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

Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

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

  • #46
    Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

    Originally posted by PBB View Post
    Out of curiosity, I checked the box scores for other seven games played last night. To my surprise, three technical fouls on Pacers was next-to-top.

    The top game was celtics-Bucks with six,but four of these were these were technicals against a player from both sides.
    Two of them were on Bogut and that's why the Bucks lost.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

      i watched just the first half of the sixers game. i couldn't watch the bulls game so i'm not gonna talk about the way we played bc i have no idea. BUT LOSING A GAME FROM A 26 POINT DEFICIT IS JUST UNACCEPTABLE NO MATTER WHAT. IT'S A LITTLE MORE SERIOUS THAN JUST BEING UNEXPERIENCED.

      granger's performance looks like it's free falling judging just from the numbers. may be our opponents are taking him more seriously and the team as well. i hope i'm wrong and we will get up soon. because when things start to go wrong for unexperienced teams like us it's hard for them to recover from it.

      btw rush can't shoot worse than this i think. i'm really disappointed in him offensively. i hope he gets better soon.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        Jackson's number one! Jackson's number one! Jackson's number one!
        Ford's number five!

        I was expecting a letdown after several straight games with a lot of effort. The team carried Q2-4 vs. Philly over to Q1 vs. Chicago. More than anything, some players just looked exhausted. By the 4th, TJ was slowly bringing the ball up court. I think this is O'Brien's fault.

        Btw, have we ever had two games in a row with more lopsided officiating? I'm a believer when it comes to officiating controlling games. There's no way we lose against Philly with semi-balanced calls.

        I enjoyed the nice run of games without Murphy. Even as a Murphy hater, I have to say he started last year poorly and slowly improved. Hoping he can do the same this year.


        EDIT-One more thing. It would be easy to blame O'Brien, but the players HAVE to start taking advantage of mismatches. We had Ben Gordon guarding Marquis Daniels last night. Marquis HAS to take him in the post. Aside from Daniels having the obvious height/strength advantage, Gordon is a sieve. And if Marquis isn't doing it, it should be O'Brien's duty to point it out.
        Last edited by imawhat; 11-16-2008, 12:36 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
          Danny is good, but he can't create. As has been said many times, he's the perfect second option. Our Pippen has no Jordan.
          Stop it.

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          I love Ford and Jack compared to what we'd been getting off the PG, but man Rose as a 10 game rookie is already better than them. Wow!
          He's already better than all but about six point guards in the entire League so I wouldn't be too worried.
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

            Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
            How much does psychology play into this?

            This is a totally different team from the team that stomped Boston. I think losing that huge lead last night might've had a big blow to the team confidence.

            I did not see that "we feel we can beat anybody, anytime" attitude that I was enjoying so much.
            I said this immediately after the Philly game. It was very similar to the Bucks game where Mo in that three IMO.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              For real... our Pippen has no Jordan??? Well, snap! We just gotta locate our Jordan! Sounds like an easy plan to me!

              Are there any good SGs comin' outta North Carolina? Let's tank this year, draft him 3rd, we'll be set.

              Better yet, let's suggest a guy we coulda had in the draft who has played in a total of two games for a total of 20 minutes off Portland's bench... mostly during garbage time. HE'S THE ANSWER AND WE MADE A MISTAKE. CRAP.

              /sarcasm off. I hope you were joking.
              I was joking about the Golden State kid.

              I'm not saying we should have picked Bayless over Rush, but I think it's a subject worth revisiting depending on how we address our need to find a "Jordan"--not somebody that good, obviously, but someone who can create his own shot.

              If we trade for someone at the deadline or next summer who fits that bill, then I'm excited about Rush, who clearly does not look like someone who can create his own shot.

              But if we don't, I think we have to honestly ask the question if we should have attempted to find someone to fit that role with the 11th pick this year.

              I don't want us to make the same mistake we made with Shawne Williams--getting yet another wing when we had other, more critical issues to address. That time it was a point guard. This time, we had the point covered. We needed, and still need, a goto guy, preferably a power forward.
              Last edited by McKeyFan; 11-16-2008, 02:42 PM.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                I was joking about the Golden State kid.

                I'm not saying we should have picked Bayless over Rush, but I think it's a subject worth revisiting depending on how we address our need to find a "Jordan"--not somebody that good, obviously, but someone who can create his own shot.

                If we trade for someone at the deadline or next summer who fits that bill, then I'm excited about Rush, who clearly does not look like someone who can create his own shot.

                But if we don't, I think we have to honestly ask the question if we should have attempted to find someone to fit that role with the 11th pick this year.

                I don't want us to make the same mistake we made with Shawne Williams--getting yet another wing when we had other, more critical issues to address. That time it was a point guard. This time, we had the point covered. We needed, and still need, a goto guy, preferably a power forward.
                I don't look at it that simply. Being able to create own shot doesn't necessarily mean anything. Tinsley, for that matter, fits your description.

                I also don't reallty agree that the reason we've been losing these games is because we don't have a "Jordan" to take over the game. We've been breaking down defensively as the game goes on, I think we need to rebound better, and I do hafta question some of the game management decisions by Obie, substitution-wise. These games were winnable, they just get away from their successful "recipe" sometimes.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                  Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                  I don't look at it that simply. Being able to create own shot doesn't necessarily mean anything. Tinsley, for that matter, fits your description.

