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 vs. #8 playoff history

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

    ^^^ Most encouraging news i've heard about that game.


    • #17
      Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

      Blaming Turner is only part of the story. He wasn't supposed to be guarding Teague. Team didn't rotate correctly. This is stuff that they should be able to fix with film.


      • #18
        Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

        here's the last 3 minutes of game 2. It's hard to believe this is the same suns team that won 62 games and would go on to give the bulls all they could handle in the finals.

        It's more hilarious with Magic Johnson laughing hysterically (nice unbiased choice of color guy NBC) as the Suns just crumble under the weight of the moment.

        Last edited by Kstat; 04-22-2014, 02:01 PM.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004


        • #19
          Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          here's the last 3 minutes of game 2. It's hard to believe this is the same suns team that won 62 games and would go on to give the balls all they could handle in the finals.

          It's more hilarious with Magic Johnson laughing hysterically (nice unbiased choice of color guy NBC) as the Suns just crumble under the weight of the moment.

          I hope that was intentional. Funny.

          Damn edit ninja


          • #20
            Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

            Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
            I hope that was intentional. Funny.

            Damn edit ninja
            autocorrect is funny sometimes

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004


            • #21
              Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Huh? ATL has the best shooting front court in the NBA probably. Milsap and Antic can both camp the 3. This is the biggest issue. The whole reason Teague got loose in game 1 was because Roy and West were 20 feet from the hoop. vEven then we still may need to consider just letting Antic do his thing. The dude is only a 32% shooter from 3, Milsap is actually the better shooter at 36%.

              A couple things to remember about this Hawks team

              1.) They've had a lot of injuries the past two years. Horford obviously has been a major missing piece, but don't forget that last year they didn't have Lou Williams against us either, he gives them another perimeter creator we have to at least account for. They've also had injury issues this season too. Milsap missed 8 games. Korver missed 11. Lou missed 22 this season. Antic only played in 50 games. When Milsap missed his longest stretch of the year, end of FEB into start of MAR, ATL went from a .500 team and slid down to where they are now. They struggled when he got back too as he got up to speed then really played well end of MAR into APR. FEB in general was a really tough month for the Hawks and was when they went from being above .500 to .500 and then dipped under and they didn't have Antic that entire month. Antic is not a huge statistical monster but he is an important part of what Budenholzer wants to do from a game plan stand point.

              2.) Teague is quietly now one of the most playoff tested point guards in the NBA. This is his fourth straight year of starting at point in the playoffs for the Hawks. Yeah they haven't seen a ton of success but at this point he's certainly not intimidated by the moment. I thought he played really loose in game 1.

              3.) This Hawks team is better than the one we beat last year. Yes, I know not by record, but in terms of game plan and how they play together they are better. At least right now. April was arguably their best month of basketball and while I don't really believe in momentum, I do believe that sometimes a team can click at the right moment. You knwo what game 1 actually reminded me of? Our game 1 against CHI 3 years ago, a team with a solid game plan and a couple matchup advantages giving the much more talented team all they can handle. If you all remember, after Tyler's steal and dunk, it looked like we were about to run away with it, now Rose went nova late and saved the day for Chicago, but had we kept rolling from the Tyler dunk we might remember that game 1 the same way. ATL absolutely can and will give us problems, but in the end I do think our talent will win out. This series from a matchup perspective may be way scarier for us than our round 2 opponent.

              Right now it's about circling the wagons, we shot the ball well in the first half of game 1, we actually rebounded pretty well too (14 offensive boards off 47 misses is decent), you would probably look at me crazy if I told you we had more assists than the Hawks but we actually did (19 assists to their 13)

              Atlanta did beat us and in the 3rd Q they beat our brains in really, but to me the biggest thing for the P's tonight is not giving up 29 free throws to a team that isn't really looking to get inside all that often. That is in the end what ended up dooming us Saturday. Lots of bad fouls. West's foul trouble in the 3rd coinciding with PG deciding to get his quad checked out is what allowed ATL to get breathing room and play loose in the fourth quarter.
              So what you're saying is that Atlanta had a legit shot even if they played against the Pacers from early in the season?

              Personally, I see Paul George guarding him, and the whole team would be done. Beyond Teague, who else is a legit scoring threat? Yes, they're using a 3PT lineup threat, but it will fall apart easily if they have no one to drive into the paint to force our defense to collapse

              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?


              • #22
                Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

                Yes, I believe ATL this year matches up with us exceedingly well.

                Our first matchup with them came in ATL, we were 28-6 and lost. Then we went on to win 5 straight including the blowout of the Clippers and the big win in Golden State to kick off the road trip. We were still playing good ball. The BLITZED us in the first quarter of that game on January 8, 25-12. Similar to the way they blitzed us in the 3rd quarter on Saturday.

                Our next matchup with the Hawks came in ATL again on Feb 4th, the team had still not gotten shakey yet though we had maybe dipped a bit. The Pacers responded better in this game and won a pretty gutsy game on the second night of a back to back. West was huge with 22-10 on like 52% shooting. We still only won by 4 and ATL almost pulled off their now what could be considered patented second unit comes in in the fourth agianst the Pacers and almost wins the game trick.

                Third matchup was in Indy on Feb 18. The first game out of the all star break. Indy won by 10 and came out blistering in the first quarter. Scoring 35 points in the first frame. Pacers would go on to win 6 out of 7 coming out of the all star break in what was their last stretch of winning basketball on the season. Paul had a great game, but again David West was efficient 17 points on 6/10 shooting, like I said in another thread, West is the key to this matchup for the Pacers.

                The fourth matchup in Indy came on bloody Sudnay and probably doens't need to be discussed here, but yeah I do believe ATL has shown this year they match up with us very well especiallyw hen they can play Antic and Milsap.

                Also, legit shot is debatable. Did we have a legit shot to beat Chicago in 2011? No we didn't but we did have some solid matchups and got some strong performances out of our vet (Danny or in ATL's case on Saturday Teague). I still think the Pacers win this thing 5. Honeslty I do, but I think the Hawks are going to make us go through hell to do it.


                • #23
                  Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

                  2003. #1 Pistons vs #8 Orlando

                  Pistons go down 3-1 then win 3 straight to take the series.


                  • #24
                    Re: #1 vs. #8 playoff history

                    this team is too good defensively to get upset by an 8 seed.