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

The Starting Frontline

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

  • The Starting Frontline

    OK, so I'm sitting here at work trying to decide what our starting frontcourt should be and as of right now only Jermaine and Al are locked in as starters. As for our other options we have Jermaine at center with Danny and Al, or starting Al at small forward, Jermaine at power forward with either David or Jeff at the center position.

    Positives and negatives of starting Jeff: Jeff has been a serviceable starter for us for some time now, and we know exactly what we'll get from him. Jeff will rebound the basketball and he will rebound some more. We know we're not going to get any scoring from him, and he is not a good passer at all. So basically Jeff is a specialty player. I don't think you can start a guy that only has one skill and expect to really compete. If Jeff could play better post defense and bang a little bit more, I may be in favor of him starting, but he simply doesn't do that. I don't think he's a bad defender, he's just more of a team defender then a guy who can bang bodies and wear a guy out.
    The other thing is that I think guys who are exceptionally good at one thing and one thing only are better as sparks off the bench. If you start a guy like that, then when you go to your bench you will have a dropoff in the rebounding department. If we bring him off the bench, however, in relief for one of those other guys, we immediatly improve rebounding wise. I also see Jeff as a power forward MUCH more so then a center, so I think we should use him as such.

    Positives and negatives of starting David: If we start Al/Jermaine/David and it works out well, this is the best case scenario. David is such a bruiser, and is such an opposite to Foster in so many ways. He isn't a great rebounder, but he definitley improved in that department last season. If we give David the reigns and tell him to get the job done I think he may thrive. At least we'll really know what we've got with him instead of having to speculate whether or not he'll break out. Another plus is that we'll be able to bring in 2 high energy guys who I think really worked well together on the floor last year in Danny and Jeff off the bench. Imagine Al and Jermaine scoring a bunch to start out the game with David bruising the other team defensively and getting some easy buckets. Then we come with Daniels Granger and Jeff off the bench. Daniels and Granger lock down the perimiter and Jeff seals off all the rebounds on the defensive side while getting Al Jermaine and Danny extra chances on the offensive side. I would really love to have that situation play out if it could work. The obvious negative is that if it doesn't work, it could REALLY bomb and we could fall hard early in games. David could get into foul trouble and we'd be short on big men real, real fast and we'd most certainly be in trouble and have problems winning any of those games when that happened. Jermaine would be forced to take pretty much the entire load defensively and we all don't want him to have to do that, ideally Jermaine is helping block shots from the weakside and he's getting the ball and making quick decisions in the post. If he's the one forced to bang and guard the other teams low post threats, that's not going to happen.

    Positives and negatives of starting Danny: Even though Danny is a second year guy that is coming off of an average rookie season as far as stats go, I think we all know what we're going to get from Danny this season if he gets the minutes. I also think that is both a pro and a con of starting him. Danny is going to be our 6th man if he doesn't start, and I think he'll make an excellent 6th man because he is going to be extremely reliable and consistent and that is exactly what you need from your first guy off your bench. If the starters are struggling and you need a lift, you want to be able to point to a guy that you KNOW will go out there and get the job done. That's Danny. I don't want to see one of the guys in our frontcourt get in foul trouble or have to come out for some reason and have to point to David. I love David, and he's one of my favorite players on the team, but if he's the first guy in we'll all be holding our collective breaths that he delivers and doesn't get us into deeper ****. That's exactly why I was never completely comfortable with Fred Jones as our 6th man because he was too inconsistent. However, starting Danny definitley has its upside as well. The offensive onslaught that we'd bring to start games with Danny/Al/Jermaine could be devastating and deliver knockout punches early in games. I think this is a lineup we might want to use against teams like Chicago or Detroit who really don't have a big big body down low that would score at will against these guys. Plus if we can get an early lead on them, this is the definitley the way to go to give us an early advantage. Against Miami and Cleveland, I would not want to start these guys because Shaq or Zydrunas would either give JO a pounding that we do not want his body to go through, or they'd just score at willl on Al. I like Al as a post defender aginst guys like Antawn Jamison, Rasheed Wallace or even Dwight Howard, guys like that who don't use power moves as much, but he can't stop the bigger centers.

    Personally, I think Rick needs to loosed his need for a stable starting lineup and play the matchups this season. I really this is a good problem to have that we have so many starting options, and I think he needs to take advantage of that.

  • #2
    Re: The Starting Frontline

    Originally posted by Isaac@Section216 View Post
    We know we're not going to get any scoring from him, and he is not a good passer at all.
    That is not true at all. Passing is the most under-rated part of Jeff's game. He is very good at receiving the ball near the high post and spotting guys who are cutting underneath the basket for the easy dunk/layup.

