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

11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

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

  • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

    Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
    Our 2 backup PG's had an awsome 4th.

    But don't forget that our starting PG had 14 assists tonight.

    That's what I like to call PRODUCTION.
    Story of the game, right there.

    But don't forget that Al finally found his game for 28 points or something like that.
    It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

    Comment


    • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

      Sweet, only saw a few mins of it but we played great

      Comment


      • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

        well, last year we couldn't beat crappy teams, so this is good.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

          hey pacers gurl, i miss your play-by-play posts~ lol

          Comment


          • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

            damn i was hoping jamaal would of gotten a double double, good win though

            Comment


            • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

              M4E:
              Sorry, I've been away from the computer.

              Bobcats - No internet that day.
              Hornets - went to the game.
              Knicks - away from the computer.

              I'll probably be doing the play by play on Tuesday vs. Sixers.

              Originally posted by Jaydawg2270 View Post
              damn i was hoping jamaal would of gotten a double double, good win though
              I was too. 14 dimes. Ooooh weee.

              Comment


              • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                No one, aside from Jack very occasionally, that can consistently get into the paint off the dribble from the perimeter.
                Jack can get to the paint... he's just in love with his shot.

                Marquis and Tinsley can break down the D as well. And Rawle Marshall looked good in preseason.

                It's not a lack of talent, it's a lack of desire.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Jack can get to the paint... he's just in love with his shot.

                  Marquis and Tinsley can break down the D as well. And Rawle Marshall looked good in preseason.

                  It's not a lack of talent, it's a lack of desire.
                  Sarunas looked great tonight giving a pump-fake, then stepping in a couple feet and pulling up. It's not the same penetration guys like Jack can get, but it's the highest percentage shot he takes, other than free throws. He's absolute money on those shots, and he can get it any time.

                  I will however agree that we don't have enough penetration to the hoop, because there is no good reason to get your first free throw of the game with 6:30 left in the THIRD QUARTER! That's ridiculous.
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

                    i would like to see baston playing.. he can do the dirty job and get some rebounds

                    Comment


                    • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

                      I just noticed that Runi has a 4.5:1 assist to turnover ratio this year. Pretty impressive considering last year ballhandling was one of his biggest weaknesses.

                      Comment


                      • FINAL BOX SCORE - sportsline.com

                        Indiana Pacers STATISTICS
                        A. Harrington, SF3814-242-32-2372220432
                        J. O'Neal, PF368-150-01-2072215417
                        S. Jackson, SF284-132-60-0031100210
                        J. Tinsley, PG284-60-10-0141421208
                        D. Granger, SF263-60-10-026010156
                        M. Daniels, SG241-50-20-002221112
                        S. Jasikevicius, PG205-101-25-5021000216
                        D. Armstrong, PG185-63-40-0001120213
                        J. Foster, C122-20-00-006021054
                        D. Harrison, C60-10-01-201011021
                        M. Baston, PF10-00-00-000000000
                        R. Marshall, SF10-00-00-000000000
                        J. Powell, PFDid Not Play
                        O. Greene, PGDid Not Play
                        S. Williams, SFDid Not Play
                        Totals 46-888-199-1163823149926109
                         52.3%42.1%81.8% 
                         
                        New York Knicks STATISTICS
                        Q. Richardson, SF395-121-54-5294110115
                        E. Curry, C3910-200-02-5160100422
                        S. Francis, PG356-91-112-13166220625
                        C. Frye, C273-60-10-004011006
                        S. Marbury, PG261-91-21-213161014
                        N. Robinson, PG295-111-42-3222110113
                        J. Crawford, SG192-90-40-000111014
                        D. Lee, PF191-20-02-236022024
                        R. Balkman, SF41-10-00-012000002
                        K. Cato, C30-00-00-011010110
                        M. Rose, PFDid Not Play
                        J. James, CDid Not Play
                        J. Jeffries, SFDid Not Play
                        M. Collins, PGDid Not Play
                        Totals 34-794-1723-3012391416911795
                         43.0%23.5%76.7% 
                        Your horse is dead, get off it already...

                        Comment


                        • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

                          Good win tonight this is how we want to play every night IMO. Here comes my recap. No bad tonight, just ok, good, and great. Only thing to really complain about was the free throw disparity. I highly doubt we went an entire half without drawing a shooting foul, but I digress.

