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 ARE BAD"

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

  • #31
    Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

    Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
    Perhaps. But my biggest problem is that the young guys just aren't that much worse than the vets. We're losing either way. We might as well try to develop the future.
    Oh, I wasn't talking about the relative quality of players.


    Comment


    • #32
      Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      Anybody else see Granger with an icepack on his right knee. He checked into the game after I saw that, but does anybody that goes to games remember seeing him do that before? I'm wondering if that is recent.

      At the Hornets game, I saw what looked like half the team on the bench with ice on their knees, including Granger.


      Could it be O'Brien's system is wearing on the knees already?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

        Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
        That was the first game that I have seen the Pacers play this year, and I really feel bad for you guys that have watched that numerous times. Granger might have been the only guy on our side that would have a shot at cracking the Spurs rotation based on tonight.

        I have not sen a team come down and just jack up shot at random like they were doing tinight in a long time. Is that par for the course? No screens, no movement, nothing. When Rasho is shooting 3 trips in a row something is really wrong. I think he shot more times in this game than he would get in 5 when he was with the Spurs.

        I know the loss last night took a lot out of the team, but it seemed like they were not even organized on the offensive end. I know the Spurs aremore talented, but they didn't even make them work hard on d. At least I got to see a game and am looing forward to seeing the one in Indy to see if any improvement has taken place.

        Oh, one addition, I still hate the yellow jerseys.
        Actualkly I think that is only the 3rd time we have watched that. The one game ayt Cleveland, game at Denver and last night - other than those 3 the pacers have played pretty well and hard every night.

        Spurs are probably the worst matchup for the Pacers. They are so disciplined, so experienced - they just cause us tons of trouble.

        Bball - the pacers offense is really working rather well. It isn't my favorite style - but everyone else hates my favorite style. Pacers are rather potent offensively and very difficult to defend
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-21-2009, 09:11 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          Oh, I wasn't talking about the relative quality of players.


          Understandable.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

            Bball - the pacers offense is really working rather well. It isn't my favorite style - but everyone else hates my favorite style. Pacers are rather potent offensively and very difficult to defend

            The Pacers are proving they can score and play in a free-wheeling style. I'm not sure how hard it really is to defend though. Maybe it takes teams a bit to catch on or maybe they just save their energy until the second half where they'll have Pacer fatigue as a 6th defender, but it seems defenses stiffen in the 2nd half against the Pacers. Has any of our statistical analysis crew got the numbers to see if my perception is true or not?

            Also, I don't think our offense is really making teams work hard on defense. They are constantly fighting thru picks or getting leveled by them chasing our shooters around. They aren't spending lots of time on defense either since many times we're putting up a quick shot in the shot clock.

            And I still say our offense hurts our defense. The total lack of structure in the offense and frantic pace takes away from the players' ability and willingness to play defense. Mix in a bad defensive system for this team and you have losses.

            I have one defensive possession frozen in my mind from last night. San Antonio is bringing the ball up the court and there are the Pacers waiting on defense.... packed inside the 3 point arc. So the dribbler walks it up to the arc and nails a 3 while our defense is dug in inside the arc. This isn't a case where the dribbler penetrated and kicked it out for a 3 because the defense sagged off someone, instead the guy just walked it up the court and nailed a 3 over our entrenched defense inside the arc. By gosh, we didn't allow him to penetrate so I guess O'Brien should be happy with that great defense. Since I don't get the feeling Jim Offense'Brien was nearly as pissed about that as I was, I guess he condones it.

            If he's not going to work on developing the bench during this down season then we might as well fire him now because he's done all the good he can and is in fact at risk of hurting things now. I was in favor of letting him stick around for the season and let these guys continue to develop confidence in their offensive abilities... as long as he also got the bench some time. But since he's not going to do that, I'd just rather let one of the assistants take over with a mandate to play the young guys.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              I'll take this lineup:

              Diener
              Rush
              Granger
              McRoberts
              Hibbert

              with Dunleavy first off the bench.

              And I will beat JOB with this lineup:

              Jack
              Dunleavy
              Granger
              Murphy
              Foster

              with Rasho first off the bench.
              I agree.

              How many more times do Rush, McRoberts or Hibbert have to come in and make great plays before this clicks?

              Example - Rush is in covering his man in left corner. Rush cheats to lane enough to jump in and force the kickout on lane penetration off PnR. Rasho was the big beat on this, giving the lane up till Rush saved him.

              Worse is that Rasho could not even recover to his man in the right corner and instead it was Rush who closed out on him for the BLOCKED SHOT. Spurs retain possession, ball goes back out, Rush recovers to ball, finds his man in the left corner, again protects the drive and forces a kickout to his man, closes him out and gets another block/air ball miss.

              Sorry JOB, but give me a freaking break. The dude is going out of your system because SOMEONE HAS TO in order to stop the layups off horrible PnR.

              The only thing I saw Rush do poorly was play a few picks/screens the wrong way, but that won't last with more PT.


              And then Hibbert comes in late and looks just as good as he has for the last month or so.

              For me it's not about growth, its about the fact that the vets have plenty of issues too and at least some of the kids have the potential to really improve as they learn the game.


              Love to see Dun return healthy, but last night reminded me of his problems too. His man would run back on him on every miss. Gino and Mason both got easy scores doing this. So you get an empty trip AND you give up 2 easy. I know people love his offense and for good reason, but he and Rasho were monster problems on defense last night.

              The slow movement in PnR and the inability to close it out was also dreadful.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

                I didn't want to start a new thread, but did anyone notice Foster's mustache and how it's morphing him into Freddie Mercury?

                I guess M D Jr is trying to get them all to grow scumtaches, hilarious!!!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

                  Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                  I've seen Granger ice during the game multiple times.

                  Well, Graham has certainly come back to earth on defense.
                  Is that what we are calling it?


                  I used to really be a "play that dude" fan of his, but as time wore on I realize he was Flip Murray, except instead of handles/lane scoring his thing is jumpers/super leaping dunks. I mean Flip was a star on scoring at times, really almost unstoppable, but the rest of his game stunk. This is Graham. So the good catches your eye, but there is a reason he's not becoming a 40 mpg guy.

                  I like him in spots off the bench, I can see him punch things up at times, but compared to Rush being limited by inconsistancy, give me a break JOB. Rush is just learning, but he's pretty consistant in his approach and defensive awareness.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

                    Originally posted by Speed View Post
                    I didn't want to start a new thread, but did anyone notice Foster's mustache and how it's morphing him into Freddie Mercury?

                    I guess M D Jr is trying to get them all to grow scumtaches, hilarious!!!
                    I'm going to assume there is money involved. I'm guessing Foster and Dunleavy are quick outs. Their wives will interfere in the contest.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      There seems to be 2 common rationalizations for a loss:
                      1) we suck
                      2) the refs screwed us

                      #2 is almost always a copout, unless Larry Johnson was involved
                      #1 implies that all hope is lost and we will never beat anyone unless things get blown up.

                      I'm saying that sometimes the opponent deserves some credit for playing well, being better prepared, and having more talent. That's a viable 3rd option. Possibly they also caught us on a bad night. It happens. When we play like we have in some of our games against better opponents (Boston, LA) we have shown the ability to compete with anyone. We seem to lack the maturity to play that way with any consistency, though, especially on the road and with physical teams.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: POST GAME THREAD "PACERS ARE BAD"

                        When you lose a lot more than you win, you suck. And we lose a lot more than we win.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X