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 vs hawks postgame thread

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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

    As bad as the team has been these past few weeks (wow we were 5-2 at one point!!) we are not nearly as bad as most people make us out to be. In spite of the fact we are without our best player, we have lead and played well against many of the good teams in the league. Obviously JOB needs to be fired, that is a must. If you look at the standings, we are a good two week stretch from being in playoff contention. (both a gift and a curse) Obviously we need to either make a trade for some players that fit this team better.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
      I am all for religious freedom, but your sig line really bothers me

      To compare Tyler to Jesus is very upsetting

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed, and was offended by it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed, and was offended by it.
        Me too.
        "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

        Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
          But, he was also our only player that imposed his will on what happened on the court and played with enough force to change the course of the game, and he deserves lots of credit for that.
          please stop using the term "force" it makes me gag

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

            We barely have a chance to win without Granger.

            We have a slight chance to win without Granger because we have Dunleavy.

            When Dunleavy is playing bad, we have no chance.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

              Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
              From IndyCornrows:
              Loved Mike Wells' lead today in his game recap and story. Read it for yourself here at the IndyStar. Players are not listening to their coaches. It is so blatantly obvious that it's now the leading go-to excuse after each game. Here's coach Jim O'Brien after the game explaining his players' inability to understand the complexity of the Hawks "switching" on defense: "We prepared for that for two days and it never registered with our players. We spent Christmas Eve and (Saturday) morning talking about switching. We went over it in pregame, we talked about it in timeouts and then we go out and act like they weren't switching; so I don't have an answer for that." How many more times does JoB need to say that he doesn't understand this team before something happens to shake things up?

              http://www.indycornrows.com/2009/12/27/1220732/ic-cold-links-dunleavy-struggling#storyjump

              Whether you believe Jim O'Brien to be a good coach or not, is there anyone who still feels like JOB and his staff can right the ship? Right or wrong, it seems the players have quit on him (compare the quotes from O'Brien and Dunleavy in the linked IndyStar article) - and we certainly can't trade the team away (though I'm sure we've tried).
              I don't like JOS's comments at all.

              In my opinion, if you spend that much time on a concept and the players don't get it, it's the coach's fault.

              A classroom teacher might say "quiet down!" 25 times in an hour. If the kids don't quiet down, whose fault is it?
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                I don't think he is overreacting at all. Dun was 2-17 against Milwaukee this Monday. What are you going to say about that? Charlie Bell was a lock down defender too? Dunleavy has looked horrendus for a week now.

                And enough with the excuses for Murphy's terrible plus minus. The major reason it is so bad is because he can't play anything resembling defense when he is on the court.

                No doubt Hibbert should be in the same category as Murphy though. He shows signs offensively, but will ultimately stop no one. Easy with Dahntay though, he is making less than 3 million per year for 4 years. He has given us pretty good bang for the buck considering he was signed to be a complimentary player.


                This opening statement is not going to lead to anything worthwhile. It is incendiary at best and needs not to be here.

                Yes, Dun has struggled. Yes, ATL punked him. Yes, he looks tired leading to bad play. Do not mock me with the Bell comment.

                ***not necessary***

                Murphy is not the problem with this team. I haven't posted here in a while because everytime I do come here all I here is irrational pissing and moaning about TJ and Murphy. Us fans always say stupid **** when our team struggles. I'm not ever going to be that guy. Sure, we could have better, but lets be real Hibbert is the worst player on this team. I'm waiting for either him, someone else or you to convince me otherwise. Dude is slow, weak, struggles to get off his painfully unorthodox shots, foul prone, gets beat by all NBA centers(*in fact they look like All-Stars when their done with him), has very little understanding of the game, and is clumsy. So, were in envy of Murphy's inflated salary. Doesn't make him our problem. I will denounce this team if we ever re-sign him or Hibbert for more money. Again, Hibbert, Rush, D.J. and Watson are the real bums and don't derserve much play. Especially, Rush and Hibbert.
                Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 12-27-2009, 01:43 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Yes Kemo. I'm not sure if D-Bone posted to back your assertions up, but it's true.

