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

1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards



    Game Time Start: 7:00 PM ET
    Where: The Fieldhouse, Indianapolis, IN
    Officials: M. Davis, S. Corbin, J. Tiven

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Washington Notes
    Television: FOX Sports Indiana / Comcast Sports Net
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WJFK 106.7 FM, WFED 1500 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

    Home: 9-3
    East: 8-6
    Away: 1-13
    East: 2-18
    Jan 04
    Jan 05
    Jan 08
    Jan 10

    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)
    George Hill - strained right groin (day-to-day)

    Trevor Ariza - mild right calf strain (out)
    Trevor Booker - strained right knee (out)
    A.J. Price - fractured right hand (out)
    John Wall - stress injury left patella (out)

    Jared Wade: Just Another Pacers’ Comeback Win, Out-Plays Memphis Late

    Anyone who has followed the Pacers this season – or who has followed me on Twitter –
    is painfully aware that Roy Hibbert is having trouble putting the ball in the basket.
    Standing 7-feet-2-inches tall and getting almost 80% of your looks within 10 feet of the
    basket comes with certain expectations, and a trended FG% chart that looks like this
    isn’t among them:

    You know you’re in for an ugly game when you sit down to watch a 3:00 pm tip off on
    New Year’s Eve featuring the two hardest-to-score-on teams in the NBA. Memphis and
    Indiana entered the game as the only two defenses allowing their opponents to score
    less than one point per possession.

    It showed early.

    The offenses combined to make just 16-of-42 (38.1%) shots in the first quarter. They
    were knotted at 19 points apiece. It was as exciting as it sounds.

    Little changed anytime soon, but the Grizzlies—slowly but surely began to take control
    of the game. Indiana stayed close for awhile as they rained in timely threes, but
    Memphis was playing better basketball and out-muscling the Pacers’ big men for
    offensive boards. Neither team shot well, but the Grizzlies had longer, more cohesive
    possessions and ended up taking six more shots in the first half.

    The three-point halftime lead was negligible, but it was more of a Grizzly game than a
    Pacer game, and it took some perhaps-unexpected good possessions from DJ Augustin
    and Lance Stephenson for Indy to keep pace. Stephenson’s two three-pointers, while
    certainly part of his repertoire at this point, weren’t exactly designed plays that were
    the product of great-run offensive sets.

    In short, Memphis was steadily pounding its jackhammer against a tough-to-crack
    barricade, but Indiana was mostly just chucking rocks from afar that, by happenstance,
    left a few cracks in a fortified wall.

    The Pacers got off to a much better start in the third. With a few more threes and some
    good offense by Roy Hibbert, they even managed to snatch the lead.

    That advantage was short-lived.

    Memphis roared back and soon pulled up by as much as 12. Then, without warning, the
    Pacers decided they would play some of the best defense they had all year.

    In the final six minutes of the third quarter, nobody on Memphis aside from Zach
    Randolph scored a point. Darrel Arthur got in on the action slightly early in the fourth.
    But overall, the Grizzlies scored just eight points over an 11-minute period from half-
    way through the third until almost the middle of the fourth.
    The Pacers, while not exactly the playing like the 2004 Phoenix Suns, dropped in 23
    points over the same duration — punctuated by two huge three-pointers from third-
    string point guard Ben Hansbrough — to take the lead.

    In all, Indiana held Memphis to just 5-for-20 shooting in the fourth — including just
    2-for-10 in the paint. In fairness...CONTINUE READING AT 8p9s

    Mike Prada: On Stan Van Gundy's criticism of John Wall

    The Wizards' defense turned the Dallas Mavericks into the 2006 Phoenix Suns.

    The Wizards had a four-point lead at halftime of Tuesday's game against the Dallas
    Mavericks, but thanks to some shoddy transition defense, the Wizards’ lead turned into
    a 12-point deficit by the end of the third quarter. Let’s take a look at how Darren
    Collison and the Mavericks were able to take advantage of Washington’s defense.

