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

Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

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

  • #61
    Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

    Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
    He's listed at 6'0", so that probably means he's really 5'9-10ish.......
    Yes, NBA adds one or several inches to players' heights according to their needs.

    As for Iverson, when you see him playing, you won't think he's only 5'9" - 5'10".
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

    - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

      Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
      He's listed at 6'0", so that probably means he's really 5'9-10ish.......
      Yeah, that's what I thought but I was giving him the benie of the doubt....besides, I didn't hav....ah nevermind.
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        BTW... boos were almost non-existant tonight from what I could hear.

        Also, the crowd was really sparse. Did anyone hear the announced attendance?

        I thought it was one of the smallest crowds I had seen, if not the smallest.

        -Bball


        15,811. This year the disbursement of the crowd is going to be different. The club seats are almost empty and the seats at the club level in sections, 1,2, and 20 are about half full this. The balcony was surprisingly full - I guess those $4.00 tickets sold pretty well.

        Note: the $4.00 tickets - at least last night were not the normally $10.00 seats because those were almost all empty. So my guess is they sell the best seats they can for $4.00

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          AJ is averaging 6 points, 1 assist, and 3 fouls per game. Austin is averaging 5 points and 1 rebound.

          And they haven't won a game yet. Sucks to be them.
          Sounds like they need to change their culture......
          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

            http://realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=582496

            LMAO I think I stole this guys account some how when I was sleeping. He is DEAD ON about Croshere. Couldnt have said it any better.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

              I'm not nearly as down on Quis as some of you guys are. He took a couple 3s that were way off, but they were all wide open. I agree that isn't his shot, but I can't blame him too much for taking them. I thought his defense was good, and he's just simply a fantastic finisher at the basket. I feel like we'll probably get similar stats to what he had in Dallas but I don't have a problem with that because of all the depth we have. I have the utmost confidence in Quis and I like seeing him come in to the game.

              I agree with Unclebuck that I don't know if Granger should start. I kind of want to see Foster start, but I like him and Granger on the floor together A LOT, and I just like Foster off the bench in general. However true it may be that we may need a lineup change down the road somewhere, as of right now we should just stick with it and abide by the general rule of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

              Speaking of Jeff, it seems that every offseason we sort of forget about him and throw him in to our trade ideas and such, but I'm glad TPTB are smarter then we are, because Jeff is so important to our club. He brings so much energy and hustle to the floor which is why I love him coming off the bench. I feel like we're a team that because of the strength of our bench and the contrast it brings to our starters, that getting off to a fast start is going to be important to us this year. If we are playing a good team and we get an early lead, that bench will be able to hold it.

              Tinsley was great tonight, I like when Tinsley sort of disappears a little bit when he's out there but you still feel like the team is playing well because that means that Jamaal is just running the offense and playing his part. He did that very well tonight, and he ran the break fantastically. He's very good at 3-2 breaks. There was one play where he was one on one but he had Jeff and Marquis as trailers. He jumped up, put the ball behind his back and hit Jeff streaking to the basket, and if Jeff had only thought for a second before going full steam ahead he would have had an easy dumpoff to Marquis for a layup there, but he got called for a charge instead. I think that was our only failed fastbreak of the day.

              Rawle, Rawle, Rawle. I have nothing more to say on that subject.

              Jermaine, Al, Jack and Danny played exactly how I want them too.

              Speaking of Danny, I'm not really so sure I want him to be a guy who averages 16-18 points a game this year. I think he's a guy that is better when he can play solid defense, get garbage buckets and let the game come to him. Then when he creates a shot for himself a couple plays in a row, and knocks down some midrange shots, teams will have a serious problem figuring out who to guard.

              I want to talk about one more thing, if anybody is still reading (or was even reading in the first place) and that's about the problem that we all agreed was one at the beginning of the year, outside shooting. We have been knocking down enough threes to keep the defense honest, but that's not even the development I noticed in this game yesterday that sold me that we'll be ok in that department. We were all afraid of getting zoned to death, but we have a lot of guys that are very good at breaking the zone. Jermaine got in to the middle of that zone almost every time and made a great pass or shot every time. I was so impressed with his basketball IQ yesterday on how to beat a zone.

