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:
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

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

Post game #34 Pacers vs Wizards

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by faank View Post

    Man, you're an absolute master of strawmanning. Very impressive.

    They are not the same players. Their production is similar in their fourth season but Myles is 3 and a half years younger than Rik was at this point (and no, I don't really care that players stayed in college longer back then, I would only care about that if I was certain that Turner would not improve at all in the next 3 and a half years which I doubt to be the case). At this stage, Smits was benched for Greg Dreiling. That's all I've said, nothing more. Rik Smits played 28 minutes !total! in 3 games in the playoffs in his fourth season. Couldn't keep up with 40 yr old Parish (who was still a really good player at that point to be fair).

    Rik Smits wasn't some kind of a world beater in his fourth season. He was a player with many flaws.

    Just like Smits turned out to be a fine basketball player, don't really see why it can't be the same for Myles. Then again, I'm just a lurker who likes both Myles and Domas and don't feel the need to bring down one to justify the other.

    If you think I'm a Turner groupie for projecting him to reach at least the overall impact of Smits in his prime, that is fine with me. It speaks for itself, really.

    Back to lurking, Merry Christmas everyone!
    Typically years in the NBA is more relevant to a players development than age. Usually around season 3 or 4 is when a player has a "breakout" year, and for the most part it is only incremental improvement from there. The only ability that has really proven to consistently be able to improve greatly after that point is 3 point shooting. Otherwise it is rare to see significant improvement after a players 5th season.


    • #62
      Originally posted by able View Post

      it shows you're new here, don't drop the enthusiasm, just the insults, and we'll get along fine, I stand by that remark and maintain the he improved (including his defense) in the past month, but that doesn't make him defensive player of the year and it doesn't forgive him his lack if smarts as in bringing "his man" to the wrong places in the wrong time, something for instance a real good defender like Artest (or Joseph) wont do.

      and i never agree to disagree, we just plain disagree.
      If he stops the insults (btw wich one) do you stop the additude. Pfff... Read the way you talk to others ..Its insulting many times ..
      Ps the 'new guy' is from 2010..
      Proud owner of 'Dutch Pacers'


      • #63
        I like Myles, I liked Rik, neither of them is near as good as Mel Daniels was. I hope Myles continues to improve, I hope Domas continues to improve. Above I like watching the Pacers play basketball like they are right now. Merry Christmas to all of the Pacers Digest community!


        • #64
          Anyway, back to the game. This was a pretty good win. Yes, Washington was very tired and it showed in the 3rd quarter but keeping an NBA team below 90 points is never easy. The team performance as a whole was great. We did turn the ball over a bit (17 turnovers) but we crushed them on the boards (57 total rebounds to their 37, 16 offensive rebounds to their 6) and that allowed us to take 21 more shots than they did (97 to their 76).

          Allow me to say a couple of things about some individual performances. Like always, no particular order.

          Thad: He did a pretty good job. At some point in the second quarter, Thad had a big putback dunk and in the following possession he stole a pass and dunked it on the break. This sequence forced a Washington timeout as it increased our lead to 8 points.

          Bojan: He scored when we needed him. We were cold at the start of the game and Bojan scored 8 of our first 10. He went to the bench with 4:16 to go in the first half, a bit before the big lineup went into a run, and when he returned we already had a healthy lead so we didn't need his scoring that much. Quinn mentioned that after establishing that he can drive to the rim, Bojan is now trying to prove that he can facilitate offense as well. There may be some truth to it as he attempted some riskier passes than usual in this game. I'll watch for it in the following games.

          Myles: 17 boards for Myles and a new career high. I'm pretty positive that 7 offensive boards are a career high as well. Pretty impressive. I want to focus on his shooting, though. Myles started the game shooting 0/4. In the past that would mean that he wouldn't get a lot of shooting opportunities the rest of the game and would finish with around 7 to 8 shots for the game. But that didn't happen. We kept going at him. He had 10 shots at the half and he still wasn't shooting well at all (3/10 at the half). But we never stopped going at him and in the second half he was much more effective (5/7 shooting) to end with a respectable 8/17 shooting. This constant offensive involvement is something that simply wasn't happening earlier this season or even last year. It's unprecedented for him. I'm happy to see that he's responding to this increased offensive workload well. This is going to play a key part in the development of his offensive game.

          DC: He played the least out of every starter. Only 22 minutes. That was mainly because CoJo was having a very good game. Like always, DC scored a bit and took care of the ball. He didn't have a lot of assists like he was having earlier this month but I feel that he did a good job.

