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

12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 51
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 33 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 51 template Next
  • #631
    Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

    Sorry this is going to be lengthy, but I'd rather just get everything off my chest in one post/rant.

    I decided to sleep on this one before posting again. Thought maybe it would give me a chance to look at things from a different perspective. Instead, I woke up this morning and am even more pissed off about the way things finished up last night.

    So apparently Jim told the players on the plane after the game that they were going to protest the game because the refs never went to the monitor to review the last offensive possession on Roy's "airball," and the clock should have been 0.0 sending the game to overtime.

    Now, I actually agree with this. The ball did graze the rim and probably should have run out the clock, but it was a home game for the Bucks, and a home clock operator. Of course he is going to have a quick finger on that play, but that isn't the point.

    If O'Brien was aware of this, why wasn't he going ballistic on the sidelines demanding that they check the replay before the final play was even run? If he had requested it, there is almost no way that the referees would not have gotten together to review the tape. At that point in time, every tenth of a second is far too valuable.

    My guess is that he didn't become aware that the ball caught a piece of the rim until after the game was over, and he's just searching for something or someone else to blame for his huge mistake at the end that cost his team another vital game. How about some self accountability, coach?

    There is no way for anyone (try as you might, not even you Unclebuck) to defend what O'Brien did at the end of the game. His biggest mistake did not even come with 0.5 left on the clock. It came with 2:33 left when he needlessly substituted for James Posey in for Josh McRoberts. Josh was having a very good 2nd half, it seemed like he had a direct hand in about half our baskets. If he doesn't make the mistake of inserting Posey, his even more boneheaded move putting Foster in, never is even under consideration. You let McRoberts finish the game. He earned it.

    I don't even think Posey played bad last night, but it makes zero sense to remove your leading rebounder and assist man for the part of a game that every single possession can win it or lose it.

    As Naptown_Seth mentioned earlier in this thread, this is not a case where hindsight is 20/20. I was watching the game with my dad and my brother, as soon as Josh got taken out, I looked at them and said, "What is he doing? Josh was playing good and again he's taking him out. This is like Oklahoma City all over again. If he doesn't put him back in before this game is over, he doesn't want to win that badly."

    Sure enough, he stayed on the bench for the duration. We also took bets on if Josh would have touched the floor during overtime. There is no doubt in my mind it would have been an exact replica of OKC in which Posey would have played the whole five minute period. When the final play came around and we saw who was on the court every one of us said something like, "Foster? FOSTER!?!? This isn't good." Nope, it wasn't good. It cost us the game.

    If we lose games because our players make dumb mistakes in the heat of the moment, or have poor shooting nights, I can handle it. I am not above giving them their share of the heat when that is the case. But when a coach makes a glaring mistake in a crucial time, it really irks me. Like I said in another thread yesterday, O'Brien is not God. He is not completely infallible. The man makes mistakes. I've never coached at that level, but I have coached enough games to know you simply do not do what he did at the end. It isn't even debatable. If you make that mistake, you own it. You apologize to your players (the first person he should have been apologizing to was Jeff Foster) for not giving them the best chance to win the game. You say to the media, "This one's on me. I'm going to get back to it and work as hard as I possibly can to make sure it never happens again."

    O'Brien never takes that kind of responsibility. He always wants to blame someone else. He's blaming the officials for last night's loss. He needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

    Comment

    • #632
      Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

      i haven't watched the game yet but it's not needed to say this.

      i want this team to succeed so badly but if losing means no more JOB after this year i'm totally cool with it.

      Comment

      • #633
        Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

        I hear a lot of complaining about defending the pass and JOB's coaching, but you can point to several things that attributed to the loss. For me, I thought it was significant that Hibbert shot an airball - if that shot hits rim, the clock runs out and we are in overtime.

        Plenty of blame to go around. Tough loss, but that's how teams like the Pacers get better. This will make them stronger. Expect a strong home stand in the coming weeks.
        Last edited by nerveghost; 12-09-2010, 07:29 AM. Reason: typo

        Comment

        • #634
          Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

          Roy needs to snap out of his recent slump.

          He hasn't looked aggressive like he did earlier in the season. He's been playing like he did last season and he worked hard in the offseason and he's definitly shown a great deal of improvement.

          He's blocking less shots and is barely pulling down rebounds like he used to. When was the last time we saw him get a double-double?

          He'll come around again. Hopefully soon though.

          Comment

          • #635
            Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            I didn't see the game....was Hansbrough playing in the 1st half defending him?
            Nope spent the game picking splinters out of his ***. Even while they were getting pwoned on the boards in the first half.

            Why isn't Tyler playing? According to Jim, he's still a rookie. According to Jim it takes 3 years to grasp the nuances of his system. Tyler seems lost when they are running sets because he doesn't fully grasp the system yet. However, when there is chaos, he seems to excell grabing rebounds, diving on the floor, getting garbage buckets, making people hate the fact that he guards them...Therefore, with JOB at the helm, you can expect to see Tyler playing regular minutes in 2012. That's the way it's going to be. Unless they can find another corpse on the scrap heap (Not dissing Posey, just using hyperbole to make a point) that can "stretch the floor". In which case, he will still be on the bench.