                  Today Hans and Head are the heroes. They may be goats tonight. However, the players reading this realize that fans are emotional and half of them are fickle.

                  As for me, I am not fickle. I rip on Troy and TJ even when he they play well...;<)
                  What a smart, rational guy

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    I thought Murphy actually did a decent job of defending Horford, I also thought it was good to see him get more points going to the basket than usual.

                    Finally, if Hibbert doesn't start figuring out what he's going to do with the ball within a second or two after getting it he'll never be able to be effective.
                    Yes and yes, but Murphy put up exactly what he's been averaging for 10 games.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                      Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
                      Us fans always say stupid **** when our team struggles. I'm not ever going to be that guy.
                      Very next sentence...

                      Sure, we could have better, but lets be real Hibbert is the worst player on this team.


                      No, Hibbert is not the worst player on this team, and it's not even close. And this is coming from someone who was hoping we did not draft him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                        Hansbrough was overall better than he was bad. He made many mistakes, and was easily defended a lot of the time. 6 out of 20 of his shots were blocked
                        Really? Wow, I didn't realize it was that much.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                          Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post

                          Whether you believe Jim O'Brien to be a good coach or not, is there anyone who still feels like JOB and his staff can right the ship? Right or wrong, it seems the players have quit on him (compare the quotes from O'Brien and Dunleavy in the linked IndyStar article) - and we certainly can't trade the team away (though I'm sure we've tried).
                          Yes, this is it for me. Putting aside the question of good coach, bad coach, something in between (of course!) - if the team as a whole has tuned him out that's a really, really bad sign and it tells me that a lot about the coach too. If one, two, three guys tuning out the coach, we'll call them locker room cancers and call for their heads. When a coach has lost most of a team you have to strongly suspect the coach has played a big role in his own demise.

                          I'm glad it was Dunleavy that responded in the following way:

                          "It's a different story talking about it and playing against it. It's easy to talk about it and show it on film, but when you get out there and play against it, it's a little bit tough."

                          Because I suspect it'll be more respected around the board because he is a guy who is perceived as having a high basketball IQ, good work ethic, a good enough guy and all that. I don't know if we'll be any better with a coaching change this season and there is the $$ factor here but I am close to a point where I think it might be better for team chemistry/morale if JOB exits at the All-Star break. And since Bird gave the man this extension when it now appears that the reports of players being upset by it may have been true (which says to me that this losing the team thing has been brewing for awhile and Bird should have seen it), I'll be happy to have him step in and handle this mess for the rest of the season, for no additional salary.
                          "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


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed, and was offended by it.
                            Since we all seem to be chiming in I suppose it may be important to add that I noticed it and was not offended at all.
                            "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


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Really? Wow, I didn't realize it was that much.
                              In reality it wasnt.. At least 3 of them were " blocked " before he even got the ball into shooting position.

                              I touched on that on the game thread.. On those occasions whoever was guarding him ( Smith I guess ) was able to reach around and get a hand on the ball as he was bringing it up. Had the ball low and was exposing it to the defender.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers vs hawks postgame thread

                                Originally posted by gummy View Post
                                Since we all seem to be chiming in I suppose it may be important to add that I noticed it and was not offended at all.
                                Me either. Who really cares. He could start the Hans-cult for all I care.

                                In other news, I'm happy that Tyler has been a productive asset for us, I really am. With the way Hibbert and Rush have been playing, it appears in the future that they'll be sitting on our bench (if they're lucky) while Tyler is in the starting lineup, which is tough since I had high expectations for Roy and Rush. Roy still has his nights and could develop into a starter player, but I'm convinced Rush is a 7th man at best. Tough.

                                What I really, really wish we had was a top-flight point guard to run this team. A great PG makes everyone so much better. We need to get a point guard and really good interior player from the combination of our pick and our expiring contract in the next couple of years.

                                I am beginning to wonder what the margin of error for this franchise is. With cities like St. Louis, Kansas City, and Seattle out there, is it realistic that the Pacers will move if they don't improve in the relative near future?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X