          Dipo: He didn't shoot well but I feel that he had a very nice game overall. He took his first shot at the 5-minute mark of the second quarter. He already had 6 assists by that point. He finished the game with 9 assists, 6 boards and 3 steals. When Dipo looks to involve others as much as he did in that game then I simply don't care whether he shoots well or not. The charge he took in the second half was huge and knowing that he has faced injury issues lately, putting his body on the line like that is no easy task. He deserves major credit for his willingness to take that charge. So, I really have no complaint about Dipo's performance in this game. He was really, really good. I do think that he played more minutes than necessary (36 is a bit much given that we had a comfortable lead) but that isn't on Dipo. It's on Nate who otherwise coached a very good game again.

          Domas: The ever-consistent Domas. Another great performance for him, another very efficient offensive night. He once again feasted inside as the Wizards didn't have anyone capable of stopping him. His only miss of the game was a 19 foot jump-shot. The reality is that not a lot of NBA teams have a guy who can stop Domas inside, especially off the bench. Domas gives us a huge advantage inside and his threat down low helps us get good shots when he's on the floor.

          Doug: Not a great game for Doug. The team generally played well with him on the court (we outscored them by 9) but it didn't look like he had a big impact individually. It's not like he was taking bad shots or anything, though. He was playing within the offense but just missed his shots. We should look to go to him on DHOs a bit more like we were doing earlier but it looks like teams are trying to take that away from us lately.

          Aaron: He was fairly aggressive looking to score in this game. The box score has credited him with only one assist but I'm pretty sure I saw a lot of good passes there. He did have a span where he was whistled for 3 fouls in about 5 seconds but other than that I feel that he had a pretty nice game. I love that he's getting minutes even if it's just due to injuries. These minutes are going to be good for his development.

          CoJo: I feel that CoJo had a very good game, especially in the first half. He was pushing the pace a lot and playing with purpose. I liked what I saw out of him on the offensive end. He was much more aggressive than usual. His defense was very solid as usual.

          Like always, I'll end with a few words about the big lineup. I saw some people commenting late in the game thread that it is a waste and for the life of me, I cannot understand where they're getting at. This lineup played together in 3 separate stretches. From 4:58 to 1:01 in the first quarter, from 3:58 to 1:04 in the third quarter and from 6:05 to 2:06 in the fourth quarter. Add those stretches up together and you get 10 minutes and 50 seconds. I was very happy to see them get those minutes.

          In the first quarter, we were down 4 points (14-10) when Domas came in. The score was 23-23 when Myles went to the bench so we outscored them 13 to 9 when the big lineup was on the court. In that stretch, we had a very nice 7-2 run to finally get the lead (from 17-12 to 19-21). The Wizards never led after that, they just tied the game twice (23-23 and then 25-25).

          In the third quarter, we were up 56-71 when Domas entered the game. When Myles went to the bench, we were up 60-79. So, we were up 8-4 in that short stretch.

          In the fourth quarter, we were up 77-94 when Myles entered the game. We were up 85-100 when he went to the bench. So, we were down 8-6 in that stretch.

          All in all, we scored 27 (13+8+6) points in that stretch and we allowed 21 (9+4+8). indicates that we scored 29 and not 27 points in that stretch ->

          The reason for the discrepancy is that it counts the points that come from FTs that were earned when that lineup was in the floor as points in this lineup. Players are often subbed out between the first and second FT so I don't count the points that are the result of the second FT since the player would already be on the bench at this point. counts those points. That's the discrepancy.

          In any case, whether it was 27-21 or 29-21 one thing is for sure. The big lineup did well last night, especially in the first and third quarters. And more than just the numbers, they looked good playing together. They forced 6 turnovers in those minutes and they looked more comfortable on both ends. They had a really nice play that I want to revisit.

          Here it is ->

          Domas gets a pass at the baseline while Myles is stationed at the FT line (could have been 3-point line for even better spacing). Domas gets into his shooting motion but Dekker does a good job at rotating over so Domas doesn't take the shot. He fakes a pass as Myles cuts a bit inside which takes Mahinmi off of him. Seeing that Mahinmi is no longer there for the double he puts his back on Dekker and posts him up. Myles sees that and flares back towards the top of the key to allow Domas space to work inside. Mahinmi stays down low to help on the Domas post up and as Green leaves Myles to go to Doug (who was open on the wing), Domas hits Myles who cans the open 20 footer.

          We can expect to see more of those plays the more they play together. Those kind of plays are the result of familiarity. Domas and Myles have a big room for improvement when it comes to playing off of each other and the more we play them together, the better they'll both become. It's pretty exciting to watch.

          That's it for this post. Merry Christmas everybody
          People who try to win arguments are the worst. The point of an argument isn't to find a winner, it is to find the truth.

          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.