            So much frustration. So much anger and disgust...This team could go somewhere if there was somebody at the helm that could utilize THIS group of players...It's there. Waiting to get unleashed. Waiting for somebody to put all the square pegs into the square holes and the round pegs into the round ones...Somebody that doesn't have such a rigid mind set that it over rides all logic and common sense sometimes. Look, when this offense and defense is clicking, it is an awesome thing. But when it doesn't...You might as well shut off the lights and go to bed because he ain't getting it back on track and the more disrupted it gets, the worse his substitutions and adaptablility get. Games like last night, I feel illustrate the level of tallent we DO have, and the ability to succeed in spite of some weaknesses in the head coach.

            Venting over...
            Last edited by DaveP63; 12-09-2010, 08:40 AM. Reason: Spleen Venting...
            http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
            "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

            Comment

            • #636
              Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

              What a horrible loss. That was a heartbreaker.

              As much as I love Foster, its inexcusbale for a vetern like Foster not to make a play on the ball with 0.5 seconds left on the clock. It Foster simply swatted the ball out of bounds, as he should have, we would be in OT.

              I really believe that if we had McRoberts or Hansbrough in, their defensive intensity would have lead to them making a play on the ball....or at least jump and make the shot difficult for Bogut.
              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


              Comment

              • #637
                Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                Who cares about rebounds when you can shoot threes instead?
                Threes > rebounds
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment

                • #638
                  Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  I'm beyond sick of Jim O'Brien, and beyond sick of complaining about him. If you can't see the cycle of failure at this point, it's because you simply don't want to see it.
                  I see real signs that the "cycle of failure" is coming to an end.

                  Comment

                  • #639
                    Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                    Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
                    That's an easily defended play if someone were between bogut and the pass.
                    maybe I'm not sure exactly what you mean -but there were at least two defenders between Bogut and the passer. Roy and Jeff

                    In regards to whether it is a home clock operator: question - I know in the playoffs they use a neutral operator and I thought that do that for the regular season also. I thought they chacnged that 5 or 6 years ago. Anyone know?

                    I don't understand: they did check the replay before the very last play - that was why they changed the time from .3 to .5. And I don't think it makes a difference whether it hits the rim or not. No one claimed it was a shot clock violation
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-09-2010, 08:35 AM.

                    Comment

                    • #640
                      Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                      I really didn't enjoy this game and I don't mean just the last play.

                      The whole game I felt a little disgusted, shaking my head at play after play on both ends.

                      Strange, I can't put my finger on it, maybe it was the offensive rebounds that were demoralizing, not sure.

                      I really never at any point thought they would win this game and I'm not sure why because it was never out of reach.

                      Strange game for me.

                      Btw, paging Roy Hibbert, paging Roy Hibbert, please pick up the phone labelled December.

                      Comment

                      • #641
                        Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I see real signs that the "cycle of failure" is coming to an end.
                        In spite of, not because of the coach.

                        Comment

                        • #642
                          Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                          Here's my problem with Roy right now, he's very good at showing emotion when things are going well, but when things are struggling and we need someone to light a fire, he is timid.


                          Comment

                          • #643
                            Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            maybe I'm not sure exactly what you mean -but there were at least two defenders between Bogut and the passer. Roy and Jeff

                            In regards to whether it is a home clock operator: question - I know in the playoffs they use a neutral operator and I thought that do that for the regular season also. I thought they chacnged that 5 or 6 years ago. Anyone know?

                            I don't understand: they did check the replay before the very last play - that was why they changed the time from .3 to .5. And I don't think it makes a difference whether it hits the rim or not. No one claimed it was a shot clock violation
                            I know for all regular season home games, the Pacers use the same clock operator who has been employed by them for many, many years. I assume it is a similar situation in every building.

                            Ask Jim. He's the one that wants to protest because they didn't review it. I was under the impression that the officials simply got together and discussed it, they did not review the replay. I made the comment before the last play that it was amazing that the referees were able to discern a .2 second time differential that was missed without checking a replay.

                            I don't think he would be so upset as to protest the game if they had.

                            Comment

                            • #644
                              Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              Here's my problem with Roy right now, he's very good at showing emotion when things are going well, but when things are struggling and we need someone to light a fire, he is timid.
                              I disagree.

                              Roy is getting more and more aggressive. He is dunking 400 percent more than he used to. He blocks shots extremely well (unless he's in foul trouble).

                              He layed up a huge, embarrassing brick last night. As best as I can remember, it's the first time he's taken a shot at the final second of the game. Let's give him a mulligan and see what happens next time.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment

                              • #645
                                Re: 12/08/2010 Game Thread #20: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                I disagree.

                                Roy is getting more and more aggressive. He is dunking 400 percent more than he used to. He blocks shots extremely well (unless he's in foul trouble).

                                He layed up a huge, embarrassing brick last night. As best as I can remember, it's the first time he's taken a shot at the final second of the game. Let's give him a mulligan and see what happens next time.
                                I feel like we're talking about two completely different things...


                                Comment

                                Previous 1 33 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 51 template Next
                                Working...
                                X