    I do agree with the fact that he needs to be coming off the bench.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Starting Frontline

      With the starting frontline I think Rick should try different things over the first month of the season. They key is not putting the three best players out there and tell them to play, you must put the best combination of three players out there to compliment one another and act as a cohesive force. (to take from the knute rockne quote)

      I like the point made about starting JO/Al/Hulk. To see them punish an opponent then go out for a breather to only be replaced by Danny and Jeff so they can punish an opponent. Having that spark in the 2nd line of players is huge. We cannot build up leads just so our second unit can come in and lose them. A good balance between 1st and 2nd units is key. I'm positive rick will test many things over the first 15-20 games. Let's just hope he can find the right starting and backup cores.
      I was ready for Josh Smith to go to Indiana, but he went to the NBA. I am ready for him to come to Indiana once again.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Starting Frontline

        Originally posted by rcarey View Post
        That is not true at all. Passing is the most under-rated part of Jeff's game. He is very good at receiving the ball near the high post and spotting guys who are cutting underneath the basket for the easy dunk/layup.

        I do agree with the fact that he needs to be coming off the bench.
        You are correct about finding cutters, I was more referring to his outlet passing. He is not good at igniting a fast break after coming down with a defensive rebound.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Starting Frontline

          Danny al-Jermaine
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Starting Frontline

            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
            Danny al-Jermaine

            agreed hands down that's what it should be keep it that way and let them build chemistry. Jermaine Blocks Shots, Al blocks Shots, Granger Blocks Shots nobody is going to want to drive on us with that. And we all can expect Jeff to be better than any other center coming off the bench, heck maybe even his scoring would improve. I like the idea of a starting lineup something along the line of this:

            PG - Tinsley
            SG - Jackson
            SF - Granger
            PF - Harrington
            C - JO

            2nd Unit

            PG - Sarunas
            SG - Daniel/White
            SF - Williams
            PF - Maceo Baston
            C - Dave

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Starting Frontline

              Originally posted by Isaac@Section216 View Post
              Personally, I think Rick needs to loosed his need for a stable starting lineup and play the matchups this season. I really this is a good problem to have that we have so many starting options, and I think he needs to take advantage of that.
              Yeah, because that stable starting lineup we've had for the last two seasons is certainly the source of so many problems...

              The number of minutes at position should vary based on matchups - unless we might want to, oh, make teams match up to us - but I think the starting lineup should change only based on players actually earning their way into it.
              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


              • #8
                Re: The Starting Frontline

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                Yeah, because that stable starting lineup we've had for the last two seasons is certainly the source of so many problems...
                But that hasn't been Rick's fault we've had injuries whenever we've had guys healthy he's gone to his lineup that he's most comfortable with every time.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Starting Frontline

                  After reading Brunner's piece on the Power Forward position, it looks like O'Neal is against playing center, so I'm expecting Al at the 3, and Jermaine at the 4, with Jeff, sadly, at the starting 5.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Starting Frontline

                    Originally posted by TheDon View Post
                    agreed hands down that's what it should be keep it that way and let them build chemistry. Jermaine Blocks Shots, Al blocks Shots, Granger Blocks Shots nobody is going to want to drive on us with that. And we all can expect Jeff to be better than any other center coming off the bench, heck maybe even his scoring would improve. I like the idea of a starting lineup something along the line of this:

                    PG - Tinsley
                    SG - Jackson
                    SF - Granger
                    PF - Harrington
                    C - JO

                    2nd Unit

                    PG - Sarunas
                    SG - Daniel/White
                    SF - Williams
                    PF - Maceo Baston
                    C - Dave
                    Where'd Jeff go?

                    I think Foster is much better suited to come off the bench, at PF, with Hulk at C. If Sarunas and 'Quis compliment each other and should play together, then Jeff and Hulk are the same. Where Foster is a great rebounder, a good defender, and not much else, David's biggest weaknesses are those exact things. Where David is a good low-post scorer and good shot blocker, Jeff's biggest weaknesses are those exavt things. They'd (in theory) fit very well together.

                    Danny al-Jermain should start. That frontline is certainly formidable, and may well be scary. They are our best players at 3, 4, and 5, and should start.
                    It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Starting Frontline

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      The number of minutes at position should vary based on matchups - unless we might want to, oh, make teams match up to us - but I think the starting lineup should change only based on players actually earning their way into it.
                      Exactly.

                      Screw match-ups.....We're young, quick and athletic....Make the rest of the league adjust to us. The faster we play, the more easy buckets we get and if there is one thing that we definetley have an advantage in, it's athletic bigs that should be able to run the floor....And probably most importantly, the more you run, the more open jump shots you get in transition. And let's face it, most of our perimeter guys need some space to consistantly knock it down from 18+ feet.

                      Let's run.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Starting Frontline

                        We need continuity. I remember when we used to be healthy and have rotations...and played much better. Here is the rotation against the majority of teams:

                        Starters:
                        Jamaal
                        Jax
                        Granger
                        Al
                        JO

                        Bench:
                        Sarunas
                        Daniels
                        White
                        Foster
                        Harrison

                        These teams should face each other on a regular basis in practice.

                        Against bigger teams

                        Starters:
                        Jamaal
                        Jax
                        Granger
                        JO
                        Harrison

                        Bench:
                        Sarunas
                        Daniels
                        White
                        Al
                        Foster

                        I know some might want Al to start every game, and that may turn out to be the case, but I don't think Granger should ever play PF with Al and JO (and Baston for that matter) on the team. In any event, these combinations ensure that a post presence is always on the floor and needs to be honored.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X