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

Let there be no doubt...

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

  • #46
    Re: Let there be no doubt...

    Bball I have been critical of Ricks 4th quarter management but it was not me who said Rick could not coach a 4th quarter to save his life.

    Ricks problem is that if the exact right answer is not beating him over the head he will make the wrong choice.

    For example he tried to get away with AJ finishing games in the past and in close games he just cant hack it. Remember the Blazers game Ricks first year here? AJ had put us in a huge hole and Jamaal had dug us out of it and into the lead. Well he put AJ back in with like 30 seconds to go with the lead and we lost TO THE BLAZERS!! Well he learned from that to let Tinsley finish the games against Ricks bad judgement.

    Earlier this year he tried to win a free throw shooting contest with the Bucks by keeping Sarunas and Cro on the bech. Then next game against his bad judgement he played those two at the end of a close game and we wont.

    Last season when we picked up Curry he played him WAY WAY too much. So much that most of the people on here (other than of course UB who thinks every decision Rick makes must by default be the right one) were ready to kill Rick. Well against his bad judgement he took Curry out of the starting lineup and we started winning again. Eventually we even cut Curry he was so bad.


    My point is that Rick if given the opportunity will make the wrong choice. With the score tied in an NBA finals game he will go for overtime rather than for the win. If he has a choice of a prevent offense where we stop scoring and let the other team score at will thats what he choses.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Let there be no doubt...

      Originally posted by vapacersfan
      Wait, so now he has won 4 games and that counts as winning a playoff series?

      Im sure Gill has played on a team that won 4 games in a row, and played in all of those.

      So by your logic, Eddie Gill has...........

      And I love Jax when he is on, but I have long said I would have no problem with him being traded. He is to insonsistent for me, and he really thrives in a system where he is number 1 or 1A. When he becomes 2 or 3 he isnt as effective...
      I said that the logic was faulty...I was pointing out that this whole "Blame Jack" thing makes no sense. If we're gonna blame him for losing this game then we might as well "blame" him for winning the other...he played just as big of a part in those...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Let there be no doubt...

        Okay, I will offer what appears to be one of the few dissenting opinions. The Pacers lost a close game, a game that appeared winnable, and now suddenly Rick is an idiot. I don't buy it. I think he has done another great job of coaching this year. Not perfect by any means, but darn good and not deserving of the almost uniformly negative commentary by a lot of people who are acting with 20-20 hindsight.

        I have read these game threads for several years, and it is remarkable how inconsistent people's comments are, especially with regard to players such as AJ, Hulk, Crozier and Jax. When they are on -- like AJ was recently -- they are beloved. When they are flat, they are worthless trade bait and Rick is a bone-stupid idiot for playing them in crunch time rather than Runi (who has been flat for several games until today).

        These comments are only a small variation of those last year, when Crozier played with broken ribs, bad ankle and lots of pain, and did so game after game because the team needed him. He didn't always play well, but he answered the bell round after round when many if not most players would be sitting out, and all that many of you did on this site was to criticize him -- or Donnie for giving him a longterm contract, or Rick for playing him (when there was no one else to play). Its true Cro got a big contract after we finally beat the Knicks, but apparently long forgotten is how key he was in beating our longtime bugaboo, the Knicks (he was the Pacers' long-sought, often unguardable answer to Marcus Camby). Yes, it was a long time ago, and the teams' fortunes and personnel have changed, but Crozier might have looked differently to all in hindsight if IT hadn't benched him the following 2 years.

        I am NOT an apologist for Rick, and I am not putting him up for COY, but he has been dealt a pretty bad hand for the last 2 years and he has kept the team competitive. They are competitive even now, if not exactly contenders in anyone's mind.

        We had won 4 straight going into this game, and did so with new personnel and while 2 starters (and one all star) have been injured. We take on the defending champions with something of a patchwork lineup and everyone is angry that we lost. I certainly understand that -- what is most upsetting is that we were only a few plays away from winning this game. But all you Swamis are sure, just so sure, that the outcome would have differed if the fleet-footed Runi was in the game rather than AJ. If AJ couldn't stop the guard penetration, who believes Runi would have?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Let there be no doubt...

