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: Home opener vs. the Kings

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

  • #31
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

    Frank has got to figure out a way to get Roy some more shots. Dude was 6-11 from the field and whenever he put a move on Cousins it was more often than not a success. Also 6 blocked shots is huge but I don’t think he played as well defensively as he could have against Cousins.
    Holy...what in the world?!?

    I'm wondering just how many times Cousins gets at least 2 of his shots at the rim stuffed back in his face and shoots 33%. Probably all the time apparently.

    GET A FREAKING GRIP PECK, SERIOUSLY!

    Cousins gets his a** handed to him and it's "I think Roy could have done better" when what you should have said is that it's the 2nd most missed shots of Cousins entire career (18, he missed 19 going 9-28 3/22 vs Utah last year and he had 18 boards that night).



    Green scored 17 on 9 shots, but Lance's 10 points on 12 attempts with 1 assist (a pass on a transistion bucket) saved the day? Green had 2 TOs to 2 STL. So for all the bad decisions he was making he somehow didn't really throw the ball away or ruin the game. I'm not saying he was dialed in, I'm just saying that it's funny how one man's great game is another man's bad game.


    If Thornton and Brooks don't go 7 of 17 from 3 then the Kings lose this game by 10. They literally shot better from 3 than they did from inside the arc. Paul went 2-7 from 3 and the rest of the team went 2-15 (and again, Green only took 2 of those himself). That's the only thing that kept this game close at all.

    If DJ, or Green, or Young, or Hill, or Lance get going from 3 the team is going to flat out murder people. Just 35% would do it. DJ and Lance each make 1 more than they did and you win by 6-8 in regulation.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Holy...what in the world?!?

      I'm wondering just how many times Cousins gets at least 2 of his shots at the rim stuffed back in his face and shoots 33%. Probably all the time apparently.

      GET A FREAKING GRIP PECK, SERIOUSLY!

      Cousins gets his a** handed to him and it's "I think Roy could have done better" when what you should have said is that it's the 2nd most missed shots of Cousins entire career (18, he missed 19 going 9-28 3/22 vs Utah last year and he had 18 boards that night).



      Green scored 17 on 9 shots, but Lance's 10 points on 12 attempts with 1 assist (a pass on a transistion bucket) saved the day? Green had 2 TOs to 2 STL.


      If Thornton and Brooks don't go 7 of 17 from 3 then the Kings lose this game by 10. They literally shot better from 3 than they did from inside the arc. Paul went 2-7 from 3 and the rest of the team went 2-15 (and again, Green only took 2 of those himself). That's the only thing that kept this game close at all.

      If DJ, or Green, or Young, or Hill, or Lance get going from 3 the team is going to flat out murder people. Just 35% would do it. DJ and Lance each make 1 more than they did and you win by 6-8 in regulation.
      In fairness to Lance I counted at least 3 shots that he missed that were basically assists. Where he drew 2-3 defenders and missed a short shot that left an easy cleanup for a wide open big. I don't count those misses as bad plays they were good shots. Westbrook has a ton of those most games(shots he probably know there is little chance to make but bigs should get the rebound) and im sure the coaching staff is happy when that kind of play happens.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

        Originally posted by colts19 View Post
        I seem to be the only one that was amazed by Paul George last night. I thought he imposed his will rebounding and with his defense. I thought for a lot of the 2nd half and overtime, his defense was artest like.
        I agree. He's the MVP so far for this team. Freaking everywhere and whatever is needed. He's trying to push his offensive moves a bit beyond what they really are, but I'm fine with him pushing his boundaries given how much general improvement he's shown in his offensive skills.

        And a lot of those rebounds aren't chump change, he's in traffic using his length and hops to get stuff out of the reach of others.


        BTW, we lost a lot of long rebounds and scrap plays due to LEAK OUT PLAYERS. Lance often, I think Paul and Green as well though I need to look at the tape. I assume this is 100% by design, but if you aren't getting possessions then the leak out doesn't have a benefit. They might want to dial that all-star breakout style down just a bit.


        Originally posted by kester
        But, a couple of bright spots: We lead the East in Opp FG% and in Total and Off. Rebound %. I hope that indicates fundamental defensive strength that will stick with us and shore us up as we address the offense and wait for Danny's return.
        Yep, physical and athletic. Defensive and rebounds wins titles, and yet here we are in a thread full of "oh no, we are doomed".

        Does no one remember the game in Sacto last year? Here's the link to that rebounding insult where the Pacers let them pull down 30 of 65 possible offensive boards, a horrifying 46% rate allowed (NBA leaders last year were 32% Bulls for perspective). This year the Pacers only allowed the Kings to grab 26% of the possible offensive boards.
        http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=320118023

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          In fairness to Lance I counted at least 3 shots that he missed that were basically assists. Where he drew 2-3 defenders and missed a short shot that left an easy cleanup for a wide open big. I don't count those misses as bad plays they were good shots. Westbrook has a ton of those most games(shots he probably know there is little chance to make but bigs should get the rebound) and im sure the coaching staff is happy when that kind of play happens.
          I can concede that and I didn't think Lance was a big mess or anything. I just didn't think Green was ruining the game either. At one point Lance was in and what he was doing in combo with the other 4 was working, period. So you do that and knock out a big +/- number and help the team win.

