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

Nets/Pacers postgame thread

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

  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

    I would really like to see Lance back his player down in the post and either score or pass to the open shot. He just seems a little casual with the ball and not sure of what he is going to do.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Yes, and this isn't even close at this point.

      To me Price vs Lance is the classic case of how prospects surprise people. Lances "looks" like something while Price just does the work.

      The main thing that's hurt Price his how many 3s he took the last 2 years. If he would do more of what we saw last night, just run a clean PnR, run a smooth hesitation attack and dump, and take the 3s when they naturally rotate back to him I think the debate would be settled.

      That's all you need out of a backup PG, let alone 3rd string PG.


      Lance is getting minutes because Larry wants to prove to the world that this kid that looks like he's really tearing it up actually is tearing it up. And that would prove how smart Larry was for getting him. But ironically Larry would look pretty damn smart if Price was contributing too considering his draft position.

      I really don't see where Lance fits in the long term equation here. He's not close to matching DC or Hill, and for the minutes Price should be fine in that role. I assume they are hoping that Lance will become better than Hill or DC, but that seems like a massive reach to me.

      It's just going to be another Cabbages where in the end the guy you already had (AJohnson) ends up helping you more and you could have just skipped the entire experiment.

      And remember how awesome and talented and flashy and what a steal Saras was? You couldn't dare question his talent the first few months. We had to grind through months and months of lost backcourt dribbles and terrible defense.

      When I put up the video of him getting lost we had people ripping on it as cherry picking to make him look bad. Except in the end the point was valid, he wasn't working and he didn't make it. It wasn't hater talk, it was reality.


      I'm not against Lance as the idea. I just haven't seen one single thing to buy into. I honestly don't get what you guys think you see in his game. It's very college level sloppy with the "every pass will involve me looking away to make it a no look highlight pass" touch.

      His long, high dribbles just beg to be pilfered or knocked out of control.
      A couple things here Seth

      1 I do enjoy when you post, I feel like Im getting a basketball analogy from a civil engineer

      2. The part I bolded I must take issue with my man. Now you could be correct but at best right now you are speculating. I dont know what you guys expect from a 20 year old player with one year of college experience and less than probably 45 minutes of game play in his entire career,in a year and a week. I dont think Bird has anything to "prove" . Bird doesnt strike me as having an ego that wants to prove he is some great talent evaluator, plus Bird is far from the only one to praise Lance, in fact Conrad Brunner said the same thing that Lance had the most overall talent on the Pacers, Clark and even Wells said something similar. Maybe people just dont like the "AND 1 playing of the game, Lance has been comparied too. Maybe people view him as a young spoiled punk, and maybe some have no emotional tie to Lance and truly evaluate subjectively. Lance didnt wake up one day, in some village in Africa to see a college scout trying to convince him to start playing basketball. Basketball has been Lance's whole life. Now I admitt he has a lot of work to do, both on and off the court but you saw glimpses of the type of court vision he has, and his ability to drive and find the open man. I will say this right now and believe it whole heartedly. Lance does not deserve to start BUT if he did I truly believe he would average more assists than DC, and would be better at creating opportunities for others.

      3. In my humble opinion , I think AJ is not competing for time against Lance. If AJ wants playing time than I feel he has to take that away form George Hill becuase I believe AJ is best at SG , not PG

      4. Some people don't like flashy, because they relate that to all the negative sterotypes of the inner city, and this belief in some mythical "hooiser way of playing basketball"

      5. If Lance keeps his nose clean, keeps working hard and is given time , I think you will begin to see what the "hype" was about

      Again this is just my opinion on the situation and respect different views
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

        AJ at SG? Whaaaa?

        Also, I take huge issue with your bullet point number 4, but I really don't want to get into that as I think it will open a can of worms best left un opened on this board. I don't like flashy when flashy isn't working.
        Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-04-2012, 10:45 AM.


        Comment


        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post


          It's very college level sloppy with the "every pass will involve me looking away to make it a no look highlight pass" touch.

          His long, high dribbles just beg to be pilfered or knocked out of control.

          For a moment, I thought you were talking about McBob.

          Comment


          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

            I think they'd sooner just shorten the rotation to collison and hill before they played AJ.
            "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

            Comment


            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              AJ at SG? Whaaaa?

              Also, I take huge issue with your bullet point number 4, but I really don't want to get into that as I think it will open a can of worms best left un opened on this board. I don't like flashy when flashy isn't working.
              I understand Joe, but I do think it is factual for some, not all
              Sittin on top of the world!

