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

2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

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

  • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

    Originally posted by d_c View Post
    Ehhh, it might be different this year. Assuming OKC closes this out, they'll head into the Finals having beaten a 67 and 73 win team. If that doesn't give you confidence, I don't know what will. Plus the Cavs porous defense has kind of been exposed again in the past 2 games.

    I realize a few don't like the Warriors style, but I'll repeat the reason you should root for them. Before the Warriors won last season, it was pretty much accepted that the only way you were winning the title is if you were one of 3 entities: Lebron, Durant or the Spurs. If you weren't one of these 3, you were on the outside looking in.

    Warriors broke that mode. Did it without Superfriends free agents or high lotto picks to draft coveted blue chip players. People here hated tanking and they hated Superfriends, so you'd figure they'd like the Warriors for doing what they did, but then they hated the way the Warriors played and won. At that point, it's just a situation where people who want to have their cake and eat it too.
    Some players just have a team's number and LeBron has that with OKC its like Eli with the Patriots. You don't really expect on the surface the dominant team will lose to someone they should beat except they likely will.

    Now if the Raptors shock the world then yes OKC will crush them IMO.

    Comment


    • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

      Originally posted by IrishPacer View Post
      lol
      Hahaha. Correction, they're lol

      Sent from my Nexus 5X

      Comment


      • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        Warriors broke that mode. Did it without Superfriends free agents or high lotto picks to draft coveted blue chip players. People here hated tanking and they hated Superfriends, so you'd figure they'd like the Warriors for doing what they did, but then they hated the way the Warriors played and won. Oh, but they still want parity and competitive balance at the same time. At that point, it's just a situation where people who want to have their cake and eat it too.
        Not completely.

        Bogut was drafted at number 1. Livingston at 4. Steph at 7. Barnes at 7. Iggy at 9. Klay at 11.

        That's most of their rotation. Yeah Draymond was drafted in the second round, but everyone else was basically a lotto pick. The Warriors built through the draft, which is nice. But they had to go through years of mediocrity and worse in order to build this team.

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        I realize a few don't like the Warriors style....
        I respect and even enjoy two parts of the Warriors style.

        1. When they provide the effort, they're GREAT defensively. In this era where the slightest bit of physical contact is frowned upon on the perimeter, I LOVE watching Klay and Iggy ((probably 2 of the only players I like on the team)) dig in and make opposing ball handlers uncomfortable - no matter the size.

        2. This team shares the ball better than any team in recent memory outside of the Adleman coached Sacramento Kings. Part of what makes their offense so deadly is the fact that they will ALWAYS find the open shooter/cutter. They're extremely and genuinely unselfish at times, and that makes for beautiful basketball.

        My personal issue with the way GS plays is mainly based on my personal bias towards a certain style of play.

        I'm not quite anti small-ball, as much as I am anti-dumb pull up 3 with 20 seconds on the shot clock. This team takes A LOT of undisciplined, forced shots from the perimeter. And while it looks good when they fall it can look rather sloppy when those shots aren't falling. While I understand it's not always a dumb shot when you have Steph or Klay on your team, it annoys me when you have others trying to emulate the same style.

        What makes it worse is that they don't HAVE to play that way at all. They can be just as aggressive looking for the 3 ball without consistently shooting dumb shots off the dribble. Somewhat to the way the Heat were blowing guys out when Lebron first came to town, I assume the league will adjust and the Warriors will come back to the mean a bit.

        I am also not a fan of the constant celebratory nature of the team after EVERY shot. The fact that Steph pats his chest any time he makes any basket, is kind of silly. IDC why he's doing it, but it's not necessary. Especially when you're as good as he is. Draymond and his inflated ego of who he is as a player makes it that much worse. Lol but that's a different discussion.

        Like I said, I understand a lot of these things are personal bias. I'm assuming others have similar issues due to their own personal bias as well.

