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

Post game #66 Pacers vs Bucks

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

  • Post game #66 Pacers vs Bucks

    This group of players could play 10 games and the Pacers would probably lose 10 games to the Bucks. Just the difference in talent. Some good moments though with Myles blocks
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

  • #2
    We stayed in the game for the most part of the game. I think that this was the most we could expect from tonight's game. We were just too depleted for anything else to happen.
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm ready for Sabonis to get back. I'm also ready for McDermott to take a permanent seat.

      Comment


      • #4
        So many easy missed shots, Evans was terrible, second game in a row that Thad was terrible on the offensive end against Milwaukee, understandable

        gross, our four guards were 8-31 tonight, got to be better than that, lol and 4-20 imside the three point line
        Last edited by kent beckley; 03-07-2019, 11:55 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I didn't expect the Pacers would win this game, but I'm seeing a few things I really don't like.

          1) Guard play. After the Pacers acquired Wesley Matthews, I questioned who the starting Shooting Guard should be. I still think that player should be Tyreke Evans with Aaron Holiday as his back-up. Holiday and Matthews could split minutes, but you don't sit Holiday. I get that he's a rookie, but Evans and Holiday were playing well when Victor went out injured earlier in the season. I see no reason why they couldn't continue to provide sufficient offense from the 2-guard spot. I think coach McMillan is making a mistake by not staying with what was working between those two. The chemistry was better and you retained aggressiveness by keeping Holiday on the floor. Plus, because he plays fast the Pacers were able to maintain a higher tempo with him on the floor. The Matthews/Evans duo isn't yielding the kind of dividends I expected and unless Evans or Matthews start knocking down shots, guard play at the 2-guard will continue to be stagnant. At this point, I'd rather see a CoJo/DC combo w/DC at the 2-guard. At least he'll knock down shots.

          2) Hesitancy. You can see players hesitate often along the perimeter unsure of whether or not to take the shot. The Pacers certainly don't help themselves out by missing their 3PA while the opposing team(s) makes theirs. Still, if you don't take the shot when it's there you give up scoring opportunities. I also see alot of perimeter shots coming up short. I'd chalk that up to fatigue except it happened alot before half-time, too. This is due to a lack of confidence not to mention too many players having the green light to shoot the 3-ball. I mean, Thad Young...really? Talk about an inconsistent and ugly shot! Granted, he's knocked down a few but next to O'Quinn, Thad Young is the last person I want to see taking a 3-point shot.

          3) CoJo still refuses to pass McDermit the ball. He can cut baseline, he can curl above the free-throw line, he can run out to the corners along the perimeter and CoJo still won't look for him. This is more than intentional, i.e., a designed play for someone else on the floor. The only thing that makes sense is CoJo just doesn't trust him to score the ball. Not sure if I blame him, but you at least have to find the open man and several times while CoJo and McDermit where on the floor CoJo never looked for him at all.

          4) No consistent scorer...at all. Right now, the Pacers are scoring by committee. Since Victor went out, I thought maybe it was just a matter of not having someone they could go to in the clutch, but the problem has really magnified since Sabonis went out injured. Scoring and rebounding has been erratic. Without Sabonis, we really don't have anyone who can score consistently in the post or 10-12 feet from the basket. It's either been PnR, high screens or lane penetration. But post play has pretty much been non-existent w/o Sabonis on the floor.
          Last edited by NuffSaid; 03-08-2019, 12:13 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by owl View Post
            This group of players could play 10 games and the Pacers would probably lose 10 games to the Bucks. Just the difference in talent. Some good moments though with Myles blocks
            Length was also a problem. I'm really surprised McMillan didn't go small. I sure would have. I would have put Holiday in the game with DC and just ran the hell out of the Bucks. Unfortunately, without Sabonis it's tough getting the right bodies on the court who would run with them. Young, Leaf, Sabonis, DC and Holiday could do it. Any other combo would be problematic, but I would've still tried it (Young, Leaf, McDermit, DC, Holiday)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              We stayed in the game for the most part of the game. I think that this was the most we could expect from tonight's game. We were just too depleted for anything else to happen.
              I believe the same thing. It's not a loss due to the Bucks being a better team. This is more a loss due not being 100% healthy, but as Victor said in some article that was posted in another thread...No one is going to feel sorry for us.


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                I'm ready for Sabonis to get back. I'm also ready for McDermott to take a permanent seat.
                McDermott is really the ONLY player where I feel like the Pacers made a mistake on signing. He was brought in to do one thing, and he's not doing it. The other players are hit and miss, but most nights they fit into the defense/offense pretty well.


                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                  I believe the same thing. It's not a loss due to the Bucks being a better team. This is more a loss due not being 100% healthy, but as Victor said in some article that was posted in another thread...No one is going to feel sorry for us.
                  I do believe that the Bucks are better than us. In my opinion, they have been a tier above us throughout this season and acquiring Nikola Mirotić has only made them better. But that's also because the Bucks are a top 4 team in the league. They have been really, really good. In the RS, at least. They do lack playoff experience which is why I'm not saying that they're a lock to win the East or anything but in the RS they have been elite. There's no shame in losing to them. We are a good team ourselves but we aren't top 4-level good like the Bucks. We are more like top 10-level good which is still a great place to be given the age of some of our core pieces.
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    meh, whatever, we'll sweep em in round 2

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                      McDermott is really the ONLY player where I feel like the Pacers made a mistake on signing. He was brought in to do one thing, and he's not doing it. The other players are hit and miss, but most nights they fit into the defense/offense pretty well.
                      evans???

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        for any lurking bucks fans, enjoy this video:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ^that was like the second pacers game i ever went to....sat in the very last row, but, weirdly, i have this very strong memory of it being MSA still....

                          Comment


                          • #14


                            this was a fun video that also popped up...

                            turns out travis best actually got significantly worse between high school and nba, lol

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                              meh, whatever, we'll sweep em in round 2
                              you really think this?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X