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 #40 Pacers vs Trailblazers

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

  • #46
    I absolutely love Nembhard + Nesmith. One of them will be a bench player eventually, but for right now I'm just enjoying the ride. I hope they stick around with Haliburton + Mathurin for the next decade in Indiana.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Hoop View Post
      Team win. Hali made plays at the end. Turner, Mathurin and Nesmith all had good games. Also a really nice comeback game for I-Jax, happy for him.

      Not much to not be happy about. Portland is a pretty good team. Dame didn't do Dame things, he's maybe slowing down. Not impressed with Sharpe, it's extremely early in their careers, but I think we picked the right guy.
      So you really think Turner had a good game?

      I dunno...

      While Ill be the first to admit theres more to a game than stats...they cant be ignored either...

      Turner was 6-16 from the field including 0-6 from 3 point range...

      he had 7 rebounds...

      meanwhile his opposing number had 19 rebounds!!!!

      Benn and Nesmith's numbers dont look at all like that...

      they both shot 60% from the field...both were perfect from the line...and Nesmith even had 7 rebounds like Turner did...

      kinda not the same...

      and if 6-16 from the field including 0-6 from 3 point range and 7 rebounds while allowing 19 boards is considered a good game....

      i dunno...

      the other two i get...

      Myli Vanilli...not so much

      while he has had some good games, this doesnt really strike me as one of them
      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

      Comment


      • #48
        I thought Myles had an okay performance. If he had hit a couple of those six threes, I'd say it was a good game. Just didn't have the touch today, but he's been a solid shooter this season, so it's his job to shoot. I think there was one attempt (first half?) that I felt was rushed by him, and would've easily preferred something else. I think most of the others were solid enough looks.

        He definitely threw off a few drives, but also was slow to get to his spots a few times. Not a dominant defensive game from him, but a good enough one imo. He spent a lot of time switched out on the perimeter defensively, and was clearly hesitant on a number of plays to help out on drives or whatever. He didn't play with a very high intensity level to my eye, which probably would've bumped his performance up a level.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Ichi View Post
          I thought Myles had an okay performance. If he had hit a couple of those six threes, I'd say it was a good game. Just didn't have the touch today, but he's been a solid shooter this season, so it's his job to shoot. I think there was one attempt (first half?) that I felt was rushed by him, and would've easily preferred something else. I think most of the others were solid enough looks.

          He definitely threw off a few drives, but also was slow to get to his spots a few times. Not a dominant defensive game from him, but a good enough one imo. He spent a lot of time switched out on the perimeter defensively, and was clearly hesitant on a number of plays to help out on drives or whatever. He didn't play with a very high intensity level to my eye, which probably would've bumped his performance up a level.
          a certain Rick Carlisle disagrees:

          Carlisle: “We were flying around. … The one constant is Myles Turner around the basket. … There are very few guys that have that kind of presence around the rim and that can change the game defensively and allow you to play a smaller lineup. You can’t consistently play a smaller lineup with a smaller center. You’re gonna have to score 130 points to win the game. That’s just how it’s gonna be. Myles is always there. He is always there. He was tremendous defensively.”

          Comment


          • #50
            i thought rick ran circles around chauncey the whole 4th. if tyrese can hit the broad side of a barn for most of that quarter we would have won by 15+ points.


            Comment


            • #51
              There was an absolutely concerted effort from our coaching staff in the 4th quarter to trap Simons at the half court with a double which resulted in a couple of turn overs and a bad shot. Also we would hard double Dame and life miserable on him as well.

              Carlisle knows what he is doing, even he said that you can't play small all the time tonight and I believe in the back half of the season if we are still in the playoff hunt, which I expect us to be, I think you will start seeing a few minutes a game with a couple of bigger players. Not the whole game but a few here and there.

              I will say this. I use my wife as a barometer of the fan base of the team. She is as casual of a fan as can be and frankly she has not enjoyed going to games or the team since Frank was here. Tonight she was as involved in the game as she has been in years and and told me right at the end that this team was fun to watch, even if they would have lost. So take that for what its worth.

              Once again we had a big crowd and again this was not a team that draws fans on the road (Portland that is), the vast vast majority of fans were there to see the Blue and Gold.

