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

Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

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

  • Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2013...rsion-letdown-

    NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?
    Apr. 23, 2013

    Written by
    Mike Wells

    The Indiana Pacers know the opportunity is there. They know the Atlanta Hawks are a fragile team that can be shook easily.

    The Pacers can protect their home court Wednesday and send the Hawks back to Atlanta down 2-0 with even more questions than they already have.

    It’s just a matter of which Pacers team shows up for Game 2 at Bankers Life Fieldhouse: the one that won Game 1 by 17 points or the one that had the tendency to have a letdown after success during the regular season?

    “Momentum can shift dramatically with one game, and you have to take care of your home court,” Pacers coach Frank Vogel said. “I think (the players) have to understand that Game 2 is going to be much harder.”

    The Pacers’ impressive Game 1 victory no longer means anything. The players can look at the Brooklyn-Chicago series if they need further proof. The Nets beat the Bulls by 17 points at home in Game 1, only to turn around and lose their home-court edge by dropping Game 2.

    If the Pacers lose Wednesday, home-court advantage belongs to the Hawks. Indiana will have to wait two days for an opportunity to get it back, and then it won’t be easy; the Pacers have lost 11 in a row at Atlanta.

    That makes winning Game 2 even more important.

    “We have to throw Game 1 out,” said swingman Paul George, the NBA’s Most Improved Player. “We have to protect our home court.”

    The Pacers watched the video from their Game 1 victory Monday, then immediately turned their attention to Wednesday’s game.

    A playoff series is about countermoves. The Pacers know the Hawks will try to match their physicality.

    The Hawks, who returned to Atlanta after Sunday’s game, went with a small starting lineup in the opener that included 6-7, 212-pound Kyle Korver in the frontcourt with Josh Smith and Al Horford in an attempt to get the Pacers to play more up tempo.

    The move backfired. Korver, a 3-point specialist, struggled guarding George and the Pacers beat up the Hawks in just about every facet of the game. The Pacers attempted 34 free throws to the Hawks’ 14 attempts and out-rebounded Atlanta 48-32.

    “That team physically manhandled us,” Hawks coach Larry Drew said. “This is playoff basketball. That cannot happen. Absolutely cannot happen. ... We already know who they are and what they bring. Yet we did not play the game like we were playing a physical team.”

    The Pacers expect the Hawks to use more a traditional lineup — they started the 6-9 Smith, 7-footer Johan Petro and the 6-10 Horford in a six-point loss in Indianapolis and 6-11 Zaza Pachulia with Smith and Horford in an 89-86 victory in Atlanta.

    Smith returned to practice Tuesday after sitting out Monday’s session and is expected to be in the lineup Wednesday.

    “Have to expect the unexpected mentally,” Vogel said. “We’re making adjustments, too. There are some things I think we can do a lot better tactically and in terms of execution. We’ll make adjustments, but we’re expecting them to make adjustments, too.”

    Call Star reporter Mike Wells at (317) 444-6053.
    I understand the sentiments, but does anyone else wish they'd lead with the positive and then balance it with the negative instead of the other way around for a change? This comes pretty close to, "Hey, if you didn't show up on Sunday because it would be a boring win, don't bother showing up tonight because we could easily lose."
    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...

  • #2
    Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    . . . I understand the sentiments, but does anyone else wish they'd lead with the positive and then balance it with the negative instead of the other way around for a change? This comes pretty close to, "Hey, if you didn't show up on Sunday because it would be a boring win, don't bother showing up tonight because we could easily lose."
    The only way the Star coverage will be more positive is if they hire a new beat writer. Mike Wells always seems to be the 'don't forget ever silver lining has a dark cloud' kind of guy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

      I just think the "which team will show up" is a very easy and juvenile way to preview tonights game. Towards the end of the article there is a little bit of decent analysis, but only very little. I would love to read a little true insight, but I gave up on that years ago. Wells is a good reporter, but his game coverage I think is beyond horrible. I never learn anything from him. Same with Kravitz. They both take the most obvious angle. I have come to realize that is their job, but they add nothing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

        Mike Wells just does the absolute bare minimum required off a beat writer. I didn't pay attention as much to the beat writer before Wells. Who was it and how was he?
        There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

          Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
          Mike Wells just does the absolute bare minimum required off a beat writer. I didn't pay attention as much to the beat writer before Wells. Who was it and how was he?
          Worse.
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

            Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
            Mike Wells just does the absolute bare minimum required off a beat writer. I didn't pay attention as much to the beat writer before Wells. Who was it and how was he?
            Depends what you want from the beat writer. Many will say worse, some will say better.

            Those who say that Wells is better likely will say so because Wells is willing to be more critical of the team and he is more willing to report breaking news.

            Those who say that Wells is worse (like me) will perhaps mention what I did a few posts earlier. I don't really care if a beat writer is postive or negative, I can figure that out myself. I want some real insight into the team, and some ability of the writer to write a game report - to know a little bit about basketball, to write a story about the game. In that regard I think Wells is Mr. Obvious and I think he is the worst beat writer that I can remember. I want to look forward to reading the beat writers game report, tell me something I didn't know or hadn't considered. There are a few beat writers out there that still do that.

            Wells does not give any real analysis of basketball beyond what is obvious. And his pure writing ability is not very good.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

              I think we'll see a very similar Pacers team, but a way more focused Hawks squad
              Smothered Chicken!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

                Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                Mike Wells just does the absolute bare minimum required off a beat writer. I didn't pay attention as much to the beat writer before Wells. Who was it and how was he?
                Sekou Smith was a decent beat writer before Wells joined but I don't remember if he was the last Pacers beat writer before Wells or if there was another. He's working for NBA.com now and has written several good blog articles this year.

                I remember reading Mark Montieth back in the 90's and although he tended to slant more towards the positive, his articles were often inciteful. He's working for Pacers.com now and he does a good job with the stories between games like the article about David West's background for example.

                Wells just strikes me as lazy. He rarely provides any statistical info in his game previews other than the basic boxscore or player averages you can look up in 2 minutes. Yahoo Sports, NBA.com, and the Sports Exchange have the best game previews, IMO.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

                  People act like we don't have a 75 game sample size of this team being badass. They can only remember the last 6 games of the season.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    People act like we don't have a 75 game sample size of this team being badass. They can only remember the last 6 games of the season.
                    Bada$$? yeah I'm not sure about that.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      Bada$$? yeah I'm not sure about that.
                      48-27 including a stretch of 38-16. That's pretty damn good.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        48-27 including a stretch of 38-16. That's pretty damn good.
                        Pretty good yeah but bada$$ I don't think so.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

                          In respne to the article. Which team will show up? The answer is simple. Depends which Paul George shows up.
                          If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                          @LetsTalkPacers

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

                            Hell this sorry excuse for a local paper can't even put Paul George Accepting the MIP Award as the lead on their website yesterday.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Indystar: NBA Playoffs: Which Pacers team will show up? The Game 1 version or a letdown?

                              You will also notice Mike Wells loves being in front of the camera. He always finds a way to be seen. Great (and recent) example... The video of Granger at practice that was posted in another thread by, I belive, BillS.

                              I personally can't stand the guy.

                              Go Pacers

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X