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

1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies



    Game Time Start: 1:00 PM ET
    Where: FedExForum, Memphis, TN
    Officials: T. Brothers, B. Adams, J. Williams

    Media Notes: Indiana Notes, Memphis Notes
    Television: ESPN / NBAC (Canada)
    Radio: WFNI 1070 AM / WMFS 92.9 FM, 680 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: 9-13
    East: 11-6
    Home: 15-5
    East: 11-3
    Jan 23
    Jan 26
    Jan 28
    Jan 30

    Danny Granger - left knee tendinosis (out)
    Lance Stephenson - sore right foot (day-to-day)

    Quincy Pondexter - grade 2 eft MCL sprain (out)
    Zach Randolph - strained lower back (day-to-day)

    Kevin Lipe: Don’t Panic. Or Maybe Do. But Probably Don’t. Right?

    Talking myself back from the ledge, given the Grizzlies' last three games. What's
    eating the Memphis Grizzlies right now?

    The Grizzlies, it would appear, are in a tailspin. They swept a West Coast road trip
    with victories over the Suns, Warriors, and Kings, and then returned to Memphis for
    an overtime victory over the Spurs.

    Since then, well, things aren’t going according to plan.

    I’ve been just as shocked as you have by the last three games.[1] In the whole of the
    Lionel Hollins era, this has been a team that has made up for its (many) deficiencies
    through sheer force of will and raw, oftentimes ugly, effort. This is a team that may
    not be as talented as its opponent, but will fight, scratch, and claw every inch of the
    way to a win. It’s supposed to be "All heart, grit, grind," right? Didn’t we believe that?
    Isn't that why Tony Allen is the Grizzlies' spirit animal?

    Peter Edmiston, of Sports 56 in Memphis, said this last night:

    So what do we do now, Grizzlies fans? What are we supposed to expect from this team
    that started 12–2 and has been .500 ever since, and which appears to be flaming out
    before our very eyes?

    The Grizzlies appear to have found themselves at the center of a perfect storm. Since
    the new ownership group took over at the beginning of the regular season, we’ve seen
    things go from awesome to okay to horrible. The team looks less like the world-beaters
    we saw in November and more like the hurt-ZBo uglyball practitioners of last season,
    when they were playing defense so well they only had to score 80-points to win.

    The problem? They’re still only scoring 80-something points, but they’re not doing
    anything on defense. And they’re not doing anything on offense either. They’re not
    making shots. In Dallas, the Grizzlies’ eFG% was .399, or 39.9%. At home against
    the Clippers, it was 33.7%. The team’s raw FG% was 30.3%, which was the worst in
    franchise history in a home game all the way back to 1995. In Vancouver. With Big
    Country Reeves. Even they didn’t shoot 30%. In San Antonio, same story: eFG%
    was 42%.

    Of course, in San Antonio, it didn’t help that the Spurs’ eFG% as .638, and they
    assisted on 75% of their baskets — but that, too, shows you something about the
    Grizzlies’ defensive intensity. This is a team that thrives on turning other teams over.
    They had a streak of 138 straight games where they forced their opponent into 10+
    turnovers, and that streak ended in Dallas on Saturday.

    Clearly something is going on. The team can no longer score — something we’ve
    seen since December — but now they appear to be incapable of (1) getting stops and
    (2) being able to get the offense going again when they hit a wall. They seem to lack
    the wherewithal to adjust their offensive gameplan on the fly — but their effort, at
    least to the uninformed eye, looks so weak that it’s hard to tell whether to blame that
    on coaching or on the players.

    Offense has never been this team’s strong suit. So far this season they’re 16th in the
    league in offensive rating with a 104.2, but that number is certainly being boosted by
    November, in which the Grizzlies were in the top 5 in both offense and defense. In the
    last three games, the Grizzlies had an ORtg of 97.2, 87.5, and 94.1. Their defensive
    rating for the season is 2nd out of all 30 teams at 100.5, but in the last three games,
    it was 121.8, 118.6, and 118.2. So the offensive ratings have been well below season
    average, and the defensive ratings have been far worse than the season average.

    What happened to the Grizzlies’ defense? What’s going on?

