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 - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

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

  • #46
    Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
    My guesstimation is that the play was supposed to be an entry pass and then immediate hand-off back to Mike, who could have theoretically used Foster to rub off his defender, take the hand-off and either raise up for a J or dribble attack.

    I'm not sure how, but if that was the plan, it clearly got disrupted (maybe Foster came out too far or they just guarded it well?)

    Either way, Mike couldn't make the space to get the ball back cleanly. And option B where he faded to create space for a pass clearly took a ride on the fail-boat as well.

    But if it was intended to be a dribble hand-off, it sort of makes sense for it to be Jeff getting the ball. He's big, so he naturally keeps a guy on his back far away from the front where he's making the catch/trying to hand-off. He's quick, so he can flash out rapidly from the middle of the paint and create some separation from his defender before receiving the entry. And he's supposedly a "pro" who would be able to execute. Rasho would be too slow. I guess Murph could be equally as capable at catching and handing off, but Foster is the much better screener, which maybe O'Brien thought would allow Dunleavy more room to work after he re-received the ball back.

    I dunno. Whatever the plan was, it was clearly broken.

    And then Foster pooped his pants.
    That was Plan A, and it was obviously disrupted. My question is, what was Plan B? It looked to me like there was no plan B, so Foster just had a brain freeze instead.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

      Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
      Has anyone ever noticed how bad everyone on our team is at passing. I mean sure Ford and Jack find open guys and get assists, but do you notice how whenever Dunleavy passes whoever catches it is immediately in perfect rhythm.
      Diener is a good passer. He just can't do much else.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

        I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.

        Thanks to Count, JayRedd, and Aesop for trying to bring some semblance of reason to the discussion.
        Last edited by OakMoses; 01-10-2009, 02:08 AM.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

          Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
          My opinion:
          I think Jack deserves a break. Terrible game, terrible decision-making? Maybe. But should we blame him for not defending Kobe to the point where he misses? I don't believe we should.

          Still can't get over that final play - but I do have to go to work tomorrow, so goodnight all.
          Regarding defending Kobe.....I'm not blaming him for doing a bad job on Kobe....I really think he did his best to defend him.....I'm just saying that he shouldn't have been on the floor in the first place to defend him simply for the fact that Jack doesn't have the size and length to properly defend a top-notch jumpshooter like Kobe.

          If there is any blame in this, I guess I would leave it on JO'B for letting him stay on the floor. Just like everyone always harps on Foster or Murphy for being on the floor if they can't score or rebound the ball, if a Player isn't scoring very well ( he went 0-6 from the field while scoring 3 points on FTA ) and is being abused on the other end of the court by the top player in the league that is simply shooting over him.....then I just don't see the need for him to be on the floor.....especially if he is TO prone in the 4th QTR.

          Another thing that was pointed out by someone else.......the rest of the team should have collapsed on Kobe at that point.....there was no way that Kobe wasn't going to take that shot and it was obvious that Jack wasn't able to defend him sufficiently to force a missed shot. In the end, we should have defended him better.....but we shouldn't have been put in a disadvantage in the first place by having a smaller defender on Kobe.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

            Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
            Has anyone ever noticed how bad everyone on our team is at passing. I mean sure Ford and Jack find open guys and get assists, but do you notice how whenever Dunleavy passes whoever catches it is immediately in perfect rhythm.

            Dun made one pass to foster tonight that led to a foster layup that was just beautiful. That seems to be a very underrated, or at least under appreciated aspect of his game. Maybe it isn't, but I haven't got to watch him play much (didnt have LP last year) and I am just amazed at that part of his game.
            dunleavy and diener excel at this and we've missed it quite a bit during the first 30+ games of the season. there is a reason the offense runs much smoother with travis than with jarrett running the show and it comes down to passing. the problem is travis is a matador defender at best and he doesn't have size or length to make up for it. the play at the end of the suns win is a perfect example of dunleavy's passing ability.
            Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 01-10-2009, 02:11 AM.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              I don't care who else does it, but Danny with 5 fouls is the last guy I have guarding Kobe.
              The devil's advocate would say that the coach should be able to put his superstar on that assignment and trust him to understand the reality that him keeping himself on the court is much more important than a single possession.

              If I'm a coach and my only two options (in my own mind, since I'm not putting rookie Rush, erratic Graham or hobbled MDJ on him) are a solid, yet undersized and clearly physically outmatched Jarrett Jack or a $10 million-making All Star who is physically bigger than Kobe, has the quickness to not get blown by and for the past two seasons has been almost without fail been guided by mature, savvy and intelligent basketball decisions...I probably go with option #2.

