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: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

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

  • #31
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

    Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
    Danny was absolutely terrible after the first quarter but PG was worse. Though it may seem minute, I don't like the move of giving Dahntay's second unit minutes to George. Jones can hit the three, play defense, move the ball, and keep people's heads in the game. He has learned this year to pick his spots. That (fourth?) three by Richardson is what gave the Magic the momentum back. On offense and on defense, I don't trust PG off the ball.

    I was going to thank your post, but you embedded a Limp Bizkit video.
    Yeah, I would prefer to keep Dahntay as our backup 3. He's a veteran who's mostly learned to play within his limits. We need that over Paul "I'm not ready yet to be consistent" George.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

      Originally posted by gummy View Post
      I honestly don't think Roy can go 40 minutes. He just doesn't have the stamina and/or his exercise induced asthma isn't controlled enough. He still gets really winded out there and when that happens he misses rotations, gets pushed off the block more easily, and takes forever to get up and down the court. There is a noticeable drop off in his performance when Roy is fatigued. Our other guys can push through it better. West, for example, I would like to see play increased minutes and I think he can handle it.
      This...

      Vogel actually kept Hibbert in too long in the third. Completely gassed him. You could completely see it. Dont know how the coaches didnt see it. He was totally ineffective the rest of the game. Roy cant do it physically...and for that reason his minutes have to be really monitored closely. Its not just hes on a roll so adrenaline will carry him through. He stayed out too long in the third and became totally spent to where he was pretty much useless. Its coachings responsibility to know that and to make sure it doesnt happen.

      He made a similar mistake where Collison was concerned. Theres a fine line between letting a hot player ride the roll out and going too far. While Collisons on the ball pressure was very good(where was it all year?), the team was getting outscored. The coaching staff and the fans saying Collison deserved to finish the game out are losing sight of the forest for the trees. Insert Hill back into the lineup after letting him watch Collisons ball pressure and making the point probably wouldve let to much more positive things on both ends...and I have a feeling you will see that from Hill in the next game, but the point is it didnt have to wait til next game.

      Frank is a very young coach and I tend to agree with those that said this loss was 80% on the coaching staff. My absolute biggest concern going forward is Hibberts complete inability to accomplish anything offensively on the low block. He could not get good position and could do nothing all nite when he got the ball. Most all his 8 points came on putbacks. For a team without Howard and the prospect of HIbbert dominating, I would say it was Hibbert that got dominated-in spite of his rebounding and shot-block numbers.
      The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

        Normally, I don't read Peck's post until after I read the post game thread, but I've done it in reverse this time. B4 I started reading I jotted down what I felt was problems in the game. Peck hit on most, and no one hit on the one I had as #1... MISSED FT's. They were 13-22. That's 59%! This from a team who is one of the better FT shooting teams in the NBA.

        Both Granger and Barbosa missed 2 FT that was imperative to make. Granger missed another FT when shooting 2 earlier as well. Hibbert twice made only 1 of 2. Almost any combination of these players hitting their FT, and this would have been a different game. It seems of late the Pacers have had problems hitting their FT. I'm not sure why, but it is imperative they shoot FT better in order to give themselves an opportunity to win.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

          A couple of random thoughts...

          First, we might have gotten playoff experience last year. As a underdog pushing the better team. We don't have playoff experience as the better team. The better team has to bring it every single night and win the games they are supposed to. It's the playoffs, and any given team can win on any given night if you let them. Hopefully we have now learned that lesson. Once we got the 10 point lead, we let up and figured we could just coast there for the win. Orlando knows they are supposed to lose, right? Wrong.

          I'm completely amazed with how far Hibbert has come in terms of defending the paint. Two years ago he would have fouled out in the first quarter trying to do what he did last night. Nice job, Roy!
          You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
          All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

          - Jimmy Buffett

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

            Does it concern anyone else that Danny Granger basically had a-month-and-change of good bball this season, and that's it? Theoretically, he should be peaking now. Not going down in flames after starting out so slow anyway.

            I won't ever knock Granger for not being clutch. Even if he was a trainwreck last night, he is a clutch player. The stats support that, the tape support that, history supports that. So I'm willing to chalk up the last 4 mins as one of those stretches you'll never see again.

            But I'm concerned, in context, about how bad his overall play has been this year, save a month or so. Granger deserves every bit the "inconsistent" criticisms that Hibbert gets. And most of Granger's come from a lack of effort or focus.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

              It just has to be better. I, like most people, figured we'd pull it out at the end but Danny Granger pretty much assured that this wouldn't happen. Two missed free throws and a travel by our captain late in the game? Comon Danny.