    When the new front office took over, it was obvious that things were going to change.
    When they hired John Hollinger to be VP of Basketball Operations, it became even more
    obvious that the team was going to be trying an analytics-based approach to team-


    Dan Devine: Zach Randolph Is Scared of Cats

    During his 12-year NBA career, Zach Randolph has made it abundantly clear on a number
    of occasions that he's not scared of anybody on the basketball court. The 6-foot-9, 260-
    pound Memphis Grizzlies power forward has gone toe-to-toe with some of the league's
    biggest and baddest dudes over the years, including, most recently, Oklahoma City
    Thunder center Kendrick Perkins; their November clash resulted in ejections, a $25,000
    fine for Randolph and one of the season's great quotes: Z-Bo telling Memphis radio host
    Chris Vernon, "I'm good with these hands, man. I'm a jackin' dude." (There's also the off
    -court and past stuff, which only bolster Z-Bo's never-scared bona fides.)

    But as a wise man — either Winston Churchill or Jim Carrey in "Me, Myself and Irene,"
    not sure which — once said, just because a man rocks doesn't mean he's made of
    stone. As he's matured, Randolph has more frequently shown a softer side, engaging
    in heartwarming charitable endeavors like donating $10,000 last summer to save a
    pit bull that had been trapped for days in a Memphis drainpipe. Randolph's giving
    actions and interactions with the rescued pit bull — later named "Little Z-Bo," which
    is the best — will be featured Saturday on an episode of the Animal Planet reality
    series "Pit Bulls and Parolees."

    But as Randolph told ESPN Playbook's Sam Alipour in an interview pegged to the
    episode's Jan. 11 premiere, his love for dogs (he owns several and acts as a
    spokesperson for the Memphis Humane Society) doesn't extend to all furry, four-
    legged creatures. Nor, it seems, does his fearlessness:
    Like you, I’m a dog lover. On a possibly related note, I feel, in my
    heart of hearts, that cats are evil. Feel me?

    Naw, you’re right: You can’t be both a dog lover and a cat lover. I’ve
    got a crazy phobia about cats. For some reason, I’m always thinking
    they’re going to scratch me. If a cat walks up, I’m going, “Oh no, this
    dude about to scratch me — I know it!” Cats scare the hell out of me.
    I love animals, but I’m no cat lover. Guys usually aren’t.

    Interesting. Then maybe you can help me out. My buddy, Mike
    Garrett, an otherwise normal, single, young man, is very seriously
    considering buying a cat. He won’t listen to me, so maybe he’ll
    listen to Z-Bo. Mike’s crazy, right?

    Oh, man, tell him to buy a dog! [Laughs.] Yo, I’m serious, tell your
    friend — tell him right now: You don’t need no cat, Mike. Buy a dog.

    Yeah, Mike. Buy a dog. Zach Randolph said you should buy a dog, so you should
    definitely buy a dog. Like, right now. Seriously, ask Ruben Patterson and Louis
    Amundson what happens when you don't do what Zach Randolph wants you to do.
    You should get this done as soon as possible. Do you need to borrow some money?
    Just let me know, dude...CONTINUE READING AT BALL DON'T LIE

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

    Ronald Tillery @CAGrizBlog
    sbnGrizzlies @sbnGrizzlies
    3 Shades of Blue@3Shadesofblue
    Joshua Red Coleman @3SOB
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

    What happened to Z-bo? Why isn't he starting?


    • #3
      Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

      OH. Just saw it. nevermind, strained back.


      • #4
        Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

        Damnit, for once I'd like these teams to play each other at full length. They have such a similar makeup.


        • #5
          Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

          I like our chances with Z-Bo out.


          • #6
            Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

            I am trying to set up my DVR at work here. Is it on ESPN? It's not listed on the xfinity channel schedule.


            • #7
              Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies



              • #8
                Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

                Hey mattie, isn't it possible that James Earl Ray wasn't really a racist, and was really just a huge Pacers' fan that worked the night shift?


                • #9
                  Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

                  Man I wanted to see Zbo
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


                  • #10
                    Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

                    BLAH. I'm at work.


                    • #11
                      Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

                      just came from work. ready to go. hope we get a win.


                      • #12
                        Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

                        Danny taking part in shootaround


                        • #13
                          Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          Hey mattie, isn't it possible that James Earl Ray wasn't really a racist, and was really just a huge Pacers' fan that worked the night shift?
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.


                          • #14
                            Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

                            A win here would ease my mind about whether or not this team can beat other good teams at home.


                            • #15
                              Re: 1/21/2013 Game Thread #42: Pacers Vs. Grizzlies

                              Don't quote that nuntius! I blocked him for a reason. =)