          Carlisle has been pulling hot players from the game as of late. I'm not sure if he wants to keep the guys fresh and healthy or what he's doing..But some games you gotta play your best shooters 40+ minutes.

          It sucks that we lost, but we took them to the wire and that should count for something. This game just proves why we need a low post threat. Who do you go to in the fourth when your outside shooters go cold or you can't get a block in the middle? Low post players. Manu torched us in the lane because he kept getting our bigs to foul him. It's when you play guys who attack like that, that you need an athletic post defender like JO.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Let there be no doubt...

            A lockdown perimeter defender doesn't hurt either against penetrators like Ginobli and Parker, but we no longer have the luxury. I don't like this finger pointing. Jack did not play up to the level of the last several but blaming a loss on him or anybody else in a game where, IMO, everyone played extremely hard and left everything on the court isn't right. It certainly looked to me like Rick was calling isos for Jack the last several possessions both when he hit and didn't. That's not blaming Rick either. They rode Fred for a while but then he had a couple chances late he didn't convert either. Bottom line: we just didn't make plays offensively or defensively in crunch time and Manu hit a miracle shot.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Let there be no doubt...

              Originally posted by Bat Boy
              Okay, I will offer what appears to be one of the few dissenting opinions. The Pacers lost a close game, a game that appeared winnable, and now suddenly Rick is an idiot. I don't buy it. I think he has done another great job of coaching this year. Not perfect by any means, but darn good and not deserving of the almost uniformly negative commentary by a lot of people who are acting with 20-20 hindsight.
              20-20 hindsight? Go back and read the last several pages of the game thread.

              Here:

              Originally posted by Harmonica
              Please Rick, don't put AJ in now.
              and

              Originally posted by Harmonica
              Please Rick, don't let AJ finish the game.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Let there be no doubt...

                Originally posted by Bball
                Let me add... I think Carlisle made his moves due to defense. I don't think he actually got better defense out of them tho. We got worse defense AND offense than what we'd just had.
                -Bball
                Truth.

                If it is defense you are looking for, it would seem to me that Danny Granger should be on the floor, ahead of both Jackson and Peja.

                My judgement right now also is that Peja is at least as good defensively as Jackson against forwards, all things considered.

                Granger can guard both big guards and average sized forwards better than anyone on the team. Read this to mean Ginobili or Bruce Bowen. He didn't do badly while guarding Robert Horry either.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Let there be no doubt...

                  For those who think that team is better without JO, I have news for you. You probably are the same guys that said that we are better off without Artest when we won a couple of games without him. This good play is just a testament to Carlisle's coaching and the guys on this team who try hard night in and night out reagardless of who is on the floor. However, this team in its present form (without JO and to much extent Tins) might win a few games on emotion, Carlisle's coaching and effort but long term they really can't sustain this kind of play.


                  As far as today's game, I have no problem with Rick's moves

                  He probably removed Sarunas for defensive reasons - Manu and Tony Parker have a very quick first step.

                  The problem however is - SJax. I have been saying this from day one, from the time they traded Al for him - he is a fool who is full of himself. He would be a good player when he is a 4th option and when in a contract year. With his contract, he has this mentality that he is a primary player on this team.

                  He hogs the ball, breaks plays, shoots wild jumpers and has stopped playing defense which he used to do well occasionally. For anybody who watches basketball, do you realize that this guy's jumpers have forward spin on them? His passes are 90mph fastballs which can break fingers. He does not bend much while dribbling which makes him turnover prone. His brawl actions were plain follish.

                  I will fault Rick a little for this game to the extent that he went to SJax who took two dribbles and launched this line drive which cracked the rim. The part of RIck that likes to go to SJax at the end of games, I don't like.

                  Even the three pointer that he made at the end of the game was early in the shot clock and in pressure. This team needs to get rid of this fellow real quick even if it is for a couple of 2nd round picks
                  ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Let there be no doubt...