    Former Orlando Magic coach Stan Van Gundy said John Wall isn't a good enough
    decision-maker to be a true franchise player. Some thoughts on that statement.

    Former Orlando Magic coach Stan Van Gundy became the latest to rip the Washington
    Wizards and John Wall. In an interview on ESPN 980 earlier this week, Van Gundy
    declared that he doesn't think Wall will ever be good enough to lead a franchise. Dan
    Steinberg has the transcript:
    "You know, I don't know," Van Gundy admitted. "I don't know if it's
    a trade, a free-agent thing, but I do know this: you build a team
    around certain people, and then you find complimentary parts.
    There's been no one to even build around there. There's certainly
    nobody on that roster now you can build around.

    "I think maybe they thought it was gonna be John Wall - maybe
    they still think it is. I think there's a lot of people in the league -
    I'd certainly be one that would share this opinion - I don't think
    John Wall's good enough to be the guy that you build around. I
    think he's got great speed and quickness, but point guard is a
    decision-making position. That's what makes you great as a
    point guard, is your decision-making. I haven't seen any
    indication that John Wall is a great decision-maker."

    It's hard to argue with Van Gundy's assessment right now considering Wall's own
    struggles last year. As a decision-maker, he definitely has improvements to make.
    He's definitely not in Kyrie Irving's class in the pick and roll, and Irving was drafted a
    year after him. Wall's inability to hit perimeter shots kills him here.

    But this is also an indictment on the supporting casts that have been put around him.
    Point guards don't make decisions in a vacuum. They need space to see the floor. They
    need supporting players that amplify their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.
    Without those things, any young point guard will struggle to develop proper decision-
    making skills. You aren't just born with a high basketball IQ. It needs to be cultivated
    with the right surrounding mix.

    In Wall's case, one would think that spacing and perimeter shooting would be the best
    way to amplify his quickness and minimize his poor shooting. Instead, the Wizards have
    consistently surrounded Wall with a weird mix of talent without an identity. Wall had by
    far the most assists to corner three-point shooters last season
    ; why haven't the Wizards
    signed an elite corner three-point shooter? (They traded their best one in Nick Young
    and let their second-best, Roger Mason, go in free agency). Wall likes to run and find
    shooters spotting up; why haven't the Wizards studied which players hit the most
    transition threes and pursued them in free agency? (Marco Belinelli is starring for
    Chicago; he'd have been a nice, cheap addition). Why haven't the Wizards tried to find
    a stretch 4 instead of hoping their big men can hit enough mid-range jumpers to get by?
    Why are they running a post-heavy and baseline-screen offensive system when Wall is
    a poor off-ball player?

    These are all questions that...CONTINUE READING AT BULLETS FOREVER

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

    Michael Lee @MrMichaelLee
    Mike Prada @MikePradaSBN
    Kyle Weidie @Truth_About_It
    WizzNutzz @wzzntzz
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

    I'm hoping for a blowout, but expecting to go down by 10 and winning in the final 4 minutes.


    • #3
      Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

      is Hill back?
      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


      • #4
        Trap game... let's get it done guys.


        • #5
          Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

          Hill is out this game.


          • #6
            Gotta take care of business tonight Pacers!


            • #7
              Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

              Mike Wells ‏@MikeWellsNBA
              Looks like DJ Augustin will get his 2nd straight start at PG.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


              • #8
                Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                Conrad Brunner ‏@1070Bruno
                Augustin once again listed as the starter at PG. Hill warmed up about an hour before the game to test his bruised thigh but no go.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                • #9
                  Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                  Wow, love this pace.


                  • #10
                    Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                    Great start! Love this energy!


                    • #11
                      Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                      This is fun
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.


                      • #12
                        Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                        Liking D.J. more and more with the starters.


                        • #13
                          Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                          I didn't know Lance could dunk like that.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                          • #14
                            Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                            Woo lebron like there lance


                            • #15
                              Re: 1/2/2013 Game Thread #32: Pacers Vs. Wizards

                              Originally posted by PGisthefuture View Post
                              Liking D.J. more and more with the starters.
                              This, he looks a new player, a GREAT player