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

2024 Eastern Conference Finals: (1) Boston vs. (6) Indiana

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post

    I added to your quote, to increase its accuracy
    Are we going to act like we haven't seen Brunson cook in the 4th quarter? I know some of you don't watch other games but google it at least.

    Once he broke his hand is was over.

    Also shame on NY for having OG running out there like a possum that was shameful.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #77
      I think Celtics in 6, but I think the Pacers have the chance to get this to a Game 7.

      Pacers will make this series more competitive than people will credit them for. When Haliburton is going right, he's an All-NBA First-Team type talent, and the Pacers have a former All-NBA champion as his 'Robin.' I think that alone makes Indiana more dangerous than some think, even if they're a young team who lacks the experience. They need to steal one of the first two road games with Porzingis out to really have a chance though.

      Comment


      • #78
        Feels like a Celtics in 5 or more likely 6 situation but there will be some great games.

        Said the same in the Knicks series and was wrong but only way I see a Pacers win is in 6. Don't see them winning a game seven in Boston....

        Comment


        • #80
          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

          Are we going to act like we haven't seen Brunson cook in the 4th quarter? ... Once he broke his hand is was over.
          The score was 92-74 when Brunson left the game for good with 3:02 left in the 3rd quarter. It was already over. The 15 point Pacers halftime lead had been reduced to 6 (73-67) and then the Pacers had gone on a 19-7 run over 5 minutes to bury them.

          Ding dong, the witch was already dead.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #81
            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post

            The score was 92-74 when Brunson left the game for good with 3:02 left in the 3rd quarter. It was already over. The 15 point Pacers halftime lead had been reduced to 6 (73-67) and then the Pacers had gone on a 19-7 run over 5 minutes to bury them.

            Ding dong, the witch was already dead.
            I guess we would never know but let's not act like the injuries had nothing to do with it and I'm not even including Frankenstein who also got injured.


            Anyways as an NBA fan I'm glad a NY team with broken hand Brunson didn't make it because I'm tired of Boston getting this easy path.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #82
              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

              it was decent, his D the whole series was garbage I know some of you remember even though this win is clouding everyone's mind.


              I mean I can find game thread comments by a lot of people cussing him out because of it and people saying that he ran out of jumps because he refused to play D, I haven't forgotten none of that.
              I would agree with it being up and down and there were a couple bad games in there, but it wasn't just yesterday that he was good.

              The Knicks shot 45 percent against Turner at the rim for the series. That's really good.

              Yesterday, they attempted 7 of those shots. They made 1 of them. And there were others where the Knicks looked at Turner under the rim and dribbled it back out instead or settled for floaters.

              Jackson was even better btw. That's his best skill anyway, and the fact that he has the freedom to foul constantly makes him even better at it.

              And I would say it wasn't just Turner's rim defense. He was doing a good job of roving all over the floor to deter drivers.

              I would say overall his defense was solid to good for the series. Not great because there were some bad games in there.

              And btw, I would still say his defense has definitely slipped from where it was. And the Pacers might benefit from having an elite defensive center. But it simply isn't true that Turner "can't play D"

              Comment


              • #83
                Draymond, we are literally in the conference finals now. Who was claiming we are a title contender? The results speak for themselves.

                Vinny he also said the Knicks aren't real.
                Lifelong pacers fan

                Comment


                • #84
                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                  I would agree with it being up and down and there were a couple bad games in there, but it wasn't just yesterday that he was good.

                  The Knicks shot 45 percent against Turner at the rim for the series. That's really good.

                  Yesterday, they attempted 7 of those shots. They made 1 of them. And there were others where the Knicks looked at Turner under the rim and dribbled it back out instead or settled for floaters.

                  Jackson was even better btw. That's his best skill anyway, and the fact that he has the freedom to foul constantly makes him even better at it.

                  And I would say it wasn't just Turner's rim defense. He was doing a good job of roving all over the floor to deter drivers.

                  I would say overall his defense was solid to good for the series. Not great because there were some bad games in there.

                  And btw, I would still say his defense has definitely slipped from where it was. And the Pacers might benefit from having an elite defensive center. But it simply isn't true that Turner "can't play D"
                  You are giving us stats of somebody playing below average teams of course he is going to look like a superstar at times, in your opinion he was "solid", this is the part some of you don't understand I'm not looking for "solid" against trash teams I'm looking for excellent, not only him but Siakam/Hali as well, if this team was as good as some of you think they are they should be destroying this fools and they are not.

                  An excellent team with excellent players is not struggling against the G league Bucks and NY four players sorry.
                  Last edited by vnzla81; 05-20-2024, 01:35 PM.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #85
                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                    Nothing was impressive, Hali was anything but impressive that whole series and he is supposed to be the "superstar", Siakam was OK, Softner was Softner.

                    Pacers don't have TJ Nash going nuts and they lose easily and that's a big issue because the guys making max money were average at best this whole postseason really.
                    Closing out two teams in the playoffs is impressive. I've seen better Pacers team struggle or lose to worse opponents.

                    We literally dominated the Knicks 3 of the last 4 games. Game 7 wasn't even close and the injured players used as an excuse is laughable honestly.
                    Lifelong pacers fan

                    Comment


                    • #86
                      Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post

                      Closing out two teams in the playoffs is impressive. I've seen better Pacers team struggle or lose to worse opponents.

                      We literally dominated the Knicks 3 of the last 4 games. Game 7 wasn't even close and the injured players used as an excuse is laughable honestly.
                      Yeah almost like something happened then nobody knows or remembers what happened. ...
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #87
                        Lmao... The Vnzla purity test is getting ridiculous. Enjoy this run for what it is (or don't, that's perfectly fine) and stfu already. We get to the freaking ECF (against injured teams or not) and people are trying to **** in the fanbase's Cornflakes that a pretty young team wasn't dominant enough in doing so. Just laughable.

                        Comment


                        • #88
                          Originally posted by 712Jefferson View Post
                          Lmao... The Vnzla purity test is getting ridiculous. Enjoy this run for what it is (or don't, that's perfectly fine) and stfu already. We get to the freaking ECF (against injured teams or not) and people are trying to **** in the fanbase's Cornflakes that a pretty young team wasn't dominant enough in doing so. Just laughable.
                          TJ Nash, Softner and Siakam are not a pretty young team, this ain't OKC.
                          Last edited by vnzla81; 05-20-2024, 01:50 PM.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #89
                            Cool, now do the rest of our postseason rotation:

                            Tyrese Haliburton - 24 (first career postseason)
                            Andrew Nembhard - 24 (first career postseason)
                            Aaron Nesmith - 24 (limited postseason experience)
                            Ben Sheppard - 22 (first career postseason)
                            Obi Toppin - 26 (limited postseason experience)
                            Isaiah Jackson - 22 (first career postseason)
                            Jalen Smith - 24 (limited postseason experience)

                            Comment


                            • #90
                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                              I don't think they are going to get swept as Celtics love to choke at least a game per series just because that's what they do, so Celtics will easily win series in 5.
                              Why don't you just say that in the first place instead of making the "Pacers are so bad that they'll lose a game by so much the league will give the other team 2 wins for it" statement?

                              Someday I hope you learn to derive joy from something other than other people's disappointment.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X