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: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

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

  • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

    Yeah.. In the game thread I kind of went bananas when they called an offensive foul on that play.

    Comment


    • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

      Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
      Did you see the game? Lamarcus is kind of a soft player, and he looked pretty scared..
      Yes, I saw the game. Lamarcus doesn't have an inbred 'nasty streak' when on the court (& he didn't have one at Texas). At 6' 11" & 240lbs, he relies on his crazy athleticism (long/lean & quick) & outstanding shooting and Post skills to beat most opposing PF's. When PF Hans (6'9" 250lbs) matched up against him, Lamarcus felt his height/size advantage would intimidate the shorter (but slightly heavier) Hans in the Post but Hans didn't blink and seemed to LOVE the competitive matchup with Aldridge (plus he knew 7'2" Hibbert had his back in case Lamarcus beat him with an insane Post move). The LOOK you saw was more of embarrassed on getting outplayed and outsmarted by the Pacer team to foul him OUT.....heh, heh, heh.

      Comment


      • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

        fwiw, i thought aldridge just wasn't into the game last night. which is a good thing for the B&G. some games are like that. he spent a lot of time reaching instead of moving. and only tried to post the pacer PF a handful of times.

        segue, all of you who want nate mcmillian as the greatest coach ever, need to rethink your position. i thought nate did a horrible horrible job of attacking the pacer defense. portland did nothing to attack the pacer defense int he post. nothing to attack collison with andre miller in the post. almost no drives into the paint. just lots of jump shots. pretty sad coaching effort. the zone defense was nice, but that's about it.

        Comment


        • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

          Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
          fwiw, i thought aldridge just wasn't into the game last night. which is a good thing for the B&G. some games are like that. he spent a lot of time reaching instead of moving. and only tried to post the pacer PF a handful of times.

          segue, all of you who want nate mcmillian as the greatest coach ever, need to rethink your position. i thought nate did a horrible horrible job of attacking the pacer defense. portland did nothing to attack the pacer defense int he post. nothing to attack collison with andre miller in the post. almost no drives into the paint. just lots of jump shots. pretty sad coaching effort. the zone defense was nice, but that's about it.
          This may explain Lamarus Aldridge sour-puss face all night and lackluster performance:

          http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/in...87_pacers.html

          Quote: "But the real anger came when a disqualified Aldridge came to the bench. Veteran Marcus Camby, in street clothes as he rehabilitates his left knee, broke some news to Aldridge: NBA commissioner David Stern had picked Minnesota's Kevin Love as the All-Star replacement for injured Houston center Yao Ming. For the rest of the game, Aldridge sat tight-lipped with his arms crossed at his waist. "

          Comment


          • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

            I don't see the relevance. You'd think LA would want to eviscerate his next competition after the all-star snub.

            Comment


            • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              And here I actually thought that most of you didn't care if the Pacers won or lost as long as they play the young guys
              I was one of those guys and I could not be happier as a fan. I love it and I am having fun watching it all. The wins are icing on the cake but I expect losses on the way starting Tuesday night. I will not be letting it get me down. What a difference this coaching change has made. Far better than even I dreamed of.

              Comment


              • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                Originally posted by maragin View Post

                It wouldn't surprise me that part of getting the rest of his contract money is staying quiet.

                I doubt that there was a clause in his contract that stated he couldn't talk, and my guess is his contract guaranteed him his money if fired. It just behooves Jimmy not to say anything negative as he's now trying to find employment.

                Comment


                • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                  Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                  I strongly agree with everything besides the bolded comment.. I think Hansbrough dominated the game last night with his energy, defense, and intimidation (Lamarcus was scared, and Dre tried taking a cheap shot at him). It was unbelievable.

                  How someone can go 1-8 and dominate is beyond me.
                  Dominated might be a little strong, though his impact on the game was certainly large. I don't know about Aldridge being scared, but he and Miller were both frustrated by Hans. I love having the guy that gets under people's skin on our team.

                  Also, whether it was a call made by Vogel or if Tyler did it on his own, when Hans went right at Aldridge and got him to foul out, it was a very heads up, aggressive play. And Tyler's reaction was great. He missed the shot, but he was so jacked up because he knew LA going out was a BIG deal. That's smart basketball, something we were never accused of under O'Brien.