        Comment


        • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

          Originally posted by owl View Post
          Small ball I do not believe is a long term league trend. With better bigs, you can beat small ball. I sure hope Bird and company is watching. The Pacers need a point but I think a quality big man is maybe more pressing. The Pacers got beat up a little inside this past year.
          Are we watching the same series? They can't handle the small ball lineup of 4 perimeter players and either ibaka (stretch big) or Adams (five fast enough to pass on d vs wings and some guards). The thunder have the best small ball lineup in the playoffs and it's why they are crushing the warriors, especially dray

          Comment


          • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

            I also want to put to death once and for all that durant, in okcs best lineup, does not play in a nominal (4) position.

            Comment


            • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Not completely.

              Bogut was drafted at number 1. Livingston at 4. Steph at 7. Barnes at 7. Iggy at 9. Klay at 11.

              That's most of their rotation. Yeah Draymond was drafted in the second round, but everyone else was basically a lotto pick. The Warriors built through the draft, which is nice. But they had to go through years of mediocrity and worse in order to build this team.
              You can't make that argument with Livingston, Bogut, et al.

              Bogut wasn't even considered a blue chipper at #1 (his draft was considered not to have a true #1 or even #2), and by the time the Warriors traded for him, he was already a broken down version of himself. They had to wait a full year before he played his first game with them. Had he not been broken down, they wouldn't have gotten him. Certainly not for Monta freaking Ellis, LOL.

              Livingston is a shell of his former young self, though the way he rehabbed is truly inspirational. He was signed for something like 3 years and $12M. Anybody else could've signed him had they just offered a little bit more money. Igoudala was a free agent who the Warriors had to simply traded away picks along with dead weight salaries for in order to clear cap space.

              Point is, the Warriors didn't tank or score high in the lotto for those guys. They got those guys essentially off the scrap heap when former teams gave up on them, mainly for injury reasons.

              The #7 pick where Curry was picked isn't a blue chip position. It's just outside of it. What I'm saying is none of these guys were the can't miss blue chip prospects that you basically have to lose a lot of games in order to obtain. They're not the kind of players that drove Sam Hinkie to tank away 3 seasons for.

              The conventional wisdom right now is that in order to build a contender you have to a) hit the jackpot in the high lottery like the T-Wolves/OKC or b) hope that the Superfriends choose to come to your town.

              The Warriors clearly broke that mold. They were a treadmill team picking in the late lottery. They spent years in draft positions where they had to settle for the Ike Diogus, Andris Biedrins and Anthony Randolphs of the world. They never came close being in a situation where they could draft a Durant, KAT or Anthony Davis.

              Comment


              • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                Ehhh, it might be different this year. Assuming OKC closes this out, they'll head into the Finals having beaten a 67 and 73 win team. If that doesn't give you confidence, I don't know what will. Plus the Cavs porous defense has kind of been exposed again in the past 2 games.

                I realize a few don't like the Warriors style, but I'll repeat the reason you should root for them. Before the Warriors won last season, it was pretty much accepted that the only way you were winning the title is if you were one of 3 entities: Lebron, Durant or the Spurs. If you weren't one of these 3, you were on the outside looking in.

                Warriors broke that mode. Did it without Superfriends free agents or high lotto picks to draft coveted blue chip players. People here hated tanking and they hated Superfriends, so you'd figure they'd like the Warriors for doing what they did, but then they hated the way the Warriors played and won. Oh, but they still want parity and competitive balance at the same time. At that point, it's just a situation where people who want to have their cake and eat it too.


                If OKC makes the Finals they'll win in 6 or less. Cavs are dangerous but if the 3 isn't falling they have no defense to speak of. If by chance it's Toronto, the Raptors have given OKC problems in the regular season the previous 4 match ups dating back to the 2014-2015 season. But Toronto runs so hot and cold offensively. Especially on the road. I can't see them winning more than a game versus OKC.

