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/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

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

  • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

    It seems obvious to me that at some point you absolutely put DJones in to defend Rose. He'll get 4 fouls getting up on Rose and pushing him around the court. You'll have to risk DC or AJ being switched to a big SG like Korver, but since they mostly run him off screens anyway it's more about keeping up and denying him the ball than him stepping into you and shooting over you.

    Pippen just ruined Jax life when Phil pulled this trick. You have to bully the basketball when the entire team lives by what the PG can get started, like the 98-2000 Pacers or the current Bulls.


    And I'm not talking about hard fouls and putting him on the floor. I'm talking about handing that size and strength right back at him. He'll still go to quickness but without as much space it won't be as effective.

    And I think Vogel will do this without having to read here at PD to come up with the idea.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
      Josh has a knee injury. I think someone in the know has reported that recently. I actually think he looks better, athletically, than he looked about three weeks ago.
      Didn't hear that. Like I said, it's obvious. A buddy of mine only goes to a few games and he asked me if he was running funny at the Atlanta game.

      He's still able to do some things, but it's derailed a majority of his game. It's like all his stuff is based off of knowing he has the hops as a go-to weapon. I think it's impacting his shooting and passing because he appears to be thinking "well I can't do this other thing....", like he's ultra aware of the missing component to his game.


      Lord help us if Tyler wakes up dizzy tomorrow too. I'm sure we all thought that 2 seconds into that play. Anything but a shot to the head like that for Tyler.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        It seems obvious to me that at some point you absolutely put DJones in to defend Rose. He'll get 4 fouls getting up on Rose and pushing him around the court. You'll have to risk DC or AJ being switched to a big SG like Korver, but since they mostly run him off screens anyway it's more about keeping up and denying him the ball than him stepping into you and shooting over you.

        Pippen just ruined Jax life when Phil pulled this trick. You have to bully the basketball when the entire team lives by what the PG can get started, like the 98-2000 Pacers or the current Bulls.


        And I'm not talking about hard fouls and putting him on the floor. I'm talking about handing that size and strength right back at him. He'll still go to quickness but without as much space it won't be as effective.

        And I think Vogel will do this without having to read here at PD to come up with the idea.
        PG did an excellent job on Rose for some stretches, but I agree, I'd like to see DJones out there..however..I don't mind giving PG that job at the start of the game.

        He looked nervous to me. He was the only one that looked like he had a nerves problem. Well, him and Dun (surprisingly.)

        I think we learned some really good things about Hans, DC, Price, and Roy today. Particularly our PGs, who went up against the MVP today, and came out looking pretty good. DC was outstanding through stretches, and even though he went a little nutty at a few times, the fact that he played as well as he did is a win for the Pacers. I'll say it again, first playoff game ever..second year point guard..going up against the league MVP. I don't care about his mistakes, his poor defense ect..he was fantastic today. Price was good too, he hit some "big" (would have been big if we won) shots, and was in general his solid self that I expect from him..(which he wasn't for most of this year..he was so up and down) but DC turned on the jets and upped his game.

        I secretly thought those two were going to struggle more than anyone this game. And they really showed up. Lets hope they keep it up for the rest of the series.

        Also, I don't think Josh is a good matchup for the Bulls. They are the kind of guys he struggles against. (Strong, physical work horses) but I think he's a smart enough player to figure it out and adjust.
        Last edited by Sookie; 04-16-2011, 09:45 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

          Josh? He always plays well against the Bulls. He's had some of his best career games/impact games against Chicago.

          In Jim O'Brien's last game, the Bulls announcers were openly questioning Jim's decision to bench Josh for extended minutes in the 4th. Josh also was our only answer for Tyrus Thomas a couple years back.
          Last edited by imawhat; 04-16-2011, 09:46 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            Josh? He always plays well against the Bulls. He's had some of his best career games/impact games against Chicago.

            In Jim O'Brien's last game, the Bulls announcers were openly questioning Jim's decision to bench Josh for extended minutes in the 4th. Josh also was our only answer for Tyrus Thomas a couple years back.
            Really? Hmm..I must be remembering wrong. Just from looking at them, it seemed like a bad matchup for Josh, but maybe I'm wrong.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

              "Total FT attempts today with all 4 teams playing equally hard: 71 (Chicago/Miami) to 32 (Indy/Philly). That's embarrassing"

              -Bill Simmons Twitter

              At least someone in the national media takes note. If we get as many FT attempts as the Bulls did today we win the game. Violet Palmer and Joey Crawford won't be in attendance Monday night right?