                  It's been mentioned, but the focus on getting to the foul line (from the whole team) has to be the best part of the coaching change. Winning teams get to the line and convert. It's the best way to control a game because even when your jumpers aren't falling, free throws probably will, and you get to jack up the opponent's rotations by getting them in foul trouble.

                  That's how the Pacers almost (should've) beat the Magic earlier this year. Roy went at Howard and got him in foul trouble. Of course, in the second half, Howard went nuts anyways, but the ground work was laid.

                  If anyone dominated, though, it was Danny. 25/9 from him, with solid defense and few turnovers is a good game. He took good shots and got free throws. It was a good game for Danny.
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                    Originally posted by TooBigNdaPaint View Post
                    This may explain Lamarus Aldridge sour-puss face all night and lackluster performance:

                    http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/in...87_pacers.html

                    Quote: "But the real anger came when a disqualified Aldridge came to the bench. Veteran Marcus Camby, in street clothes as he rehabilitates his left knee, broke some news to Aldridge: NBA commissioner David Stern had picked Minnesota's Kevin Love as the All-Star replacement for injured Houston center Yao Ming. For the rest of the game, Aldridge sat tight-lipped with his arms crossed at his waist. "
                    Got some news for LaMarcus. He's not in Kevin Love's zip code.

                    Also, while he is a good player, LaMarcus is soft. McMillan knows that and that's why Priz came in to guard Hans.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                      I don't see the relevance. You'd think LA would want to eviscerate his next competition after the all-star snub.
                      Well, you might have thought that heading into last night's game, too.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                        Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                        That was also the game PG24 had 7 points in 7 minutes in the first half and didn't play in the 2nd half.
                        Typical JOB nonsense.
                        What's funny about that is at halftime I joked "sounds like DNP-CD material to me" and spazz tried to criticize it as obie hate and then obie went on to prove me right by not playing him all second half.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                          Originally posted by TooBigNdaPaint View Post
                          Validates what most Pacer fans have ALL believed about JOB. Too damn arrogant and bull-headed to match HIS system to the TALENT level around him. Thank GOD that someone (i.e. GOD, common sense, or Mr. Simon) finally persuaded LB to make the switch on JOB. Now, Frank Vogel is establishing schemes, player rotations, and makes in-game substitutions that actually make "sense" to even the casual fan in Pacerland. Even better, Frank is a 'motivating' individual and 'builds' the confidence of his players instead of 'breaking' them down with stupid comments. Also refreshing is to SEE Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough, Josh McRoberts, and D. Jones getting some serious BURN TIME. Funny what happens when you give MORE minutes to your most athletic players and tell them it OK to make mistakes as long as they make them playing hard. It was inspiring to SEE our young guys challenging SHOTS on each possession. I'd LIKE to see MORE challenging of shots and rebounding help from Paul George (especially). When he ASSERTS himself on offense or defense, good things usually happens and that will translate into more BURN time from Coach Vogel. I'm not sure he gets it yet since he still 'floats' around on the court instead of playing with more pace or intensity. But, I'd still rather see more of PG for a few games (to develop him further) than Dunleavy.
                          That was an EXCELLENT post, it REALLY was.

                          I kid, but the content was good.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                            In the post game locker room interview, Paul George said the P's have "two great offensive rebounders." Who's he talking about besides Foster?

                            Roy? Tyler?
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              In the post game locker room interview, Paul George said the P's have "two great offensive rebounders." Who's he talking about besides Foster?

                              Roy? Tyler?
                              Tyler

                              Comment


                              • Re: Post game: Big win in Conseco (Vogel 3-0)

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I cannot keep track of who said what. But there were dozens maybe hundreds of posts that suggested they weren't criticizing Jim O'Brien because of the record but because he didn't play and failed to develope the young guys. I could find examples if you don't remember
                                I'm in that boat... most of those examples are of me saying that exact same thing.

                                Of course it's more fun to win than to lose. But if Obie had been playing this style of basketball with this rotation, I'd have bought League Pass earlier in the season.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X