                          THE OK:

                          Granger is again not playing how we need him to just yet, but that being said I am glad Rick is not tinkering with the lineup let them play and work through their problems. It will come to Danny eventually just like last year though he will need some time to adjust to being a starter.

                          Jack had his worst game of the season tonight, but he still avoided the yacking with the refs and he drew a few charges so as long as the hustle is there I am a happy camper.

                          Quis had his worst game tonight too, just never really looked in the flow on either end, but thats ok because he is new and you would expect him to still be on a bit of a learning curve.

                          Foster has been less than impressive to me the past two games, but I still don't think he is hurting us and I don't expect him to. That being said I can't say he is helping us either just yet.

                          Harrison was blah to meh yet again. Nothing to really get excited about.

                          THE GOOD:

                          JO belongs here cause I said I was going to be less and less forgiving to his problems on the boards. His offense is still very efficient and his shot blocking and defense the past two games has been nothing short of spectacular, BUT he has to start crashing the board he has too.

                          THE GREAT:

                          Tins, Runi, and DA were AWESOME tonight. And we thought our PG rotation was going to be a weak spot, silly us. Plus we have our supposed defensive stopper in Greene coming back in a week or two. Lets start with Tins what a game from him tonight ran the offense to an absolute T, no problems at all. 14 assists and only 2 turnovers plus he was extremely efficient in his scoring. I was thrilled with him and this is why I will maintain that he is a top 5 PG when healthy. DA was basically DA tonight just great, his shooting has been spectacular for us. Not to mention how good he is on the pressure D front. Runi was very good in the 4th mediocre up until that point but really got in a groove. He is absolutely unstoppable when he can go to his right and get that midrange J in the lane.

                          Our chemistry tonight was just plain awesome Kellog and Denari touched on it and anyone that watched the game can attest to the fact that our bench was up and cheering the whole 4th quarter. That made me so happy I can't even explain. I haven't seen a bench that happy since the late 90's teams. Even the 60 win team never looked that happy together. Oh BTW I think its safe to say that AJ was a problem child. We committed highway robbery in that trade with Dallas one of the best moves Bird and Walsh have collaborated. Fantastic typical Walsh move, doesn't look like much at first, but has a huge impact on the team.

                          Well, I think that just about covers it, oh wait, am I forgetting someone? Oh yeah thats right Al had a pretty nice little game, that is if a pretty nice little game is dominating offensively from tip to finish. What a game from him. Fantastic effort and he scored from inside and out. Tins got him involved early in both halves and Al took it from there. Really happy to see him get off the snide.

                          Great win tonight. I'm happy, now lets go get the first W at home and beat the snot out of Philly.

                          GO PACERS!!!


                          Comment


                          • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            Jack can get to the paint... he's just in love with his shot.

                            Marquis and Tinsley can break down the D as well. And Rawle Marshall looked good in preseason.

                            It's not a lack of talent, it's a lack of desire.
                            Jack has never been a consistent penetrator in my book. Marquis is more of a slasher, I'd say, and he seemed to have trouble getting to the hoop in Dallas because defenders don't respect his jumper enough and sag back a step making it tough for him to get by people

                            Tins is effective, but he's not the greatest finisher in the world given his size/strength, leaping ability. I don't watch the preseason, so I have no opinion on Rawle.

                            I'm just saying, when Jack is your best option to break down a defense and there's not a single guy on the team that you have any confidence to give the ball to and run a 1-4 set, your offense is missing something.
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

                              Crazy as it may sound to some, Runi is our best option for breaking down a defense and making something happen.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • Re: 11/04/2006 Game Thread 3: Pacers at Knicks

                                I don't know what happened to Jermaine's Rebounding averages but jjjeeezz sure his blocks have gone up but what happened to the 10 part of the 20/10 I'm not tooooooo concerned about the fouls I think the refs were reallllly letting alot go and they were trying to make up for it at the very end. All criticisms aside that was fun as hell to watch, and I love our bench standing and supporting their teamates in the 4th quarter that is awesome!! Tinsley carved up that defense tonight, I lost count how many times we burned them I was laughing too hard for a few of them. I really hope we can have more games like this rebounding MUST improve though.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X