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

Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

    Originally posted by xtacy View Post
    we never make excuses, except after saying we never make excuses.
    Ahh. So, what is the only reason for losing that can't be written off as an excuse? I think "We never make excuses" means we only have ourselves to blame, "We a lil fatigued" is WHY.

    Is "We never make excuses, we just suck" the only valid response? Seems a bit vague (and pretty much wrong based on the rest of the season).

    At some point you have to want people to give you REASONS why they didn't play well instead of just saying "we didn't play well and we should do better". Fatigued (and that means mentally, not just physically) is a pretty decent reason.
    BillS

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

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

      Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
      This felt like the Thunder loss yesterday, except the Wizards didn't have a Durant. We just weren't ready for John Wall or this game at all.

      Gerald was our second best player, and he only shot pretty okay. Might have to start embracing the third seed; it looked like the Knicks were on their way but it's obviously theirs to lose at this point.

      This is the FIRST game I've missed all season. I got so wrapped up in the NCAA games I forgot the Pacers were even playing. Great NCAA games!

      The Pacers can't play against good PG's. Hill just can't.

      I looked at the box scores and Shelvin Mack coming off the bench had 10 pts and 8 asts. I've been thinking about Mack as the back up for next year. Any thoughts?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

        Hill is a good defender, imo. Which is why I think that he is a good fit.
        From a 1-5 with 5 being the best and 1 the worst where do you rank Hill's "D"?

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

          Originally posted by Banta View Post
          Am I the only one who thinks Paul George has been soft and unassertive since the break? He's most assuredly not playing at the same level that earned him the all star bid.

          I think part of it is a symptom of the offense in general, but I see little to no assertiveness from 24 and I'm really starting to get tired of it. If he thinks he is a good enough shooter that its all he needs to do, then he's wrong wrong wrong.
          YES. Since the all-star selection, really. He's had stretches of good enough shooting mixed with his great D to keep people off his back but he's not the same player he was before the break and THIS is what's really terrifying. He went from looking like a potential superstar to Rudy Gay with defense and that's depressing.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

            I think PG has a bit of dead legs. He is been out there 40+ minutes a lot lately. He was less than 30 mpg last year, and this year at 37mpg, plus the full 82 games. Hopefully he can get his legs back.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

              Only 1 block and 2 steals for the entire team last night. Crucial hustle/effort stats. Good indicator of our utter nonchalance about this one.

              I think Hill's D against the top tier pgs is in the 2 - 3 range. He's got long arms, but he just can't stay in front of them. His offense earlier in the year, when he consistently was aggressive/looking to score, offset the defensive issues somewhat.

              Personally, I'd like to see a little more of that mindset again. The way our offense has been going lately, we need another offensive contributor. No individual or combination of Roy/West/George is the level of scorer to not need another. I mean none of these guys is putting 25 + with regularity.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                With Roy and West on the starting unit we DO NOT need a pass first PG. It's extremely simple.

                A pass first PG operates well with PnR bigs. A pass first PG needs space in the paint in order to penetrate and dish.

                Both West and Roy are post-up bigs. They are not good PnR players.

                The Pacers should never be a PnR team with their personnel. They should be an inside-outside team. And that's exactly what we are.

                WHAT??

                DWest played in NO with what PG? CP3 and DWest flourished off having a passing PG. Tyrus Chandler was there in the middle too, so I'm not buying what you are selling. The reason the Pacers sux at the PnR is b/c they don't have a PG that can do it. Get a PG who can, and the Pacers bigs will be able to adjust to it. George Hill can't thus the Pacers don't, so they play the way they do. Hill will never get the Pacers a Championship.

                As I pointed out a few days ago, there are b/u PG's that average more asts than Hill while still being able to score. That doesn't exactly say much for Hill's PG ability. Next year I look for Lance to average more asts than Hill.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post

                  If they are this tired....I'm inclined to sit the Starters once the 3rd Seed is locked up.

