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

Pacers/Knicks Postgame

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

  • #46
    Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This has more to do with what the Pacers very best lineup is (by some distance)...as Anthem has so accurately pointed out.

    The phrase "you are only as strong as your weakest link" comes to mind. With that said, you are hard pressed to find the weakest link with Anthem's lineup. With TJ (or Murph), the weakest link is obvious....unless your priority is not defense.
    My priority is always defense, but in this game the offense was the bigger reason why the Pacers lost this game

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Each of those three coaches to it 100X more and much, much more direct and critical than anything O'Brien even approaches
      In theory this is fine. Coaches can yell at players as much as they want behind close doors.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        so that lineup would have won the game? simple as that?
        Of course not. I don't know that at all. I don't believe I even came close to saying that. What I do know, as I have said several times now, is that it's been our best unit so far this season, so when we were clearly struggling I would have liked to see us go back to what has worked!

        Just like in the game in NJ, we went to Hibbert for awhile and he delivered, then we went away from him for a little while and we struggled. NJ creeped back in. I thought it might be a good idea to feed the ball a little more to the big guy at that point, because it was a strategy that had proven successful. The team started doing that, and lo and behold, it was good.

        I just want sensible adjustments to be made. It was clear the double point guard combo wasn't working out a couple of minutes into it. Do I know for sure that going with BRush and Earl would have resulted in a win? No. Do I feel pretty certain it would have given us a better chance to win? Yes.
        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

        "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

        "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

          Is it a coincidence that TJ Ford's "backup" is almost always a better option for us than TJ?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

            Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
            In theory this is fine. Coaches can yell at players as much as they want behind close doors.
            No, my point is those three coaches do it in the media

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

              Well, the horse has been thoroughly beat on this. What about T-Hans? Anyone think he is getting into game shape? I think he's already made some nice adjustments and the best is yet to come.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                so that lineup would have won the game? simple as that?
                Yep.

                I mean, it's impossible to say. But it couldn't possibly have been worse. And if it was any better it wouldn't have been an issue.

                Have we ever seen tonight's 4Q lineup? Has it ever been successful?
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Yep.
                  I don't think so

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                    Some of this is on Granger.

                    First, Harrington was his man when he lit it up for three several times and evened up the score. That was the turning point in the game.

                    Secondly, that was a stupid foul on his part that made him leave the game. He was complaining about it, but it was clearly a foul with the body and he should have been smart enough to avoid contact.

                    Too bad, because Danny had just hit a big shot and we needed him for those last two or three minutes.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                      I would trade TJ Ford for Tinsley in a HEARTBEAT. I am not looking for a scapegoat, but TJ is my least favorite Pacer of all time besides Jermaine O'neal.

                      Did anyone else see TJ Ford wide open in the corner and getting VISIBLY frustrated when Dahntay didn't pass him the ball....doesn't seem like a great teammate to me. I have also noticed Dahntay and Granger are giving each other high fives and such after makes...not seeing much of that from Ford.

                      This guy is not a winner, not a team player, and not a point guard...get rid of him. If I was coaching this team Watson plays 32 minutes a night at PG with Diener/Price getting the rest (when Diener is health.)

                      Brandon needs to play...regardless of his shooting. Hibbert needs to be well rested in the 4th quarter. I know right now we don't have a TON of depth at the C spot...but when Foster is back I would rest Hibbert most of the 3rd quarter. We need his ability to get buckets down the stretch and he was just too winded tonight.

                      This is the kind of loss that can really demoralize this team, especially when we lose to Cleveland on Friday. This was probably the most important game of the season so far, and we blew it. Maybe this loss is nothing more than a result of Jim O'brien over practicing our players, and on a back to back they had no legs.

                      It will be interesting to see if the Pacers EVER win the 2nd game of a back to back this year.

                      On a positive note Hansbrough looked better tonight and D Jones is our second best player by a mile. D Jones is also clearly the leader of this team...Granger just doesn't have the personality. D Jones and Hibbert seem to be the two guys who care about winning more than anybody else.


                      P.S. Does anyone remember maybe three seasons ago listening to the post game radio and a caller called in and claimed to be Jeff Fosters son?
                      *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                        What I want to know is, Why does Hibbert only have 8 FGA when he is matched up against David Lee? A clear advantage. Is it because we are determined to launch jumpshots even when they are not falling? I don't like this offense.
                        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                        - ilive4sports

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                          ...it could be that Granger would not have racked up so many fouls if better perimeter defenders had been in the game. It's all speculation, but all of this is related.

                          The key to this whole conversation and the Pacer's recent run is that, a set of good defenders are greater than a sum of their parts. Choosing to put a poor defender on the court is just about the worst thing you can do, unless the guy is all-world on offense.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                            Originally posted by gummy View Post
                            It's not so much that I have a problem with TJ on the court in general. I recognize he hit several big shots in other games. He played really well for a couple of games in a row. His defense is improved overall.

                            But tonight he was not having a good game at all and Rush is a better defender. I would have liked to see Rush and Watson on the floor because Hibbert/Granger/DJones/Rush/Watson has been our best overall combo on the floor this season. When we've played our best, those guys, together, have usually been making it happen.
                            Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                            What I want to know is, Why does Hibbert only have 8 FGA when he is matched up against David Lee? A clear advantage. Is it because we are determined to launch jumpshots even when they are not falling? I don't like this offense.
                            They were doubling Hibbert a lot and it was risky even to get the ball into him. JOb said basically the same thing in the post.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              My priority is always defense, but in this game the offense was the bigger reason why the Pacers lost this game
                              I know people don't read my posts because I'm so angry all the time, but I've been saying this since the New Jersey game.

                              In the first six minutes of the 3rd quarter, we scored 2 points. In the last three minutes of that quarter, we scored 3 points. In the fourth, there were strings of four and five possessions without scoring.

                              Rush, Watson and Ford were a combined 2-21. Luther Head missed three of his four shots in 12 minutes.

                              We shot below 70% from the line, missing 12.

                              20 turnovers in the game, BUT 14 in the last two quarters (6 in the third and 8 in the fourth, some leading to fast break points by the offensively-impaired Knicks).

                              We failed to put the game out of reach, and whereas in New Jersey we did just enough, the Knicks had enough firepower to overcome it. Not to toot my own horn, because I could give two ****s really, but I predicted this very result last night. I just wish the Pacers didn't have to make it hurt so much.
                              Last edited by LG33; 11-18-2009, 11:18 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Pacers/Knicks Postgame

                                Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                                What I want to know is, Why does Hibbert only have 8 FGA when he is matched up against David Lee? A clear advantage. Is it because we are determined to launch jumpshots even when they are not falling? I don't like this offense.
                                Knicks started fronting the post and double teaming him

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X