              Nevertheless, this series is far from over. If it was a Game 2 loss instead of a Game 1 loss, I think people would be far less worried. We just have to win the next one.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

                David West has been our best player (offensively anyway) during the past few weeks or so. We need to get him more looks.
                //

                Comment


                • #38
                  Z
                  There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

                    Basically was able to watch the TV Companion box score as well as getting to a TV for the final 3 minutes of the game.

                    The FTs clearly were a problem and have been in a number of games this year. In the playoffs you just can't miss the freebies, especially when fouls are going to be harder to come by.

                    Without seeing the game, I can only guess that our far-too-typical defensive move of trying to close off lanes or get deflections and end up leaving a guy for a wide open perimeter shot also had a lot to do with things.

                    The good news for me is that, assuming we actually take care of business Tuesday, it means one of our young friends who is a huge Pacers fan and has been in exile at Auburn in college all year will be able to get to a playoff game when the Pacers come back home for Game 5.

                    I'm not giving it up yet - while no one on the Magic had a breakout night (and one might be expected), we can't really think everyone on the Pacers is going to play this badly the rest of the series, so we should be able to counter a big night if it occurs. In fact, this might be the wake-up call the Pacers needed.

                    But, man, what a way to squander the buzz. I mean, I actually SOLD A PAIR OF TICKETS FOR FACE VALUE. Holy cow, gotta keep that going.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

                      The team can't complain about fan support when this is how they play in the biggest game since 2005.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

                        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                        The team can't complain about fan support when this is how they play in the biggest game since 2005.
                        Sure they can. They still played hard, have had a great year and have great guys on the team.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

                          Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                          Sure they can. They still played hard, have had a great year and have great guys on the team.
                          But when you have a chance to make a statement in front of a packed house like last night and they lose a game like that. To a team whose star player is out and we have game 1 @ home. They didnt do anything to help their reputation last night. Instances like that are PRIME games in getting fans to return. They showed up flat last night and let a lot of fans down really.

                          Im not worried completely yet. They can still come out and redeem themselves and take over the series sooner rather than later.
                          I Bleed Blue

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

                            I'm not going to lie, the Magic concerned me too. And still do.

                            The biggest problem I really see with them, is that our team is built, defensively, to protect the paint. The guards sag and ball hawk, the posts stay in the post...Well the Magic are built to take the open three point shot. Which they are always going to get.

                            That said, no one played that well. I'll give David, Roy, and Tyler credit. But David was selfish, Roy couldn't make a shot, and Tyler stinks defensively (although, was better than normal.)

                            Hill, I was most upset with. He was terrible on both sides of the ball. Like, Abysmal. No running offense, no making shots, no typical Hill smart decisions, and Nelson completely had his way with him. DC outplayed Hill defensively. Let me repeat that. DC outplayed Hill defensively.

                            I agree about the egg Timer, and I'll go even further, we can't have the five and five units any longer. It was one thing when our bench was AJ, Hill, Dahntay, Tyler, and Amundson..and they all fit together, and they ran the offense well, and were stifling defensively. These *four* bench players do not play well together at all. And as much as Frank has tried to get them all minutes together, they've never gelled. (not surprising given who the four/five bench players are) I think two of Hill, PG, and Danny need to be in the game at all times, and I think either Roy or West need to be in the game at the same time.

                            DC couldn't make a shot, but he was pretty good. Until crunch time. Didn't this game look familiar to last year? Have the lead with three minutes to go and then don't score again. I don't care how bad Hill is playing, DC doesn't play in crunch time. And if Hill is really that bad, then I don't care who else you throw in at point..throw Dahntay in, I don't care, DC doesn't play in crunch time. He's never good. He may learn how to play at the end of games in his career, but right now he doesn't know how to, so don't play him there.

                            It's not time to panic, but everyone took Orlando lightly, and they clearly used that as motivation. The Pacers still should win this. It's tough for many of the players to play worse.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

                              It just looked like we were playing scared the whole game, and I can't help but think playing in front of a packed, pro-Pacers crowd played a big part in that. It sucks and is somewhat counter-intuitive, but it seems like these guys are at their best playing in front of a half-empty Fieldhouse crowd. The times when we've shat the bed this year have all been in front of big crowds.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 2012 playoffs

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                                David was selfish
                                David was selfish out of necessity. By my count the rest of our starters shot 16/49 (32%). West went 8/14.

                                This is why we signed David West - to steady the waters in the playoffs should the rest of the team play tight and be ineffective. If anything, I would have liked to see feed West even more than we did.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X