              Needless to say, it would have been nice to have Marquis available.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                I would have undoubtedly put Graham on him over Jack. Kobe molested Jack all night. Graham at least forced him into some tough shots and managed to stay in front of him.

                Not Rush, though. As a rookie, he would have gotten a foul for looking at Kobe.
                Okay...fine...no BRush.....Graham is fine.....the whole point ( as you say ) is that Jack was doing a horrible job on Kobe. The fact that no one on the Coaching Staff didn't recognize this is disappointing.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  Needless to say, it would have been nice to have Marquis available.
                  Yeah....that's what I'm thinking.....we will be much better once we have more heatlhy Guard options and JO'b isn't forced into a position where he has to play a player ( even if he isn't doing so great out there ) simply cuz we have no other options.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                    I'm disgusted by this thread. We just played the best team in the NBA on the road to a two point game after being down 12 in the 3rd quarter. We lost the game on a contested jump shot by the best clutch player in the NBA. Our starting PG and starting SG are hurt and our 2nd best player is playing his second game of the season and only playing 20 minutes. The fact that we were within 10 points of the Lakers is a testament to every player and coach involved with this team.

                    Thanks to Count and JayRedd for trying to bring some semblance of reason to the discussion.
                    While that's great and all, I don't think the disappointment shown on the board has anything to do with who we played tonight. The problem is, we blew a game tonight that we had every opportunity to win at the end of the game. Sure, it feels good to compete with the best. But at some point, if you're right there at the end, it doesn't matter who you're playing. You have to start holding people accountable for their poor decisions.
                    Last edited by Coop; 01-10-2009, 02:13 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Okay...fine...no BRush.....Graham is fine.....the whole point ( as you say ) is that Jack was doing a horrible job on Kobe. The fact that no one on the Coaching Staff didn't recognize this is disappointing.
                      I completely agree with you there.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        I meant that we are 1-2 against one of the best teams in the league where we lost 2 very close games against them.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          I meant that we are 1-2 against one of the best teams in the league where we lost 2 very close games against them.
                          We've only played the Lakers twice. We only play each Western Conference team twice.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                            The devil's advocate would say that the coach should be able to put his superstar on that assignment and trust him to understand the reality that him keeping himself on the court is much more important than a single possession.

                            If I'm a coach and my only two options (in my own mind, since I'm not putting rookie Rush, erratic Graham or hobbled MDJ on him) are a solid, yet undersized and clearly physically outmatched Jarrett Jack or a $10 million-making All Star who is physically bigger than Kobe, has the quickness to not get blown by and for the past two seasons has been almost without fail been guided by mature, savvy and intelligent basketball decisions...I probably go with option #2.

                            Needless to say, it would have been nice to have Marquis available.
                            I think you've hit the nail on the head here. My first thought when Danny fouled out was that it was a stupid play on his part to reach in and try to knock the ball away. Danny needs to know how to play good defense without fouling. If it'd been a questionable superstar call shooting foul, it'd be a different story, but Kobe was dribbling when Danny fouled him. He wasn't even attacking the basket.

                            I can understand some criticism of O'Brien for this decision, but to not place most of the blame on Granger is silly.
                            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                            - Salman Rushdie

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                              Originally posted by Shade View Post
                              That was Plan A, and it was obviously disrupted. My question is, what was Plan B? It looked to me like there was no plan B, so Foster just had a brain freeze instead.
                              No idea. I'm speculating on Plan A even.

                              I would imagine there was a screen or a cut that would theoretically free a guy at the top of the key or middle of the court somewhere for a quick ball reversal. After a pivot and two-three ball fakes towards an unopen Dun, Foster turned to look for someone else. Not sure what he was looking for, but whoever it was, the guy clearly wasn't open.

                              Again, none of us were in the huddle so we don't know what the play was and certainly don't know what the contingency was.

                              But for anyone to assume that a professional NBA coach drew up a play that didn't have an option B is assuming a level of negligence that in no possible conceivable way happened. Dislike JO'B and criticize him all he wants, but lets not act like he spent that whole timeout sniffing his dry erase marker and scratching his balls. He called a play. And it had a Plan B. Neither worked due to one of (a) the nature of the play, (b) the execution of the play, or (c) great defense. No idea which.

                              But there was certainly a contingency. And it certainly didn't work.

                              Now, if you can find me a coach who can create a play with a third contingency in under three seconds, (other than presuming a professional basketball player will not just fail to understand the concept of time) then I would also like to buy a bridge from you.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Post Game Thread - Pacers lose in LaLaLand

                                I hope you're right. Because to me, it looked like there was no contingency plan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X