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

Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

    There is A LOT of ball sticking right now from pretty much everyone on the roster. Danny and Scola are probably moving the ball the best and that should not be the case. It is sticking with West and Roy in the post and it is sticking with particularly Paul and Lance on the perimeter. Not acceptable. This team has too many pieces to not eat people alive with ballhandling, but not surprising that some bad trends are starting to poke through. We're nearly at the halfway point (if you can believe it) no doubt Vogel will get it straightened up.


    • #47
      Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      J. Jack is an *******. Thinks he is the best player on every team, why do you think Golden State didn't really lose any sleep that he walked? Dude thought he should be starting with Curry and Thompson this year.
      Jack is fine. He left because CLE gave him big $.


      • #48
        Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        I was only able to watch the last 18 minutes tonight. What was this?
        Lance had the ball poked away from him and dove to the floor to grab it back in a scrum and called timeout to keep the possession. The next thing you know Denari and Quinn are talking about Lance and Hill in a shouting match. Then, Vogel suddenly puts them both on the bench and replaces them with Granger and Watson (Lance and Hill normally would have finished the half--this was around the five minute mark).

        I reviewed the play and couldn't figure it out. Lance drove to the bucket just before, threw a nice pass to Hill in the corner who eventually shot a three which missed. Lance got the rebound and dribbled a couple of times when it got poked.

        I have no idea, but if I had to guess, Hill got on Lance for dribbling a couple of times, and Lance told him he just offensive rebounded Hill's miss, so lay off.

        But who knows? I imagine there is potential for difficulty seeing that running the offense is generally switching these days from Hill to Lance.

        One could easily just point the finger at Lance in this incident. But I don't see Vogel benching Hill as well unless part of it was on him.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


        • #49
          Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

          I only caught the end of the 4th. but I like what I see from the shot distribution in the box score. I'd assume more touches in the paint and it's good to see a little more pt for Danny who has earned it.
          Who was it that suggested Vogel tell Paul that he could only take as many 3's as he had free throw attempts?
          I know it seems to have not worked out as well for us tonight but I think this team is better when we move the ball into the paint first and get more players involved in the offense, we're too talanted to have one player take 24 shots.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.


          • #50
            Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

            I agree on the Lance/GHill 'problem'. I think GH said something to Lance and Lance took it badly. Vogel did what he should have done, nipped that nonsense in the bud. Players may get emotional, but there is no reason to let them lose their concentration by pouting at each other. Seemed to work, they seemed fine when they came back in together. The thing that bothers me most is the way the team seems to go into iso/hero mode any time they are challenged by another team. When the Pacers move the ball from side to side and inside out, they are almost impossible to beat. When they yo-yo the ball on the perimeter then throw up last second hasty shots, they become very average.


            • #51
              Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
              Who was it that suggested Vogel tell Paul that he could only take as many 3's as he had free throw attempts?
              Well, yeah, because that person is obviously more qualified to be an NBA coach than Vogel is.


              • #52
                Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Hill took too long to make a move a Lance ended up saving his a**
                These two are so polar opposites in court attitude. And only Lance has minimized his weakness. He needs more of it, but he is more in control than Hill is less apprehensive.

                We are seeing Vogel change rotations to the needs on the court with Lance/PG/Danny. I kind of wish he would do that with Ian/West/Scola. When Tyler Zeller is on the court Scola could guard him and West Bennett.

                I think the next two weeks are going to be crucial in the chemistry department. We are so close in making a breakthrough in conistency department. Offensively we are seeing horrible spacing from the starters whenever the opponent traps the pick and roll. Which is what Miami does. Credit goes to Mike Brown and his scouting department. We have to hit the high post when the blitz the pick and roll. And we aren't doing it. Correction...except for Roy and Granger we aren't doing it. And Roy did it twice that I saw.


                • #53
                  Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                  Look guys, I got a George Hill bobblehead from the Cavs game last night!


                  • #54
                    Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                    I think its funny that alot of you act like the other team doesn't have players as well. When the opponent is missing 3 of their top guys. That means the scrubs get a real opportunity and they get hyped ala Lance. Its never easy to blow teams out when they have extra motivation.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                    • #55
                      Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      I was only able to watch the last 18 minutes tonight. What was this?
                      To me it seemed like Hill had enough of Lance's abuse of the spin button and crossover stick. It probably spilled over when Lance nearly lost the ball and had Frank burn a timeout because of it.

                      It was interesting to me because I'd never seen Hill initiate a confrontation before. It just goes against his personality, it seems, so it's surprising that it was enough to get him to confront Lance. I think you also have to look at how Hill was brought up in the league under Pop in San Antonio. I can imagine Pop pulling Lance for that careless play, whereas Frank might give him a little more leeway (with Bird's blessing?). Benching both just shows to me that Frank's read some parenting/disciplining books. He did the right thing to appear consistent and not play favorites.

                      I don't want to read too much into it, though. It's a long season and these guys spend so much time together that arguments are bound to happen. For example, that LeBron and Chalmers confrontation was much worse. They also connected on a few plays later in the game so it seemed like it passed over.

                      I'd be more interested to know what West said to Frank when he uncharacteristically went over to speak to him during a Cavs free throw since it immediately followed a number of bad plays by Lance. He seemed exasperated as well, but perhaps more wisely went over to voice his concerns to Frank instead.
                      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers


                      • #56
                        Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                        Originally posted by BornReady View Post
                        I don't mean to be debbie downer, I'm happy we got the win, but if we continue to play like this, we are in trouble. I really wasn't impressed tonight and I think we won purely because we are the more talented team. A starting lineup of Delladova, Miles, Clark, Tristan, and Andy with even less talent off the bench should not be able to stay competitive with our lineup.
                        I've been worried about the team's level of play for about 6-7 games now. Even during that win streak of 5 games or so, something has just not looked "right". Got no idea what it might be.


                        • #57
                          Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                          Worst 27 - 6 team of all time.
                          "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. "


                          • #58
                            Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                            Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                            Worst 27 - 6 team of all time.
                            There's nothing wrong with viewing a sport through the critical eye, what standard would we be setting for ourselves if we settled for this team winning 81% of their games? Talk about lowering the bar.


                            • #59
                              Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                              There's nothing wrong with viewing a sport through the critical eye, what standard would we be setting for ourselves if we settled for this team winning 81% of their games? Talk about lowering the bar.
                              I'd have to say there's a difference between "a critical eye" and using words like "embarrassing" and "terrible".

                              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...


                              • #60
                                Re: Postgame thread Cleveland/Indy

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                I'd have to say there's a difference between "a critical eye" and using words like "embarrassing" and "terrible".
                                Well, if they can only muster 27 wins in 33 games, I see absolutely nothing wrong with considering their effort thus far "embarassing", and "terrible" is a great adjective for a team that is on pace to lose between 14 and 16 games.