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                Originally posted by JBones19 View Post
                "Total FT attempts today with all 4 teams playing equally hard: 71 (Chicago/Miami) to 32 (Indy/Philly). That's embarrassing"

                -Bill Simmons Twitter

                At least someone in the national media takes note. If we get as many FT attempts as the Bulls did today we win the game. Violet Palmer and Joey Crawford won't be in attendance Monday night right?
                It is embarrassing. You can argue the truth of it, but when that happens the public is still going to be turned off by it. No one really believes that Miami and Chicago just happen to foul so much less they get well over double the free throw attempts.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                  rotoworld has a pretty harsh assessment:

                  "Granger heat checks cost Pacers Game 1.

                  Danny Granger scored 24 points on 10-of-20 shooting (4-of-8 from downtown) with six rebounds, three assists, one steal, and one block as the Pacers lost control of the game late and lost to the Bulls in Game 1 on Saturday.

                  It was a typical Granger outing, as each made shot emboldened him to take the next one, but ultimately his one-man freelancing act killed his team down the stretch. Because his teammates have no faith that he will do the right thing with the ball, any semblance of offensive framework goes out the window once Granger starts pounding the rock."

                  http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/n...-pacers-game-1
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    It is embarrassing. You can argue the truth of it, but when that happens the public is still going to be turned off by it. No one really believes that Miami and Chicago just happen to foul so much less they get well over double the free throw attempts.
                    forget the refs. the embarrassment is blowing a game in which you led 47minutes and by 10 with less than 4 minutes left. THAT'S embarrassment...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      rotoworld has a pretty harsh assessment:

                      "Granger heat checks cost Pacers Game 1.

                      Danny Granger scored 24 points on 10-of-20 shooting (4-of-8 from downtown) with six rebounds, three assists, one steal, and one block as the Pacers lost control of the game late and lost to the Bulls in Game 1 on Saturday.

                      It was a typical Granger outing, as each made shot emboldened him to take the next one, but ultimately his one-man freelancing act killed his team down the stretch. Because his teammates have no faith that he will do the right thing with the ball, any semblance of offensive framework goes out the window once Granger starts pounding the rock."

                      http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/n...-pacers-game-1


                      Croz..is that you?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                        I think Rose earned every free throw he took. Thing is, we earned a lot more attempts than we received. I'd say about six or seven.

                        Whoever wrote that for Rotoworld might be the ex girlfriend Danny was referencing.
                        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                          I'll be brief here.

                          Haven't felt this excitement in years, like many of you. I couldn't even sleep well last night.

                          Great, great effort by a young team. While I deemed the Pacers able to get one or two in this series, I thoroughly expected them to be blown out in their debut game. As it was, this never happened; it was like seeing them grow up before my own eyes.

                          Some of you guys are too harsh on Danny. He definitely came to play today. The only questionable shot of the second half was the "heat check" many of you are referencing.

                          One of the best things about the playoffs is the individual identity and feel of each game. I can't wait to see which adjustments are made next and who steps up.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                            Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post


                            Croz..is that you?
                            no, but it seems that only pacers fans would disagree with those statements. there's a reason we fold 95% of the time in late-game situations. how pacers fans can argue this i have no idea. i mean, someone on here honestly believes a granger strength is his off ball movement. seriously? granger is not a bad player. he just has no business being our designated leader taking shots late in the game.

                            i'm extremely pissed we blew a game we should have won. why are many of you content with this loss??? we led 47 freaking minutes and were up 10 with less than 4 remaining before we did our usual choke-job. oh i'm so happy we played them tight. bull ****. you HAVE to win these games! oh but our players are getting so much experience. how? by choking away 95% of our close games versus decent teams? it is never ok to blow games like this. and the reason we consistently do is because we have no leader. that's just the truth.
                            Last edited by croz24; 04-16-2011, 11:11 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                              Anyone who doesnt see the Pacers performance today as a good thing is just plain silly. A lot of people were predicting a deer in the headlights game but in stead they took it to the Bulls.

                              If Rose has to play Hero Ball then the Bulls are screwed. We are a team on the Rise, Just like OKC vs the Lakers last year and the Bulls vs the Celtics two years ago. And we've got cap space coming.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers/Bulls playoffs postgame thread

                                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                                no, but it seems that only pacers fans would disagree with those statements. there's a reason we fold 95% of the time in late-game situations. how pacers fans can argue this i have no idea. i mean, someone on here honestly believes a granger strength is his off ball movement. seriously? granger is not a bad player. he just has no business being our designated leader taking shots late in the game.
                                The Danny Iso doesn't work. That's pretty obvious. Nor does the DC Iso, or the AJ Iso, or the TJ Iso..the Paul George Iso has probably had the best success..but..just...bad idea right now.

                                We need some set, go to plays..probably in the post (give it to Roy or Hans)..and team play to get a quality shot. Like what we did the entire game.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X