          But the idea that Green was just tossing around TOs when he only had 2 and shot a very nice rate, including the highlight rebound, drive and monster dunk is just wrong. The crowd literally gasped a 2nd time during the freaking replay of that dunk, and it was made off of a long baseline rebound where Green made an aggressive dribble drive to the rim, not just some token unchecked flying rebound dunk.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              I can concede that and I didn't think Lance was a big mess or anything. I just didn't think Green was ruining the game either. At one point Lance was in and what he was doing in combo with the other 4 was working, period. So you do that and knock out a big +/- number and help the team win.

              But the idea that Green was just tossing around TOs when he only had 2 and shot a very nice rate, including the highlight rebound, drive and monster dunk is just wrong. The crowd literally gasped a 2nd time during the freaking replay of that dunk, and it was made off of a long baseline rebound where Green made an aggressive dribble drive to the rim, not just some token unchecked flying rebound dunk.
              Yep Seth officially has a mancrush on Green, Green is officially the new Mcbob.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                =Naptown_Seth;1521830]Holy...what in the world?!?

                I'm wondering just how many times Cousins gets at least 2 of his shots at the rim stuffed back in his face and shoots 33%. Probably all the time apparently.

                GET A FREAKING GRIP PECK, SERIOUSLY!
                Cousins got stuffed like 3 times, the rest of the times was him shooting fadeway jumpers.

                Cousins gets his a** handed to him and it's "I think Roy could have done better" when what you should have said is that it's the 2nd most missed shots of Cousins entire career (18, he missed 19 going 9-28 3/22 vs Utah last year and he had 18 boards that night).
                Cousins missed a lot of shots because he was shooting a bunch of jumpers.


                Green scored 17 on 9 shots, but Lance's 10 points on 12 attempts with 1 assist (a pass on a transistion bucket) saved the day? Green had 2 TOs to 2 STL. So for all the bad decisions he was making he somehow didn't really throw the ball away or ruin the game. I'm not saying he was dialed in, I'm just saying that it's funny how one man's great game is another man's bad game.
                We get it Green is amazing.......

                If Thornton and Brooks don't go 7 of 17 from 3 then the Kings lose this game by 10. They literally shot better from 3 than they did from inside the arc. Paul went 2-7 from 3 and the rest of the team went 2-15 (and again, Green only took 2 of those himself). That's the only thing that kept this game close at all.

                If DJ, or Green, or Young, or Hill, or Lance get going from 3 the team is going to flat out murder people. Just 35% would do it. DJ and Lance each make 1 more than they did and you win by 6-8 in regulation.
                Yep if Roy Hibbert makes a 3 pointer the Pacers win, yep I can play the IF game all day long......
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                  To be fair, Lance was forced to jack up at least 3 shots to beat the SC. Guys were dribbling it down to 2/3 seconds then passing it to Lance.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                    I wish I could feel all that optimism, Seth, but it's hard to find it credible when you say things like "young has been more positive than negative." Pick your battles for your optimism because when you say things that no one actually watching the game can buy you lose credibility. Dude was 1 for 5 with 4 turnovers in 11 minutes. He was a huge, monster, no other way to look at it, negative.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                      Honestly, watching the game I had no idea our frontcourt was dominating the boards so much. I mean, there were a lot of missed shots, but I honestly don't remember West's rebounds. I did notice PG was consistently taking boards away from Kings. Especially when he did it to Cousins, there were several times I noted he just stole the ball from that massive human being high in the air.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        I wish I could feel all that optimism, Seth, but it's hard to find it credible when you say things like "young has been more positive than negative." Pick your battles for your optimism because when you say things that no one actually watching the game can buy you lose credibility. Dude was 1 for 5 with 4 turnovers in 11 minutes. He was a huge, monster, no other way to look at it, negative.
                        He loses credibility when he is telling us what an amazing job Roy did because of Cousins shooting percentage, not only that but he is also telling us that Cousins is the 3rd best center in the NBA, only a crazy person believes that.

                        Edit: I'm not saying that Roy didn't do well all I'm saying is that Cousins shooting percentage is low regardless he just takes stupid shots not matter who is guarding him.
                        Last edited by vnzla81; 11-05-2012, 01:04 AM.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                          So Cousins shooting jumpers had nothing at all to do with Roy Hibbert's defense?
                          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                            Originally posted by cgg View Post
                            So Cousins shooting jumpers had nothing at all to do with Roy Hibbert's defense?
                            That's not what I meant, he still took the dummest shots I have seen any player take and it wasn't because Hibbert was there, it was because Cousins is not that smart of a player.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                              It's how he reacted to Hibbert being there because he is not a smart player. It's because of both.
                              "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Home opener vs. the Kings

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                That's not what I meant, he still took the dummest shots I have seen any player take and it wasn't because Hibbert was there, it was because Cousins is not that smart of a player.
                                Yeah, Hibbert played Cousins well, but how many times did Cousins catch it at the elbow and just shoot it after holding it for a few seconds? That was among the poorest shot selections I've ever seen, tbh.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X