                    Originally posted by Bat Boy
                    If AJ couldn't stop the guard penetration, who believes Runi would have?
                    No one's arguing that. In fact, AJ DIDN'T stop them, nor did the rest of the prevent defense.

                    Runi would have given us more points and, thus, a victory. (He was spotted seven points with four minutes to play.)
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Let there be no doubt...

                      AAAACCCCCKKKKKK!

                      You mean aj and.................

                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      no





                      I didn't see the game...or listen to much of it, I was on the road and the Mrs was grading papers in the car
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Let there be no doubt...

                        Originally posted by vapacersfan
                        No offense, but we have won a **** load of games without JO.
                        Who's to say that if he was playing we wouldn't have lost any games? Personally I don't believe it but it's possible.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Let there be no doubt...

                          Originally posted by waterjater
                          post up crap...and he WILL revert back.
                          Larry should pull a Pat Riley and take over the team!

                          Water

                          Boy it seems like the word post up has become a dirty word on this forum to some of you. When San Antonio beefed up they're defense and slowed the pace down the last couple of minutes it would have been nice to have a postup threat on the floor like Jermaine Oneal.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Let there be no doubt...

                            I think I will step up and accept about .0000001% of the blame....I had to step away for after halftime and couldn't make it back until after the end of the game. My lucky Pacer sweatshirt and cap weren't there to change the outcome of the game. Sorry guys ( and PacerGurl ), I couldn't step up when I had to.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Let there be no doubt...

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck
                              Come on PG.

                              The problem was not the offense the problem was the defense. The Spurs scored on every possession in the last 3 minutes. The Pacers scored enough, but couldn't stop the Spurs without fouling them

                              The key play was right after Jax hit a three that put the Pacers up 5 with about a minute and a half left, The Pacers get called for a defensive three seconds call, but the back breaker was when the Spurs almost turned the ball over, Manu had the bal, at midcourt with about 4 seconds left he drtibbles into three point range and Jax backs off obviously not realizing that there was no time for anything but a long 3 and manu hit it

                              4-point play possession, killed us
                              While I do agree that the defense was largely at fault for this game, it's not like the offense lit things up with AJ and SJax in. I noticed it on the first one or two possessions - a slower, less active game was being played, and the points stopped coming. Sarunas was moving the ball, Peja was hitting shots, things were going well, then they went out. The ball stopped moving, the shots were missed, and the points ceased to add up. Whether the blame for the ball movement and shots should be placed on the players or the coach is arguable, but I lean towards the coach.

                              Now, I'm not on the "Fire Rick" bandwagon just yet. I will admit that what he has done with what he has had is nothing short of miraculous. But I don't care about the problems we've had, or the winning percentage Carlisle has brought us to over the past two years. What I care about right now is a game that the Pacers should have won, but lost because of a poor substitution.
                              It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Let there be no doubt...

                                Originally posted by vapacersfan
                                No offense, but we have won a **** load of games without JO.

                                The numbers back that conspiracy up.

                                Now thats all I consider it, a conspiracy, but this goes back a lot farther then this winning streak. I can only speak for myself, but I have been here for a little over a year now, and as far back as I can remember Bball has said this team plays better ball without JO.

                                I think people are to quick to jump in and defend JO. No one is saying that it is JO's fault. I have had many discussions with Bball about this, and while I dont agree with him (not yet) he has never laid all the blame on JO. He doesnt know if it is the system, mngmt, the coach, or what.

                                I think people are to quick to just jump in once they hear that player X, Y, or Z is being challenged, instead of sitting back and looking at it froma objective POV

                                The Pacers can have a regular season winning streak without JO. Do you or Bball really think we can do anything in a 7 game sereis without JO. Are we looking for a few regular season wins or something beyond? All this discussion and arguments are useless if we are talking about regular season because we are deep enough to make the playoffs even if JO is out for a few weeks. I personally think we can't do diddly p.. without JO in the playoffs.
                                ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X