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

Why does it have to be this way?????

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

  • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

    Originally posted by Bball
    You're right... why'd we even play the game? We had no chance. In fact it was actually a blowout.

    -Bball
    Well, JO wasn't playing so I guess we were really the better "team".
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

    Comment


    • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

      Originally posted by Bball
      You've just described playing "not to lose".

      Hicks pretty much described my point. I should add that the team on the court was playing San Antonio fairly well. They had the momentum and seemed to have a good flow going. What Rick did was blow a hole right in that continuity in the name of going to a 'prevent defense'... and it backfired. We didn't just sub one player.

      At some point it doesn't matter what the eggtimer says or what the security blanket says... you have to go with the moment. We had the defending champs on the ropes, if not the mat, and instead of going at them we backed off and tried to wait for the bell. They got some daylight, and their breath, and then laid a haymaker on us instead.

      -Bball
      This quote from Rick confirms he was going to a prevent defense.

      "We wanted to get A.J. back on (Spurs point guard Tony) Parker," Carlisle said. "The group that finished, I felt the starters finishing the game was the best way to go, especially from a defensive standpoint. That group had been able to get the ball in the basket when they had to. We did a lot of mixing it up down the stretch because of matchups and situations."

      I thought coaches at the NBA level were smart enought to stay with the guys that got them the lead.

      Of course I thought it was a cardinal rule that you have your best free throw shooters in at the end too.

      This shows he didn't learn anything from the Milwaukee game he lost earlier. Not only did he take out the guys that got him the lead, they were also his best free throw shooters.

      Comment


      • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

        Originally posted by Will Galen
        This quote from Rick confirms he was going to a prevent defense.

        "We wanted to get A.J. back on (Spurs point guard Tony) Parker," Carlisle said. "The group that finished, I felt the starters finishing the game was the best way to go, especially from a defensive standpoint. That group had been able to get the ball in the basket when they had to. We did a lot of mixing it up down the stretch because of matchups and situations."

        I thought coaches at the NBA level were smart enought to stay with the guys that got them the lead.

        Of course I thought it was a cardinal rule that you have your best free throw shooters in at the end too.

        This shows he didn't learn anything from the Milwaukee game he lost earlier. Not only did he take out the guys that got him the lead, they were also his best free throw shooters.
        Agree COMPLETELY and this has been my points as well. Criticized for it, but accurate. He goes to defense to end games and for some reason we "don't score and we don't defend either. go figure.

        Water

        Comment


        • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

          Originally posted by Unclebuck
          I see your point.

          So if someone had asked me at the 3:49 mark of the 4th quarter should the Pacers use their best defensive team, I would have said yes, especially if I know the better defensive team would score 9 points, I would have garanteed a victory. Who knew the Spurts would go on a 20-9 run.

          But once again, it is our supposedly "GREAT" defensive unit that continues to give up tons of points at the end of games AND they don't score. Bad combination.

          Rick, please learn from this!

          Water

          Comment


          • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            The Spurs scored 20 points in the last 3:49 of the game (that is on pace for a 70 point quarter) that was the reason the Pacers lost, not the Pacers offense. That is my point
            Its funny how Rick goes for defense and they allow TWENTY points over the final 3:49 and hardly score any points. That makes the twenty points even worse because they didn't offset it with any scoring.

            You are making my point for me Thanks!

            Comment


            • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

              Originally posted by Will Galen quoting Rick Carlisle
              "The group that finished, I felt the starters finishing the game was the best way to go, especially from a defensive standpoint."
              Would that be the same starters that spotted San Antonio an 11-0 lead? I could certainly see why he was chomping at the bit to get that kind of defensive and offensive production back onto the court for the final few minutes.

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                Originally posted by Will Galen
                This quote from Rick confirms he was going to a prevent defense.

                "We wanted to get A.J. back on (Spurs point guard Tony) Parker," Carlisle said. "The group that finished, I felt the starters finishing the game was the best way to go, especially from a defensive standpoint. That group had been able to get the ball in the basket when they had to. We did a lot of mixing it up down the stretch because of matchups and situations."