              This is a fun likable group of players who are all young and should only get better.

              It's not to late to hop aboard the fanwagon.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by owl View Post
                Defensively Bennedict was much better
                I think this was maybe our most complete defensive game. I can't think of anybody that didn't contribute on that end.

                Comment


                • #53
                  IMO this stretch of efficient offense from Benn is more impressive than when he had it going before the slump. Being able to score like this without the 3 ball is a good sign he's that guy.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    There was an absolutely concerted effort from our coaching staff in the 4th quarter to trap Simons at the half court with a double which resulted in a couple of turn overs and a bad shot. Also we would hard double Dame and life miserable on him as well.

                    Carlisle knows what he is doing, even he said that you can't play small all the time tonight and I believe in the back half of the season if we are still in the playoff hunt, which I expect us to be, I think you will start seeing a few minutes a game with a couple of bigger players. Not the whole game but a few here and there.

                    I will say this. I use my wife as a barometer of the fan base of the team. She is as casual of a fan as can be and frankly she has not enjoyed going to games or the team since Frank was here. Tonight she was as involved in the game as she has been in years and and told me right at the end that this team was fun to watch, even if they would have lost. So take that for what its worth.

                    Once again we had a big crowd and again this was not a team that draws fans on the road (Portland that is), the vast vast majority of fans were there to see the Blue and Gold.

                    This is a fun likable group of players who are all young and should only get better.

                    It's not too late to hop aboard the fanwagon.
                    Exact same scenario with my wife. She has not cared to watch Pacers since the PG/Lance days. This year she quickly has become interested in this team. Her favorite player is Nesmith and she loves how this team seems to really be together and are having fun.

                    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by dal9 View Post

                      a certain Rick Carlisle disagrees:

                      Carlisle: “We were flying around. … The one constant is Myles Turner around the basket. … There are very few guys that have that kind of presence around the rim and that can change the game defensively and allow you to play a smaller lineup. You can’t consistently play a smaller lineup with a smaller center. You’re gonna have to score 130 points to win the game. That’s just how it’s gonna be. Myles is always there. He is always there. He was tremendous defensively.”
                      What does he know. I read on PD that he is trash, and those guys actually watch basketball…

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by dal9 View Post

                        a certain Rick Carlisle disagrees:

                        Carlisle: “We were flying around. … The one constant is Myles Turner around the basket. … There are very few guys that have that kind of presence around the rim and that can change the game defensively and allow you to play a smaller lineup. You can’t consistently play a smaller lineup with a smaller center. You’re gonna have to score 130 points to win the game. That’s just how it’s gonna be. Myles is always there. He is always there. He was tremendous defensively.”
                        All you have to do is watch how teams attack the rim when he’s in vs when he’s out. He’s the second most important player on the team.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

                          What does he know. I read on PD that he is trash, and those guys actually watch basketball…
                          For some people, admitting their position is obsessively overstated is very hardner.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post

                            All you have to do is watch how teams attack the rim when he’s in vs when he’s out. He’s the second most important player on the team.
                            I have seen you push this propaganda for a while now, not even his fans believe it but keep trying though #respect.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by dal9 View Post

                              a certain Rick Carlisle disagrees:

                              Carlisle: “We were flying around. … The one constant is Myles Turner around the basket. … There are very few guys that have that kind of presence around the rim and that can change the game defensively and allow you to play a smaller lineup. You can’t consistently play a smaller lineup with a smaller center. You’re gonna have to score 130 points to win the game. That’s just how it’s gonna be. Myles is always there. He is always there. He was tremendous defensively.”
                              OK what do you want Carlile to say? "well yeah he sucks and can't rebound, he is supposed to be a shooter but look at him throwing bricks out there, the only shots he gets are dunks or layups Haligod is creating for him, he can't create nothing for himself"

                              Of course he is going to say he is the greatest thing since white rice was created.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ichi View Post

                                If he is indeed the next Brandon Ingram, we might've made the wrong pick
                                Ben could be our next Ingram. Yes, he’s a few inches shorter, but doesn’t smoke 10 blunts a day without having the decency to put in eyedrops, so his eyes aren’t completely bloodshot every interview he does.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X