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/Hawks postgame thread

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

  • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

    Originally posted by docpaul View Post
    I agree that it was poor form, for sure. I winced when I saw this happen, but I don't think it was Amundsen being a poor sport and rubbing salt into a wound, but more a lack of awareness that the game was about over and he needed to start standing down.

    Both Amundsen and Pendergraph looked like players who have been playing on the practice court for weeks, and were overwhelmed with excitement and nervousness when getting real time on the court. They were both playing dazed and confused, IMO. Lot of clutzy mistakes.

    Hardly got a sense that they were intentionally running up the score.

    JP & Lou were just trying to show their game in garbage time the same way Sloan was. Why is it ok for Sloan to try to impress his coach with his play, but not ok for Lou? If the Hawks are upset about it, let it give them some incentative for the next time they play the Pacers, not try and hurt a player on purpose just b/c their feelings are hurt. Personally, I thought Lou showed more restaint than I would have under the circumstances.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

      I guess the question is Mackey, when is it ever okay to go up for a shot when you have a lead, when a team keeps aggressively scoring in your face?

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

        I have been pretty anti-Lance, but who cares that he pissed off the other team? While if I was an Atlanta player, I probably would have laughed in his face for being over the top about 12 whole points ..... as a fan of the Pacers I could care less. If he's yapping, it means he's probably doing something right. I've seen guys who needed to be in the **** you type of mentality to play well, maybe that's Lance, and he's been too timid. I don't know. I know the Lance I saw today was better than any other.

        That said, Lance finished with 3 assists and 3 turnovers and it shouldn't have been even that pretty. 2 of his assists were bail outs by George Hill and Tyler, both of which were poor decisions, and/or poorly placed passes. The receivers just made great plays. It easily could have been 1 assist and 5 turnovers, and most times would have been. He really needs to work on his decision making if he wants to be a PG.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          JP & Lou were just trying to show their game in garbage time the same way Sloan was. Why is it ok for Sloan to try to impress his coach with his play, but not ok for Lou? If the Hawks are upset about it, let it give them some incentative for the next time they play the Pacers, not try and hurt a player on purpose just b/c their feelings are hurt. Personally, I thought Lou showed more restaint than I would have under the circumstances.
          This is my take.

          Personally I want my bench always on attack mode because chemistry and playing to win everygame is important and guys like Lou don't have an off switch. If they did they wouldn't be in the NBA.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
            That said, Lance finished with 3 assists and 3 turnovers and it shouldn't have been even that pretty. 2 of his assists were bail outs by George Hill and Tyler, both of which were poor decisions, and/or poorly placed passes. The receivers just made great plays. It easily could have been 1 assist and 5 turnovers, and most times would have been. He really needs to work on his decision making if he wants to be a PG.
            Why is everyone saying Tyler bailed out Lance on that pass? Looked to me like Lance threw the ball over the top of defenders where Tyler could get it. Tyler didn't have to shoot, he could of come down with the ball. Lance put it where Tyler could make a play and he did.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

              Why is this so difficult?

              Lou should have let the clock run out. Collins shouldn't have decked him, regardless of Lou's actions.

              Both were unprofessional.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                I guess the question is Mackey, when is it ever okay to go up for a shot when you have a lead, when a team keeps aggressively scoring in your face?
                If the shot clock is running, by all means, get a good shot. When the shot clock is off, it's usually pretty standard protocol just to dribble out the clock. You see it just about every night.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  That said, Lance finished with 3 assists and 3 turnovers and it shouldn't have been even that pretty. 2 of his assists were bail outs by George Hill and Tyler, both of which were poor decisions, and/or poorly placed passes. The receivers just made great plays. It easily could have been 1 assist and 5 turnovers, and most times would have been. He really needs to work on his decision making if he wants to be a PG.
                  The 3rd assist was on Foster's three-pointer to end the quarter.

                  Which was certainly the most unlikely of any of them.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                    I guess the question is Mackey, when is it ever okay to go up for a shot when you have a lead, when a team keeps aggressively scoring in your face?
                    When there is time on the shot clock, you can shoot at the end of it.

                    When the shot clock is off and all you have to do is hold the ball and let it run out, you should not ever shoot if you have the lead.

                    Lou's shot with 21 seconds to go was fine. There is no reason to just take the turnover. But that absolutely should have been the last shot. I don't see how this even debatable. There was 3 seconds left and it was a 12 point game. Come on.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      If the shot clock is running, by all means, get a good shot. When the shot clock is off, it's usually pretty standard protocol just to dribble out the clock. You see it just about every night.
                      Even if someone is trying to steal the ball from you? You know, still playing aggressive basketball.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                        Why is this so difficult?

                        Lou should have let the clock run out. Collins shouldn't have decked him, regardless of Lou's actions.

                        Both were unprofessional.
                        Personally, I thought Collins' foul was the right play. It was a hard foul. Lou earned it. It wasn't a dangerous foul. It wasn't especially malicous. I would hope one of our players would do the same in that situation.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          I thanked your post because of the tone.

                          However, I'm not sure I agree with the second part, although I am open. Lance is definitely a pass first guy. He has not made any shots so far, so that must happen for him to keep defenders from sagging so he can then make the effective pass.

                          Maybe we are saying the same thing. I'm saying he needs to penetrate, break down the defense, make things happen, and look for the open man and/or shoot if that ends up being the best option. That may not be the same as "always looking for his shot first" but maybe we are saying the same thing. Maybe it would be better to say "Lance needs to make an individual move first."
                          Perhaps, what I'm really saying is, I think Lance has developed a somewhat mixed results habit of immediately looking for the pass as soon as he beats his man off the dribble, but I'm not really sure that's his game or the best option for him. If you look at him historically, he is a scorer. Now that scoring can lead to creation chances for him for other players, but I think he needs to let the scoring drive the bus. JMO


                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                            I'm fairly certain the shot clock was off.
                            gotcha. didn't know that. then yes, that was a stupid move by Lou.
                            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                              I don't totally agree with what Lou did, and I don't totally disagree with what Collins did, but I definitely operate under the belief that in professional sports especially, there's no such thing as running up the score, regardless of what the clock says. If you don't want someone to score, then stop it and that's what Collins did.


                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Hawks postgame thread

                                Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                                Even if someone is trying to steal the ball from you? You know, still playing aggressive basketball.
                                Yes, even then. Just hold the ball.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X