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/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

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

  • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    4 games in....blow it up!

    Sheesh.

    I do not want Josh Smith starting at the 4. Offensively he's better there, but not defensively.

    And Gordon Hayward is not the answer to anybody's problems.

    If the other shooters make shots, it doesn't matter what Josh Smith shoots from the field. Everyone focuses on the negative with him. It's ridiculous.

    Of course Josh needs to reel himself in a bit, but he's a hell of an asset in every other area of the game.

    Once this team starts getting better chemistry (it's going to take a long time given the lack of shooting), the ceiling is extremely high because of the size and athleticism of the frontline.

    I'll re-evaluate the Smith/Monroe/Drummond trio in a few months, and again after 82 games. To judge it this early in the season is just stupid.
    I'm actually really impressed with the Pistons front court. That's going to be a monster rotate for the next few years defensively. And what is even more intriguing to me is their passing ability. Both Smith and Monroe are great passers at their positions. I think what they really need is for Jennings to develop into a little more of what I thought he'd be coming into the league, a pass first guard, and they will be pretty good in a year or two.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      The ability to lock down defensively is special and Paul George is a special player that in my lifetime I have not seen in a Pacers uniform
      *weeps openly while singing "Hallelujah"*


      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

        Originally posted by shags View Post
        Paul George is awesome. There's your game analysis.
        This thread should have been locked after this.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I'm still somewhat in disbelief that Paul George is becoming a superstar. I'm trying to tell myself to give it more time before I'm convinced, but right now it's looking VERY good.
          After the first game I posted on another forum how I think PG is really starting to break into the elite echelon of players and other guys were saying "He's already there" Kinda funny how its the fans of other teams hyping him more than myself. But with each game this season, PG has been so unbelievably good its pretty much impossible for me to say he isn't there. Like holy **** this man is amazing. No more will I refer to him as a kid like I do with the younger guys, PG is a man dominating the best basketball league in the world.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            4 games in....blow it up!

            Sheesh.

            I do not want Josh Smith starting at the 4. Offensively he's better there, but not defensively.

            And Gordon Hayward is not the answer to anybody's problems.

            If the other shooters make shots, it doesn't matter what Josh Smith shoots from the field. Everyone focuses on the negative with him. It's ridiculous.

            Of course Josh needs to reel himself in a bit, but he's a hell of an asset in every other area of the game.

            Once this team starts getting better chemistry (it's going to take a long time given the lack of shooting), the ceiling is extremely high because of the size and athleticism of the frontline.

            I'll re-evaluate the Smith/Monroe/Drummond trio in a few months, and again after 82 games. To judge it this early in the season is just stupid.
            The coaches need to reel Josh Smith in. He's not gonna do it himself. And the longer the coaches let him play with this green light, the harder it will be to change. Smith is a great asset. But they need to get a hold of this quick. He's not playing winning basketball right now. He's not playing the way that makes him so good. Detroit can be good, but honestly there is no excuse for letting Smith take 7 threes a game.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

              There is a reason Josh Smith is constantly left out of the all star discussion even though he produces all star stats, you can keep waiting for him to change if you're a Pistons fans, but I'm sure the 8.5 Hawks fans left will tell you that you shouldn't hold your breath.

              And he's gotten WORSE since getting to Detrot on that nice fat contract, the lowest amount of 3PA so far for him? 4. He is shooting 7 3s a game at at a 25% clip. Gross.


              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                Or Tayshaun Prince 2.0

                I had my worries back in the day.

                He11, you didn't even want to draft PG! You and I had some hellacious arguments about my wanting the Pacers to draft PG over Gordon Hayward.

                Gordon has turned out to be a nice player, but he's sure no Paul George. I'm so glad Bird drafted a player I wanted named Paul George!!!!!!!!! Thank you Mr. Bird.

                I'm also glad Bird drafted a player that year that I felt would be a future Pacers PR nightmare named Lance Stephenson. I really like watching Lance play, and I can truthfully say I prefer him over Granger.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  There is a reason Josh Smith is constantly left out of the all star discussion even though he produces all star stats
                  What's his TS% ?? That'll tell you everything you need to know.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                    I was annoyed at the Paul George pick at first (though I certainly didn't want Heyward there)...boy howdy, was I ever wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've never been so happy to be wrong.
                    "And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"

                    "And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                      On the list of things that needs to be fixed from last night, Smith's threes are 4th or 5th. I agree it needs to be sorted out, but it's also not the reason we lost last night.

                      When we start losing games because of it, I'll get annoyed.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 11-06-2013, 03:35 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        On the list of things that needs to be fixed from last night, Smith's threes are 4th or 5th. I agree it needs to be sorted out, but it's also not the reason we lost last night.

                        When we start losing games because of it, I'll get annoyed.
                        Just a question, but what about the Grizzlies game? He attempted 11 3s and you guys lost by 3 points. He hit 3 of them lol
                        I did not watch the game, although I was very intrigued by the matchup.. So I cannot say that's what lost the game... But that seems (to someone just looking at the box score) like it would have to be a major part.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          On the list of things that needs to be fixed from last night, Smith's threes are 4th or 5th. I agree it needs to be sorted out, but it's also not the reason we lost last night.

                          When we start losing games because of it, I'll get annoyed.
                          But it is why you are losing. You are throwing away around 4 possessions a game to a bad 3 from Smith. Obviously its not the only reason you are losing, but it is hurting the Pistons.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                            Originally posted by Ichi View Post
                            Just a question, but what about the Grizzlies game? He attempted 11 3s and you guys lost by 3 points. He hit 3 of them lol
                            I did not watch the game, although I was very intrigued by the matchup.. So I cannot say that's what lost the game... But that seems (to someone just looking at the box score) like it would have to be a major part.
                            I'd counter that without Smith's defense in that game we lose by 15 points. Anyone that watched that game would agree.

                            It's easy to point out his bad threes as what's killing his team, when there is no substitute for what he brings to the table defensively, and if you want to take him out of the game, you're also taking out one of the few forwards in the entire league that can both guard the perimeter and protect the rim.

                            I value his defense and rebounding. The offense will take care of itself 9 times out of 10, and when it comes to the point where that 10% is a major problem, it'll be addressed.

                            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                            But it is why you are losing. You are throwing away around 4 possessions a game to a bad 3 from Smith. Obviously its not the only reason you are losing, but it is hurting the Pistons.
                            He takes away a lot more than that from the other team on average, via blocked/altered shots and deflections in the passing lanes.

                            Again, he shot 7/23 in Memphis and he was the best player on either team in that game. His defense was that good.

                            I'd rather have Smith shooting poorly from the floor and playing fantastic, energetic defense than a mediocre player that shoots well from the perimeter and gives you nothing defensively. There's more to the game than shooting percentage.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 11-06-2013, 04:45 PM.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                              So because he plays good defense, he is allowed to take terrible 3's? I'm sorry, but thats just dumb. If PG was as bad from behind the arc as Smith, and was taking 3's like he is this season I would be pissed.

                              There is no reason Smith can't keep up that good defense and not take those threes. You can't just learn to live with it because it will get worse. Ask Atlanta.

                              Like I said, it isn't the only reason or the biggest reason why the Pistons are losing, but it is a reason. Living with it because he does other stuff is dumb. And honestly its an easy fix. Coaches just need to get on him and get him to be aggressive on the offensive end.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Pistons Postgame Thread 11/5/13

                                Always love postgame threads for the Pacers/Pistons games because we have respected posters who can really give us the view from the other side.

                                Not that it has never gotten heated, but still...
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X