              Comment


              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                I understand Joe, but I do think it is factual for some, not all
                Then I would ask that you consider your audience a little more because unless you think we're some of 'those people', that kind of comment is most likely just going to inflame.

                Comment


                • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                  Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                  I understand Joe, but I do think it is factual for some, not all
                  Can something be factual for some, not all?

                  Isn't that completely counterintuitive?
                  "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                  -Lance Stephenson

                  Comment


                  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Then I would ask that you consider your audience a little more because unless you think we're some of 'those people', that kind of comment is most likely just going to inflame.
                    No I dont think that speaks of you personally but I do feel its an accurate representation of SOME here (have no clue on the percentage) and also some not on this board

                    The ppoint I am trying to make is not one of race but one of perception. Think about the classic cover on the NY Post "Hicks vs Knicks" with a picture of a cornfield inn the background

                    My point is some people dont like flash or raw athletic ability because they cant relate, but can relate to a guy like Tyler who is from the country in MO and lacks raw God given talent but overcomes this through sheer hard work in determination

                    MY opinion Naptown has both : The young boy in the country shooting baskets by himself at a backboard over the barn, but also the young kid at the JCC in indy comepting hard against good players
                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      Can something be factual for some, not all?

                      Isn't that completely counterintuitive?
                      good question, and not sure

                      I guess if you say some people are republician some are democrat that would be a factual staement no?
                      Sittin on top of the world!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        Can something be factual for some, not all?

                        Isn't that completely counterintuitive?

                        YES.
                        What applies to some does not apply to all.
                        Ones perception is ones reality.
                        "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                        (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          And I think AJ not getting any time is more of a backhanded compliment than anything else. AJ has always been ready to play. Whether it's a preseason game or the playoffs, you know what you're going to get from him.

                          He might not hit his shots, but he's a pretty steady player. He's a professional by every sense of the word.

                          I think he can handle sitting the bench, for now. If Lance doesn't start improving, I fully expect AJ to slide right back into the backup spot and start running like he never left.

                          No, Lance isn't better than AJ right now. Lance could be. He's a project plain and simple.

                          If it was at the end of the season, I know I would be calling for AJ to be playing. But it's game 6 of the season tonight. It's still a young season.
                          George hill is the backup. Your arguing 3 vs 4


                          Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
                          Last edited by spazzxb; 01-04-2012, 01:14 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                            No I dont think that speaks of you personally but I do feel its an accurate representation of SOME here (have no clue on the percentage) and also some not on this board

                            The ppoint I am trying to make is not one of race but one of perception. Think about the classic cover on the NY Post "Hicks vs Knicks" with a picture of a cornfield inn the background

                            My point is some people dont like flash or raw athletic ability because they cant relate, but can relate to a guy like Tyler who is from the country in MO and lacks raw God given talent but overcomes this through sheer hard work in determination

                            MY opinion Naptown has both : The young boy in the country shooting baskets by himself at a backboard over the barn, but also the young kid at the JCC in indy comepting hard against good players
                            Speaking of stereotypes......

                            Explain to me again how Tyler does not have "God given talent"? Are you one of those who also would tell us that Larry Bird also didn't have this "God given talent"?


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                              Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
                              YES.
                              What applies to some does not apply to all.
                              Ones perception is ones reality.
                              Is that you BP? How's unemployment going?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                                Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                                No I dont think that speaks of you personally but I do feel its an accurate representation of SOME here (have no clue on the percentage) and also some not on this board

                                The ppoint I am trying to make is not one of race but one of perception. Think about the classic cover on the NY Post "Hicks vs Knicks" with a picture of a cornfield inn the background

                                My point is some people dont like flash or raw athletic ability because they cant relate, but can relate to a guy like Tyler who is from the country in MO and lacks raw God given talent but overcomes this through sheer hard work in determination

                                MY opinion Naptown has both : The young boy in the country shooting baskets by himself at a backboard over the barn, but also the young kid at the JCC in indy comepting hard against good players
                                Tyler lacks raw god given talent? He's 6'9" and built like an ox. I don't understand the perception that Tyler is some sort of athletic slouch. Let's examine some of the sports Tyler could probably have played if he had spent time on them like basketball...there are a quite few that he definitely would have had the athletic attributes to try. I think Tyler is one of the better "athletes" on the team. Meanwhile, I think Lance is probably one of the worst athletes the team currently has along with AJ.
                                Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-04-2012, 01:21 PM.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X