                  Look at the starting line up of Atlantas last night! Yet they only got beat by 2 points. And people were upset Pop gave his players a rest!!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

                    Originally posted by freeannyong View Post
                    I think PG has a bit of dead legs. He is been out there 40+ minutes a lot lately. He was less than 30 mpg last year, and this year at 37mpg, plus the full 82 games. Hopefully he can get his legs back.
                    He cancelled an autograph session earlier today, I think he might be dealing with a bug. Could explain the dropoff from the road trip to the b2b.
                    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      @MikeWellsNBA: Wall: "We talked about it before the game that their bigs were playing soft" OUCH


                      Damn
                      Mike Wells ‏@MikeWellsNBA 3h

                      Hibbert on Wall calling the bigs soft: "We have a chance to compete for a championship. They have a chance to compete for the #1 pick"
                      Expand

                      LOL
                      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

                        Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                        Mike Wells ‏@MikeWellsNBA 3h

                        Hibbert on Wall calling the bigs soft: "We have a chance to compete for a championship. They have a chance to compete for the #1 pick"
                        Expand

                        LOL
                        Wow, talk about an ignorant statement. Don't get me wrong, we are playing slightly worse than Indiana did against Syracuse at the moment, but soft is NEVER, EVER, EVER a word to describe David West.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

                          I HATE reading these threads after a couple of losses.
                          Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            From a 1-5 with 5 being the best and 1 the worst where do you rank Hill's "D"?
                            3,5.

                            He is an above average defender. Big PGs cannot post him up, he can disrupt entry passes with his length and also limits the opposing PGs field of vision due to size and length. You can also use him to guard smaller 2s when Paul George is guarding the opposing play-maker.

                            He has weaknesses, of course. He struggles at defending the quicker PGs of the league.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers/Wizards Postgame Thread 4/6/13

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              WHAT??

                              DWest played in NO with what PG? CP3 and DWest flourished off having a passing PG. Tyrus Chandler was there in the middle too, so I'm not buying what you are selling. The reason the Pacers sux at the PnR is b/c they don't have a PG that can do it. Get a PG who can, and the Pacers bigs will be able to adjust to it. George Hill can't thus the Pacers don't, so they play the way they do. Hill will never get the Pacers a Championship.

                              As I pointed out a few days ago, there are b/u PG's that average more asts than Hill while still being able to score. That doesn't exactly say much for Hill's PG ability. Next year I look for Lance to average more asts than Hill.
                              David West flourished in NO with CP3 playing the Pick and Pop. West can shoot. That's his main offensive weapon. He will receive the ball from a PnP and he will either shoot it if he's open or he will fake and attempt a drive. He doesn't roll towards the rim after a screen. He rolls outwards in order to free up for a jump shot.

                              There is also a giant difference between Tyson Chandler and Roy Hibbert. Tyson Chandler is quick, mobile and very athletic for someone his size. He is a great Pick and Roll finisher as he can outrun most opposing bigs after a screen and has secure hands in order to catch and finish a lob or an easy dunk. But he cannot do anything outside 3 feet of the basket. He cannot create for himself or for others.

                              Hibbert is the contrary. He is not very quick, he is not very mobile and he is an athletic specimen. He cannot outrun opposing bigs after a screen. However, he can do a lot of things outside 3 feet of the basket. He can create shots both for himself and for others. He can both shoot and pass from the perimeter and thus teams cannot cheat off of him. When he receives the ball in the post defenses often have to double him to eliminate both the scoring and the passing threat that he generates.

                              Hibbert is best used on a inside-outside offense that revolves around post play. Chandler is best used on a PnR offense that revolves around perimeter play. David West can be used in both systems as floor spacer out of the PnP or secondary post option (primary in case of NOLA).

                              Of course, CP3 being possibly the best PG at the moment plays a significant role as well. Im not going to pretend that Hill is anything close to that. He isn't. But attempting to have Hibbert as the focus of a PnR offense is not a bright idea. It just isn't going to work. Ever.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X