  I'd never ask for an ISO. Ever. Now sure, a PG/West PnR wouldn't have been a bad play and I'm certainly never opposed to that, but an ISO, especially an ISO against Iggy, is not a good play call.
                  You may be right that people haven't flip flopped. But there were posts from multiple posters on the subject on both. I don't remember which game it was and frnakly need to go to bed before i go fishing for OT games lol.

                  I think they could have set it up better, but I liked the call. I think he is more likely to have success 1 on 1 vs. Iggy than he is getting double teamed by 2 average to above average defenders. I think there was no chance they were gonna send a double w/ Iggy as the primary defender because of their confidence in him. I would have preferred Hill setting up PG on the wing off of a David West sideline screen though. But against most defenders PG is more comfortable driving from the top of the key. So there are merits to the way they set it up.

                  PG made a mistake in waiting too long, but he had time to get off the shot if Iguodala hadn't fouled.
                  Last edited by aamcguy; 01-29-2013, 01:29 AM.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                    A team that has not hit a field goal in the last 5:35 minutes of the game does not deserve to win a game at the FT line.

                    That's it.
                    Most important point. A few people enjoy the narrative that the Nuggets out played the Pacers the entire game, and some ridiculous late game heroics gave the Pacers a chance. But that's just not true.

                    First off, the Pacers led almost the entire first half, so the idea that the Nuggets dominated is obviously not true. And then as Nuntius pointed out, the Pacers dominated the last 5 minutes with great defense. The Nuggets did not clearly out play the Pacers.

                    There should have been overtime. But that's beating a dead horse.

                    Regardless as to the bad call, the Pacers do need to step up their defense. There does need to be some improvements, but like every team in the NBA, the Pacers are currently in a little funk, and I'm sure they'll get out of it. Playing at home the next 9 out of 10 helps...
                    Last edited by mattie; 01-29-2013, 01:37 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                      The last 1:30 is on tv right now for those that want to see it again.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                        You may be right that people haven't flip flopped. But there were posts from multiple posters on the subject on both. I don't remember which game it was and frnakly need to go to bed before i go fishing for OT games lol.

                        I think they could have set it up better, but I liked the call. I think he is more likely to have success 1 on 1 vs. Iggy than he is getting double teamed by 2 average to above average defenders. I think there was no chance they were gonna send a double w/ Iggy as the primary defender because of their confidence in him. I would have preferred Hill setting up PG on the wing off of a David West sideline screen though. But against most defenders PG is more comfortable driving from the top of the key. So there are merits.
                        I get what you're saying.

                        I am just firmly anti-isolation (whether in the clutch or not). That's my reasoning is all. I don't like Iso's hardly ever. PnR's, cuts, screens, etc... But ISO's are statistically inefficient, and easy to defend. (Just send your best defender and force a tough shot, simple!)

                        Edit- the one time I'd be willing to run an Isolation though is with James Harden. Somehow someway, he's been absurdly productive running isolation's. Normally, the iso in the NBA is an unproductive play. But Harden has been able to overcome that.

                        Also worth noting is Eric Gordon has actually been incredibly effective in clutch time, game winning plays but I'm not sure if he was running isolations. I just know that he has scored incredibly effectively in those moments, but they've probably run plays though.
                        Last edited by mattie; 01-29-2013, 01:45 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                          Do you guys really think DJ is that bad? To be honest, I thought he's played pretty solid even though he's not a strong defensive player...
                          Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                            Yep I'm watching the play again and Iguadola didn't foul Paul George on that play, good call.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                              And the foul on Paul George was the right call too, Paul George pushes Iguadola with his elbow when he is on the air, huge mistake by Paul George.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Nuggets Postgame Thread 1/28/13

                                Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                                Do you guys really think DJ is that bad? To be honest, I thought he's played pretty solid even though he's not a strong defensive player...
                                The defense is noticeably worse with the DJ/Hill backcourt, so I just don't want to see it. As LG33 noted, it's probably not all DJ's fault either. Hill statistically, for his entire career including SAS, is only a little bit above average against wings, so that might play into it as well.

                                Regardless, I'd rather have a wing like OJ out there who can knock down the shot from anywhere (or he should, his entire career he's been a helluva shooter with huge range), and decent defense.

                                I don't think OJ will ever be a great player, but I don't see why he won't be a solid bench player for years to come. He's 23 and he's completely filled out so he won't get much better, but once he completely figures out defense at the NBA level, he should be an above average defender that can shoot from anywhere. That's a real nice player off the bench.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X