              Speaking of Jermaine, there is something different about him this year, and its a good thing. He's extremely mature, and confident on the floor this season. He looks fantastic, he did a lot of work this offseason. Even his run back on defense looks better and more gracefull. I think that's a good word to describe the change in Jermaine so far this season, gracefull. If Jermaine can keep this up, and the rest of guys follow suit, we're going to be a hell of a lot better then we have been the last few years.

              Oh, and what happened to Jermaine is that he went up for a shot and came down on Chris Webber's foot. He seemed to realize that was about to happen and was able to cushion his fall. He also fell very well, and did a great job avoiding an injury there. That's exactly what happened to Steve Francis against San Antonio the other day, and I think he's expected to miss time.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                15,811. This year the disbursement of the crowd is going to be different. The club seats are almost empty and the seats at the club level in sections, 1,2, and 20 are about half full this. The balcony was surprisingly full - I guess those $4.00 tickets sold pretty well.

                Note: the $4.00 tickets - at least last night were not the normally $10.00 seats because those were almost all empty. So my guess is they seel the best seats they can for $4.00

                I searched Sunday night for 2 of the "4.00 1967 special" tix and the site couldn't come up with a pair (IIRC it could find singles). Then Monday I just searched "Balcony" for a pair of tix and didn't specify the 4.00 tix and up popped a pair of 4.00 tix. I don't know if there was a glitch in the system Sunday night or if they opened up more 4.00 tix closer to game time.

                And I'm pretty sure these would've been normally 20.00 seats. EDIT: I stand corrected... according to the seating chart I have here those would've been 45.00ea tix.

                Maybe it's just my imagination but it seemed to me to be a lot more younger kids at the game than I can remember. Maybe it was just in my section and that skewed my observation but I'm wondering if the 4.00 tix are inspiring mom and dad to bring the kids out en masse? ....Something that might've been too expensive in the past.

                In any case, the 4.00 seats seem to be a good idea. The win streak is a good idea too

                -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


                • #68
                  Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Sitting up with Roaming Gnome in the balcony, it seemed like a good crowd for a weekday game. Not sparse.


                  The game was mixed differently, but aside from that the crowd sounded much more lively than the opening night crowd. I was impressed.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

                    Originally posted by Isaac@Section216 View Post
                    I'm not nearly as down on Quis as some of you guys are. He took a couple 3s that were way off, but they were all wide open. I agree that isn't his shot, but I can't blame him too much for taking them.

                    I think we've already seen everything we're going to get from Marquis. He's a bad shooter with bad form, but he's a good defender and he's good at helping set up plays on the offense. I wouldn't expect more than 8 points a game from him, but he definitely helps us with his penetration and decision making.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

                      Give Quis some time. This is like his 4th or 5th game playing with this team. If you have been watching the games and watching him play, his energy is good, and I think with time he we get better.

                      I haven't really seen anyone talking about Marshall. Maybe I missed it, but man this kid can play.
                      Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

                        I think he'll play better as time goes on, but not much better. He's already shown his skill set and he's very consistent. And that is not a knock at all because I think he'll be great for the team.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

                          Originally posted by imawhat
                          I think we've already seen everything we're going to get from Marquis. He's a bad shooter with bad form, but he's a good defender and he's good at helping set up plays on the offense. I wouldn't expect more than 8 points a game from him, but he definitely helps us with his penetration and decision making.
                          I think we've seen what we're going to get, but I think once he gets more comfortable we'll see him do the things he does well even better. I think he'll get more the 8ppg, he got 10 in Dallas in even less minutes then he's going to get here, but with the role he'll play I think 10 is about what we should expect.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

                            We'll see. 28.5 mpg for a higher-powered Dallas last year. This year he's at 21.8 mpg and the most played player on Indiana is at 33.5 mpg. But it's early.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Game 4 Official Postgame Thread

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              We'll see. 28.5 mpg for a higher-powered Dallas last year. This year he's at 21.8 mpg and the most played player on Indiana is at 33.5 mpg. But it's early.
                              I actually didn't realize that he played nearly 30 mpg there, interesting. I think we pretty much agree on Quis.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X