                I thought coaches at the NBA level were smart enought to stay with the guys that got them the lead.

                Of course I thought it was a cardinal rule that you have your best free throw shooters in at the end too.

                This shows he didn't learn anything from the Milwaukee game he lost earlier. Not only did he take out the guys that got him the lead, they were also his best free throw shooters.

                Carlisle needs to step back from the matchup thing. It was US with the lead and the momentum AND the clock on our side. Let them try and matchup with what we were doing... if they could...

                At least wait until something happens that forces his hand.

                I can't fault anyone too much because we had the defending champs on the ropes but I do think Coach Carlisle over-coached those final minutes and played right into the Spurs' hands. And I think it is a bit of a trend.

                -Bball
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                  Wait a minute. So going with your best defensive lineup, which essentially is the starters, plus Fred Jones, who was playing very well, is "prevent defense". That is absurd.

                  Some of you are acting like Rick pulled 3 guys off the bench who hadn't played in two weeks and are defensive specialist only.

                  I'll say it again I agree with the lineup Rick went with, the only question I had was which two should be played out of Jax, Fred and Peja

                  Comment


                  • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    Wait a minute. So going with your best defensive lineup, which essentially is the starters, plus Fred Jones, who was playing very well, is "prevent defense". That is absurd.

                    Some of you are acting like Rick pulled 3 guys off the bench who hadn't played in two weeks and are defensive specialist only.

                    I'll say it again I agree with the lineup Rick went with, the only question I had was which two should be played out of Jax, Fred and Peja
                    Hey, at least this is more fun than arguing about Artest.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                      Originally posted by btowncolt
                      Hey, at least this is more fun than arguing about Artest.
                      And to think, Peck wanted to prevent this discussion from happening.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                        Originally posted by Bball
                        Would that be the same starters that spotted San Antonio an 11-0 lead? I could certainly see why he was chomping at the bit to get that kind of defensive and offensive production back onto the court for the final few minutes.

                        -Bball
                        Buck?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                          Originally posted by brichard
                          I didn't see the game, but statistically it doesn't look like AJ had that bad of a game did he? Sarunas was a little more proactive offensively, but he was 4-8 and AJ was 4-9. AJ had more assists, but granted he had more minutes.

                          Was there really that much of a disparity in the play? If so, why isn't it showing up more in the stats or am I missing something?
                          The difference Sarunas was making in the game Sunday can't be seen in the box score anyway. It was the chemistry and the ability to keep the Spurs off balance that was disrupted when the three substitutions were made.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                            Originally posted by vapacersfan
                            PD is a emotional crowd. If PD was a person, PD would be a female, because of all the mood swings.
                            Or Ron Artest.

                            BTW, that is so going in my signature.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                              Originally posted by Bball
                              You've just described playing "not to lose".

                              Hicks pretty much described my point. I should add that the team on the court was playing San Antonio fairly well. They had the momentum and seemed to have a good flow going. What Rick did was blow a hole right in that continuity in the name of going to a 'prevent defense'... and it backfired. We didn't just sub one player.

                              At some point it doesn't matter what the eggtimer says or what the security blanket says... you have to go with the moment. We had the defending champs on the ropes, if not the mat, and instead of going at them we backed off and tried to wait for the bell. They got some daylight, and their breath, and then laid a haymaker on us instead.

                              -Bball

                              I don't see how that's playing to lose. Playing your starters because they are more defensive minded is still "playing to win" for me. How do you play to lose? By not playing with 100% of energy. If you play hard, then I have no problem playing defensively. If you look at that situation, I would think only 1 or 2 more stops would have won the game.

                              Yes, we could have gone full out offensive. But who's to say it would have continued to work? You have to remember that the Spurs are a very good defensive team. Frankly, if I had to count on a single aspect of the game to rely on at the end, I would pick defense 99/100 times.
                              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Why does it have to be this way?????

                                Well I hope this settles it.

                                The players who should have played at crunch time according to the all important plus/minus stat

                                Fred +11
                                DG +6
                                DH +3
                                Saras +2
                                and only because we need 5 players on the court.
                                Peja -3.


                                Can we close the thread

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X