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 Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

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

  • #46
    Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

    Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post

    What? How could you say that about two of the most consistent players on the team through their first 9 games? Yeah, they went cold last night, but overall I thought both had done quite well so far. And, oh, yes, those blocks by Danny were nice, too.
    I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but this got me. And I'm talking about Dunleavy, not Granger.

    Dun was very aggressive the first few games, played very well out there. In the Bobcats and (second) Wizards games in particular, he was silent for most of the game. During last night's game he looked like opening night Dun for some of the game, and the unfortunately he looked like Bobcats game Dun for part of the game too.

    My point: It is unacceptable for Dunleavy to only get 7 or 8 open looks a night. He should be shooting the ball 14-15, maybe more, times a game.

    Yes, it's not always his fault and sometimes the ball isn't given to him when he should have it. But, at other times, he pretty blatantly takes plays off. See the Bobcats game.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

      Originally posted by owl View Post
      The Pacers have many problems but the guards are 1A and 1B with the center close behind.
      With the rate the Pacers are going they will be a mid lottery team and probably have a
      choice of Gordon or Mayo. Of all the players that will be coming out however Michael
      Beastly(Beasly) looks to be the best. A lefty small forward. He is better than any the Pacers
      have currently. The Pacers need shooters everywhere badly so take the best one available at whatever position.
      The Pacers have a lot of wings already. I think they'll take a guard barring some major trade during the season that involves Dunleavy, Granger, or Williams getting traded.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

        Dun....

        Last 3 games

        .303 FG%
        .167 3PT%
        10.7 PPG

        JO

        Last 3 games
        .386 FG%
        3.7 TO
        13.7 PPG

        Granger

        last 2 games

        .280 FG%
        .200 3PT%
        11.5 PPG
        I'm in these bands
        The Humans
        Dr. Goldfoot
        The Bar Brawlers
        ME

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

          I think the stat of the game is 3 pt percentage.

          Pacers 10-29: 35 percent

          Toronto 12-23: 52 percent

          What begs the question is why we shot significatly more 3s despite our woeful percentage.

          I'm on board with Obie regarding it will take time for the defense to grow and improve. However, I don't see our three point shooting getting better over time. It is what it is--and this on a night when Tins was hot.

          I think of Mal's avatar: lipstick on a pig.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

            JO played well, but he had some key turnovers late that I felt cost us the game

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

              Would have been nice to see Quis on the floor as well.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

                quis doesn't play on back to back games...he will tonight i think
                "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

                  Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                  Would have been nice to see Quis on the floor as well.
                  Or Ike.....
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

                    Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                    JO played well, but he had some key turnovers late that I felt cost us the game
                    I hated that as well.

                    However, in fairness, no one was cutting, so JO was forced to make something happen. When you force something on a double cover, problems tend to crop up.

                    I'm still surprised JOB said on the radio show that the problem was Dun and Danny not cutting. And when I watched the game (second half only) that sure seemed to be the problem.

                    Fatigue? Brain damage? Mixed messages? I wonder what it is.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

                      VCR/Tivo still serve a need after all!!!

                      I've had a chance to watch - or should I say study - the Raptors/Pacers game on tape and here's my 2-cents worth:

                      1) Man-Defense (from the perimeter). Overall, the Pacers played much better this game than they had over the last 3 games. Despite the fact that the Raptors gunners were seemingly able to rain down 3's, the Pacers defended them fairly well particularly in the paint. Their biggest problem, however, is how they play man-D and I've complained about it for years! I'm referring to how Foster or Jamaal, for example, will step out to defend on a high screen, but instead of them staying with the ballhandler when they rotate defensively they'll shag off him instead leaving the ballhandler wide open. What they don't realize is the Raptor and other teams for that matter will use the players who steps out and quickly shags off as a 6th defender! Foster/Tinsley in effect become another screener for the opposing team because they DON'T stay with the ballhandler. Now, I understand why they don't stay out there; they don't want to create a mismatch for the other team. But here's the rub: If they rotate and STAY with the ballhandler, they don't give up the spacing. Thus, the ballhandler has to make a decision other than the one decision we DON'T want shooters to make: take the shot. Instead, you force him to keep the ball in his hands alittle longer where maybe instead of taking that wide open 3, he'll instead pass the ball or take a well defended shot for the miss. But the last thing you want to do is give a team w/shooters like the Rapters or Wizards a wide open, stand-still jumpshot from downtown. And the Pacers gave up those types of shots all night long because they continued to shag off the ballhander instead of rotating to and staying with the ballhandler. Anyone who recorded last night's game or any Pacers game to date look at the footage and tell me if you agree or disagree with this assessment.

                      2) Missed Shots by 2 of our Best. Granger and Dunleavy hurt us only because they couldn't knock down those wide open, uncontested shots. And believe me they had plenty of them. But sometimes, you have nights like these. The good news is they both started taking their game inside. The bad news is they started doing so much too late into the game. Still, for what it's worth I'll settle for them taking high percentage shots over quick, wild ones any day of the week.

                      3) Bad calls by the refs down the stretch. I know, I know...most people don't like to blame the refs for a team losing a game, but in this case the refs were a contributing factor down the stretch when it mattered most. Case and point, the "swim stroke" call againt JO at the 1:12 mark of the 3Q that would have brought the Pacers within 2 pt (74-78); the 3-second defensive lane violation called against JO in the 4Q around the 5:58 mark - BOGUS! (JO started out at the top of the key then faded down to shadow Bosh "through" the paint, and then stood facing Bosh at the right high block outside the paint. I replayed this moment about 10 times and even used a stop watch ... 1 second!!! That's how long JO stayed in the paint. BAD CALL refs!) And the most obvious non-call of all came at the 46 second mark of the 4Q when Dunleavy was knocked to the ground by Delfino on a 3PA. He missed the shot, but it should have been a trip to the line the And3!! Instead, the refs ruled it incidental contact after the shot when clearly Delfina made contact w/Dunleavy while he was up in the air. At that point the score was 98-104. Three made FTs by Dunleavy could have made the game 101-104 - a 3 pt different. There are, of course, others but these were the most obvious missed calls of the game for the Pacers.

                      Overall, they played very well. Not even their poor outting of the 3Q was all that bad as far as their effort goes. They tried to fight through it, but their shots just didn't fall. Had they defended the perimeter better the score wouldn't have become so lopesided. Still for what it's worth, they didn't do too bad.

                      If they come out playing the same way against the Jazz tonight and don't have a 3Q meltdown maybe they can finally break this losing streak.
                      Last edited by NuffSaid; 11-17-2007, 06:42 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Post Game Thread #9 - Lost but with positives

                        Has anyone else noticed that in each of the last 3 Raptors games there's been a beyond-the-half-line-buzzer-beater ?

                        It was Quis & Armstrong last year, and this time it was Anthony Parker.


                        I think the Pacers played well, but they're no match for the Raptors even on a poor shooting night, where Bargnani only sees 5 minutes. Seriously - I saw how the Raptors caught fire against NJ, and against Chicago - that team can blow you out of the court when they get into it.

                        And how about Maceo Baston getting the nod, and his emphatic dunk? That's gotta make you move uncomfortably in your arm-chair, right?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X