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

Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

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

  • #31
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

    They won. They came back and showed up in the fourth. The Hornets have won 3 of their last 5. The only lost to the Thunder by 8, without Landry and Okakor. They beat the Knicks during Linnsanity, without Landry and Okakor. They beat the Bucks on the road, without Landry and Okakor. And beat the struggling Jazz at home, without Landry and Okakor.

    We took over the game. Were we consistent? NO. But besides the Heat, Bulls, Spurs, and Thunder who is consistent this year?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

      For a team that shoots 44% from the field and 32% from 3 point range N.O. was unusually hot last night but our soft defense early in the game helped them get in rhythm.

      They had no answer for Hibbert or West and we abused them inside and should have kept shoving it inside more.

      Also got a good look at Kaman who has been linked to the Pacers in trade rumors. What I saw was a very good offensive player, an average rebounder and a horrible defender who doesn't block out very well on the defensive board.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

        I will be worried when there is no confrontation or sparks between Vogel and Granger.

        The last thing we need is the "franchise player" or other hothead (like Jax and Carlisle) steamrolling our young head coach. I'm glad Vogel has some fire and some guts.

        That pandering really hurt Carlisle, in my opinion.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Danny would have had a tough time beating Ariza whereas Paul got a good shot off against Bellinelli (I think, either way he had the better matchup there).
          Yep, the matchup was a factor.

          Also, the shot was for the possible win, not the possible loss.

          This was a smart, strategic move to give Paul more confidence in these situations. Come playoff time, it will help that Granger and West aren't the only two options in the last seconds.

          He missed. The guys pulled it off in overtime. Well done and nicely thought through.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

            Not that it's a huge deal but Danny was visibly disappointed and was consoled by Roy on the second T when Vogel let DC shoot the FT after Danny missed the FT on the first T. DC also missed the FT and Danny looked at Frank and shook his head.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

              I think the cockyness and arrogance is just a by-product of having a young team. Danny is still fairly young, so I think with the combination of winning maybe some of the players have a false sense of entitlement.

              Just a thought.

              Then again this is one of the reasons why we have David West. He'll knock them down a peg or two if he has to. He or Foster both. Their veteran presence IMO is worth it's weight in gold. Dahntay, maybe. If he didn't try so hard to be a cheerleader on the bench all the time he could easily step into that role.

              We'll see how we fare after tonight. I imagine the youth culture of this team and it's coaching staff will be a little more tame moving forward.


              As for the toughness to this game by the Hornets. Even bad teams get hot. Another poster mentioned their 3 wins out of the past 5 games. Shoot, we sucked and had a 5-game winning streak two seasons ago. Teams randomly get hot, some get really cold. It happens in sports. I'm not too worried how we came out of the gate last night.
              Last edited by duke dynamite; 02-22-2012, 11:19 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                Danny was very clearly off for almost the whole night. Just brutal.

                I don't have info, but the Hornets announcers (who were very good, by the way) were repeatedly saying that Danny was ill on the bench. They showed a video shot of him in the first period, sitting on the bench with his head in his hands like he had a migraine or was nauseous or something.

                Apparently none of this got reported on the Pacers feed... I asked in the game thread and nobody'd heard anything. This is where you miss your intrepid sideline reporter.

                Would love to know what the deal was last night.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                  There was a moment (don't remember which quarter) that the Hornets scored a fairly easy bucket. Roy grabbed the ball out of the net. Instead of going under the basket to inbound it, Roy whipped it full speed into Danny's chest. When Danny caught it, Roy pointed right at him and said something very forcefully. Not sure what was said, but Roy was really mad.

                  I've noticed an incident nearly every game where Danny's man gets a layup and Roy rolls his eyes or throws his hands up in frustration.

                  Not sure what to make of all that; just wanted to contribute that to the topic since it has been brought up.
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                    Wow Peck I'm proud of you, I never thought in my wildest dream that you would ever give Danny and F, good job.

                    Yes I agree that he sucked last night I was listening to the radio and slick keep saying "come on Danny that's your man and you are just standing there or leaving him open".

                    Regarding the game, yeah a win is a win but I don't think we win the game if they had either Okafor or Landry, we are not supposed to struggle againts a team that's that bad and has a bunch of young piece, once again the Pacers are proving to me that they are not as good as we thought.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                      Danny baffles me defensively because he is a superb on ball defender, where he repeatedly gets beat is when he is trying to "float" defensively and he leaves himself open to back door cuts and lets easy jump shots slip by.
                      Last edited by Trader Joe; 02-22-2012, 11:56 AM.


                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Danny baffles me defensively because he is a superb on ball defender, where he repeatedly gets beat is when he is trying to "float" defensively and he leaves himself open to back door cuts and lets easy jump shots slip by.
                        Yes, exactly. He spends the majority of his game with his eyes off his man. This (I believe) is a) to improve his help defense, and b) snipe the passing lanes for steals. Great defenders can do this when they have a great instinct for where their man is and what he is doing without looking at them. Danny has shown a poor understanding of where his man when he is looking away.

                        This is why I don't consider Danny a poor defender. He is actually quite good at help defense and stealing/bothering passes. He is also very good at man-to-man defense when he is square on his guy. He struggles in the transition between the two styles.

                        Is it worth continuing to develop Danny as an all-around defensive force? Or is it too obvious that this is outside of his abilities, and he should exclusively stick to man-to-man defending?
                        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                        RSS Feed
                        Subscribe via iTunes

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          He needs to hedge in order to give DC a chance to get through the screen. However, he wouldn't need to make so much contact if DC would put more of an effort into going over the top of the screen, rather than always going underneath and forcing Roy to commit so hard.
                          IMO, one of Roy's biggest areas of improvement has been how he has defended and at the same time avoided the ticky-tack fouls that caused him to come out (and changed the dynamics) of so many games last year. If he worked through that, he will work through he coverage further out, I'm sure.

                          Now, as for some comments in the rest of this thread, we really should give some props to the Hornets. They shot well, especially in the 1st and 2nd quarters, and not all of their buckets were attributed to bad defense.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                            Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                            There was a moment (don't remember which quarter) that the Hornets scored a fairly easy bucket. Roy grabbed the ball out of the net. Instead of going under the basket to inbound it, Roy whipped it full speed into Danny's chest. When Danny caught it, Roy pointed right at him and said something very forcefully. Not sure what was said, but Roy was really mad.

                            I've noticed an incident nearly every game where Danny's man gets a layup and Roy rolls his eyes or throws his hands up in frustration.

                            Not sure what to make of all that; just wanted to contribute that to the topic since it has been brought up.
                            Yeah Quin was laughing at Roy for not going out of bounce and throwing the ball at Danny.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Wow Peck I'm proud of you, I never thought in my wildest dream that you would ever give Danny and F, good job.

                              Yes I agree that he sucked last night I was listening to the radio and slick keep saying "come on Danny that's your man and you are just standing there or leaving him open".

                              Regarding the game, yeah a win is a win but I don't think we win the game if they had either Okafor or Landry, we are not supposed to struggle againts a team that's that bad and has a bunch of young piece, once again the Pacers are proving to me that they are not as good as we thought.
                              As hot as Kaman was last night, I would have rather had Okafor or Landry playing the lion's share of his minutes.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                                I have watched a lot of the Clippers over the years and Kaman was a disappointment last night (i'm glad he was passive or Pacers wouldn't have won). Kaman shot his Jumper just fine, but he was plan lazy, passive out there. He had 2 rebounds and 5 turnovers. He did play against Hibbert and the Pacers D, but he is so much better then what he showed last night. He was just going with the flow. Guess he doesn't have much to play for in NOH.
                                Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X