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:
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

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

11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks



    Game Time Start: 8:00 PM EST
    Where: BMO Harris Bradley Center, Milwaukee, WI
    Officials: J. Capers, T. Brown, D. Collins

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Milwaukee Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / FOX Sports Wisconsin
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WTMU 620 AM
    NBA Feeds:

    REMINDER: Per PD policy, please do not share a link to, describe how to search for, request a link to, or request a PM about streaming video of a NBA game that is not coming directly through the NBA. Not even in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, know-what-I-mean" round-about sort of way. Thank you

    Away: 1-4
    East: 2-3
    Home: 1-2
    East: 4-1
    Nov 14
    Nov 16
    Nov 18
    Nov 19


    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)

    Luc Mbah a Moute - right knee surgery rehab (out)

    Jared Wade: Indy Plays So Bad that Even Historic Defense Doesn’t Allow Come Back

    Right before the game, Pacers’ coach Frank Vogel said that his team hadn’t been able
    to put together a complete game so far this year. They had shown flashes in each,
    but it always fell off the rails at some point. “The first six games we had a stretch in
    each game where a certain unit just got waxed,” said Vogel.

    Tonight, that stretch lasted about 30 minutes. Indiana started off the game like
    gangbusters, forcing turnovers and getting out on the break. Before long their easy-
    bucket-aided offense looked swell and they were up nine. Then, nothing remotely
    good seemed to happen for a half-hour of game time. The fourth quarter was better,
    in the sense that the offense looked to re-find itself as Tyler Hansbrough and George
    Hill reanimated a team that had looked like a waste of jersey detergent for much of
    the night.

    Unfortunately, as the Indiana defense put the clamps on a gassed Toronto offense,
    the Pacers just couldn’t make shots. They were getting good ones, too, for the first
    time all game (although they also passed up a few good jumpers they should have
    taken). For the game, they shot 16-for-38 inside 8 feet, and an impressive 0-for-5
    from 8 to 16 feet, according to

    Here is their fourth quarter shooting chart. At first glance, it may look like more
    mid-range jumpers than you would want. But two from to the top of the key by
    Gerald Green and Hill were both fine looks in rhythm so they weren’t all ill-advised.
    Moreover, look at all the missed shots in the paint.

    The important part to getting some good looks was the spacing: They were
    spreading the floor, getting both ball and player movement for the first time
    all night. They looked good after dozens and dozens of terrible, wasted, awful

    And on the the other end, they were truly excellent, as the Raptors couldn’t
    even conceive of getting a good shot.

    Just look at all those Xs. They shot 1-for-15 in the quarter. That is 6.7%. Six.
    Point. Seven. And they won. Which was historic....CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Danny Granger vs. Luc Mbah a Moute: Indiana Pacers SF breaks the mold

    Indiana Pacers SF Danny Granger has done something LeBron James, Kevin Durant
    and Carmelo Anthony have not over the course of the last three seasons: he has
    played well against Milwaukee Bucks SF Luc Mbah a Moute.

    Milwaukee Bucks forward Luc Mbah a Moute is perimeter defense expert who has a
    proven record of suppressing scoring stats for NBA stars like LeBron James, Kevin
    Durant and Carmelo Anthony. Surprisingly, Indiana Pacers small forward Danny
    Granger has fared better than anyone in the aforementioned trio when going against
    LRMAM. Granger is not as strong or as quick and LeBron, he's not as accurate from
    long range as Durant and he's not as talented as Melo, but he is the only one who
    boosted his production against Luc. It's Granger than fiction...

    ...unless it's not. To take my initial point at face value would be risky. Nay, it would
    be downright Grangerous. The comparisons to LBJ, KD and Melo are a double-edged
    sword. Production is graded out relative to normal averages, and Granger doesn't
    match the baseline numbers those other three guys have put up in most scoring

    It's the problem I've pointed out with Brandon Jennings many times: improvement
    from a low baseline level does not always imply better production than what occurs
    with a decline from a high baseline level. Even so, Granger has somehow managed
    to play better against LRMAM than he has against the rest of the league, which isn't
    something many players can say.

    What are you doing?

    I've combined three seasons worth of stats for each player in a select group of top-
    end perimeter scorers (Danny Granger in this edition), and compared production
    levels to when Luc Mbah a Moute is on the court with that player. The basic
    assumption is that LRMAM matched up with Granger in man-to-man situations, or
    at least that he made a direct impact on Granger's production. If we can't assume
    that much, what's an ace perimeter defender good for anyways?