                Comment


                • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  If OKC makes the Finals they'll win in 6 or less. Cavs are dangerous but if the 3 isn't falling they have no defense to speak of. If by chance it's Toronto, the Raptors have given OKC problems in the regular season the previous 4 match ups dating back to the 2014-2015 season. But Toronto runs so hot and cold offensively. Especially on the road. I can't see them winning more than a game versus OKC.

                  Assuming OKC finishes off the WCF, they'll be favored to win the finals. If you beat teams that just won 67 and 73 games in consecutive series, you'll be favored in the finals.

                  But there is a reason Lebron teams have such a great record vs. OKC. Don't know how much that still applies to this year's Cavs team, but OKC have yet to get over that hump. I suspect this would be the year, though.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    Assuming OKC finishes off the WCF, they'll be favored to win the finals. If you beat teams that just won 67 and 73 games in consecutive series, you'll be favored in the finals.

                    But there is a reason Lebron teams have such a great record vs. OKC. Don't know how much that still applies to this year's Cavs team, but OKC have yet to get over that hump. I suspect this would be the year, though.

                    KD and RW are older, wiser, and hungrier now though. They're in their prime. Lebron actually albeit still an elite player, is physically trending downward just a smidge/tad at this stage in his career. He cannot carry the Cavs in multiple games versus OKC. Back in the day he could/did but now? No way. He would have maybe 2 stellar performances but the way they've shut down Steph, and Cleveland has no Steph-ish player. I think OKC is heavily favored.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                      Originally posted by flox View Post
                      I also want to put to death once and for all that durant, in okcs best lineup, does not play in a nominal (4) position.
                      Last night OKC played with a true pf/c on the court for a combined 68 minutes, the prior win again with 68 minutes. In there first win against GS they played with a true pf/c combination for a combined 91 out of 96 minutes.
                      Yes they have a good small ball lineup however when you have a 7 foot Durant at the 4 is that really small ball?
                      OKC is taking to GS with their big lineup.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        They also got Steven Adams out of the harden deal. They're certainly way better defensively with centers that can play. Harden is obviously an elite talent but he's a flake. In his place they got toughness and interior defense/scoring.
                        NBA is about match ups. OKC is better than Andrew Bogut and Festus Ezeli. GS is having a difficult time matching up. Curry cannot guard Westbrook, and Bogut looks like Lavoy Allen out there right now
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                          Okc ain't beating Cleveland. The only thing okc beating Gsw means is that Durant is going to stay

                          Sent from my Nexus 5X

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                            I don't want to see Westbrook and Payne win it either. Fuxk them. Dancing like a fuxking fool

                            Sent from my Nexus 5X
                            Last edited by BornIndy; 05-25-2016, 09:19 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              Last night OKC played with a true pf/c on the court for a combined 68 minutes, the prior win again with 68 minutes. In there first win against GS they played with a true pf/c combination for a combined 91 out of 96 minutes.
                              Yes they have a good small ball lineup however when you have a 7 foot Durant at the 4 is that really small ball?
                              OKC is taking to GS with their big lineup.
                              There are people who insist that pg does not play the 4 or that having him play the 4 would murder our team. I would say that this is the antithesis of that. On top of that, ibaka is absorbing a decent amount of that time as their stretch big, not unlike how we should play turner. Ibaka is also considered a 4 in most cases, so he's also playing a size up.

                              Semantically speaking, this is a small ball lineup. You can argue that it's not, because durant is a 7 footer. I think that's reasonable and fair, but it would not be accurate to the style that they play.

                              Yes, they played 68 minutes of bigs. 12 was basically garbage time play. Almost half 33 was with ibaka
                              In the 24 minutes with Adams they were minus 7.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2016 Western Conference Finals: (1) Golden State vs. (3) Oklahoma City

                                Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
                                Okc ain't beating Cleveland. The only thing okc beating Gsw means is that Durant is going to stay

                                Sent from my Nexus 5X
                                They still have a lot to do but they weren't beating San Antonio either....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X