                  I also don't reallty agree that the reason we've been losing these games is because we don't have a "Jordan" to take over the game. We've been breaking down defensively as the game goes on, I think we need to rebound better, and I do hafta question some of the game management decisions by Obie, substitution-wise. These games were winnable, they just get away from their successful "recipe" sometimes.
                  I'll have to think about your defensive and rebounding comments. May be.

                  But, no, Tinsley does not fit the bill for a guy who can create his own shot at the end, simply because he was so inconsistent from the outside. Teams simply sagged off him, prohibiting any ability for him to do his creative stuff in the paint. Our best teams of the Artest/JO era lost a lot of playoff games, imo, because of this problem.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    But, no, Tinsley does not fit the bill for a guy who can create his own shot at the end, simply because he was so inconsistent from the outside. Teams simply sagged off him, prohibiting any ability for him to do his creative stuff in the paint. Our best teams of the Artest/JO era lost a lot of playoff games, imo, because of this problem.
                    Tinsley won an awful lot of close games because of clutch play at the end. Seems like one year he beat Miami three times in a season.

                    I know he's persona non grata around here, and I'm fully aware of his many flaws. But let's not pretend that the guy couldn't get his own shot at the end of the game. He clearly could.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Tinsley won an awful lot of close games because of clutch play at the end. Seems like one year he beat Miami three times in a season.

                      I know he's persona non grata around here, and I'm fully aware of his many flaws. But let's not pretend that the guy couldn't get his own shot at the end of the game. He clearly could.
                      This is true.

                      Jamaal and Jalen Rose are the only two perimeter players we've had this millennium who could get their own good shots consistently. Artest is also debatable, but I was never really a big fan of what he did with the ball in his hands so I'm probably biased.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Tinsley won an awful lot of close games because of clutch play at the end. Seems like one year he beat Miami three times in a season.

                        I know he's persona non grata around here, and I'm fully aware of his many flaws. But let's not pretend that the guy couldn't get his own shot at the end of the game. He clearly could.
                        Well, there's two things: getting your own shot and making your own shot. Yes, Tins can always get a shot off. (Which is why I left off JO in another thread where I listed five or six Pacers in the past 15 years who could create a shot for us at the end of games.)

                        But, I'll agree with you that a lot of selective memory probably occurs because of Tinsley's later issues. Admittedly, he's one of the cleverestist guys with the ball I've ever watched.
                        Last edited by McKeyFan; 11-16-2008, 03:59 PM.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          I was joking about the Golden State kid.

                          I'm not saying we should have picked Bayless over Rush, but I think it's a subject worth revisiting depending on how we address our need to find a "Jordan"--not somebody that good, obviously, but someone who can create his own shot.

                          If we trade for someone at the deadline or next summer who fits that bill, then I'm excited about Rush, who clearly does not look like someone who can create his own shot.

                          But if we don't, I think we have to honestly ask the question if we should have attempted to find someone to fit that role with the 11th pick this year.

                          I don't want us to make the same mistake we made with Shawne Williams--getting yet another wing when we had other, more critical issues to address. That time it was a point guard. This time, we had the point covered. We needed, and still need, a goto guy, preferably a power forward.
                          Jason Thompson? Could he have been an ideal scoring power forward for our future? He might have been a little bit of a reach at 11 though, but Sacramento is reaping the benefits of where they reached for him. He can play anywhere from small forward to center.

                          I agree 100% with your point about not making the same mistake twice regarding Shawne Williams. We needed a power forward and got another wing. I'm not writing Rush off, because it's still very early and I like his ability on the defensive end, but I still wonder what it would be like with an athletic, multi-position, multi-talented, and still very young and full of potential(I know, I know) Jason Thompson running the floor alongside TJ and Danny.
                          2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                            You know, I watched some of that Thompson kid in a few games and he's just a better player than I thought he'd be. He kind of reminds me of a bigger Granger. He's not super athletic, but he's pretty polished and knows how to play.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                              As far as drafting a PF (and unrelated to Jason Thompson as an individual player)...

                              I don't think we're good enough to draft for need right now. We don't need specific roles...we need talent.

                              Larry and Co. needed to be 100% in "Best Player Available" mode for the 2008 Draft and I believe they were. Next year might be different or it might be best player available time again -- too early to say.

                              Now, whether or not Brandon was the best talent available is obviously debatable, but he was the guy that Larry identified as the most talented (mixed with being ready on day one and having zero bust potential), so I think his strategy was sound.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Everybody calm down (Pacers/Bulls Postgame Thread)

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                As far as drafting a PF (and unrelated to Jason Thompson as an individual player)...

                                I don't think we're good enough to draft for need right now. We don't need specific roles...we need talent.

                                Larry and Co. needed to be 100% in "Best Player Available" mode for the 2008 Draft and I believe they were. Next year might be different or it might be best player available time again -- too early to say.

                                Now, whether or not Brandon was the best talent available is obviously debatable, but he was the guy that Larry identified as the most talented (mixed with being ready on day one and having zero bust potential), so I think his strategy was sound.
                                Fair enough.

                                Two Questions:

                                Do you agree with the need for a power forward and/or "go to" guy?

                                Do you think it ought to be addressed soon (by trade deadline or next summer at latest)?
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X