    What does it mean?

    The sample size for each on-court "matchup" is too small to be predictive of future
    performance -- LRMAM and Granger shared the court for 223 minutes over the last
    three years -- so the findings are merely descriptive. In other words, this is a strict
    evaluation of what has already happened, not any grand pronouncement that future
    matchups will proceed along the exact same lines.

    What did you find?

    Notes & Observations

    Granger manages to play well against Luc in part because he's not a star player of
    the magnitude of LeBron James, Kevin Durant or Carmelo Anthony. Danny gets to

    Small Market Mondays #2: "The Buck Stops Here!" Mike Dunleavy MVP Watch

    Former Indiana Pacers superstar Mike Dunleavy, heavy favorite in the 2012-2013
    MVP race, was posting an astronomical PER of 27.12 on 70% shooting and leading
    his beloved Buckaroos to an undefeated record at this time last week. Until they
    played the powerhouse Grizzlies, that is. The Bucks lost that game by 18 as
    Dunleavy only made 4 of 10 shots but that wasn't the worst of it. After thoroughly
    handling the Wizards on Friday night, Dunleavy received some terrifying news:
    his father was in consideration to be the next coach of the classless Los Angeles
    Lakers. This terrible news rocked Dunleavy to his very core as his posted a season
    low 14 minutes in his next game against the Celtics, a 4-point loss which they
    definitely would've won had their MVD ("Most Valuable Dunleavy", not "Most
    Venereal Disease") not been traumatized by the news. He became so angered at
    these developments that he flew into a fit of understandable rage and tried
    desperately to exact physical revenge on the Celtics, fouling 4 times in his 14
    minutes! Should he not be able to get over this disgusting news, we might be
    forced to change our MVP watch to another deserving Small Market Superstar.

    Sometimes, the brightest stars really do die out the quickest.

    Mike Wells @MikeWellsNBA
    Jared Wade @8pts9secs
    Tim Donahue @TimDonahue8p9s
    Tom Lewis @indycornrows

    Charles F. Gardner @cf_gardner
    Jeremy Schmidt @Bucksketball
    K L Chouinard @AnaheimAmigos
    Frank Madden @brewhoop
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

    Attached Files
    Time for a new sig.


    • #3
      Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

      very tough game tonight but if we can win I can take a deep breath, because this is a good Milwaukee team, George Hill and Paul George need to play well


      • #4
        Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

        We better win this and we better pound them.

        I'm getting sick of these close games that aren't even worth sweating out because we've ended up losing them. Most of them have been to mediocre teams.


        • #5
          Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

          Originally posted by Trophy View Post
          We better win this and we better pound them.

          I'm getting sick of these close games that aren't even worth sweating out because we've ended up losing them. Most of them have been to mediocre teams.

          we are 3-4 in close games with Hibbert unable to make a lay-up, and Granger being out......chill.......


          • #6
            Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

            Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
            we are 3-4 in close games with Hibbert unable to make a lay-up, and Granger being out......chill.......

            I know we're only 8 games into the season, but it's very frustrating watching this knowing how much better this team is. With or without Granger.
            Last edited by Trophy; 11-14-2012, 05:48 PM.


            • #7
              Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

              Jennings and Monta are good at getting steals. I hope our guys are actually prepared tonight. I don't want a turnover fest.
              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


              • #8
                Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                Even if we lose, I just want Hibbert to show up, watching him has been painful :/.


                • #9
                  Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                  Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                  we are 3-4 in close games with Hibbert unable to make a lay-up, and Granger being out......chill.......
                  to scrub teams........


                  • #10
                    Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                    Monta Ellis is gonna destroy us and have his way as usual....
                    Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck


                    • #11
                      Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                      Originally posted by Mr_Smith View Post
                      Monta Ellis is gonna destroy us and have his way as usual....
                      Hopefully Paul is going up against him and is on him like glue to at least try and slow him down, but Ellis has been known to light it up against us in his career.


                      • #12
                        Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                        I am hopeful for tonight, this is as "must win" as any game early in this season can be.


                        • #13
                          Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                          **** the Bucks.
                          witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

                          Originally posted by Day-V
                          In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                          Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


                          • #14
                            Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                            I think this is going to be the game where enough is enough.


                            • #15
                              Re: 11/14/2012 Game Thread #9: Pacers Vs. Bucks

                              I think they are going to win or something like that.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!