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

Q.O.D. 6-14-07

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

  • Q.O.D. 6-14-07

    Ok we've covered the point guard.

    Now we tackle the shooting guard spot.

    It's going to be a little differant with this question because for the sake of argument we will all agree that we would like a player to be great on both sides of the floor (offense and defense).

    However today let's just say that our shooting guard is a good defender. Not great, not bad, just good.

    Now having said that the question is this.

    Would you rather have a shooting guard who can create his own shot and is good around the basket at drawing fouls, however they have no long range shot so to speak. They are good till about the 20' mark let's say.

    Or would you rather have a dead eye shooter who is very good at the three point shot however requires help getting his shot off and can't creat off of the dribble.

    Again, for the sake of this question you have to choose, no cheating and saying or implying or any other way of having both.

    It's either a shooter or a creator.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

    What's his FT%?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

      I'd probably rather have a dead eye shooter at SG. But it would really depend on what types of players are playing PG and SF. IMO, the Pacers as they are now need a shooter at SG.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Now having said that the question is this.

        Would you rather have a shooting guard who can create his own shot and is good around the basket at drawing fouls, however they have no long range shot so to speak. They are good till about the 20' mark let's say.

        Or would you rather have a dead eye shooter who is very good at the three point shot however requires help getting his shot off and can't creat off of the dribble.

        Again, for the sake of this question you have to choose, no cheating and saying or implying or any other way of having both.

        It's either a shooter or a creator.
        It really dont matter to me because it really depends on the players at the other positions. If you have a PG and SF that are good long range shooters then you would want a SG that can create his own shot and go to the basket well.

        It really aint about the skill set of a player at one position, but about how the skill sets of all 5 guys on the floor compliment one another.

        Personally I feel you need 2 shooters and a player who can penetrate/create his own shot at the 1 through 3 positions. Which positions are the shooters and which is the penetrator/shot creator is really irrelevant as long as you have that combination. And if you have a player that excels at more than one of those things that is just icing on the cake.

        At the 4 and 5 you want a scoring low post presence who commands a double team and the other spot needs to be a good 10-18 foot spot up shooter. Again, it really dont matter which of those two guys does which, as long as you have one of each. And again, if any of the players does both well then that is even more icing on the cake.

        You mix those 5 things together with unselfishness and you got yourself a very solid offensive group.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

          Option two sounds like a Reggie Miller clone, so yeah I'd take that, what Pacer fan wouldn't? However, we need someone that can get his own shot. So I would go with option one.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

            Seems like an easy answer to me.

            You take the guy who can both create off the dribble and hit the open mid-range jumper. 3-point shooting isn't that important when compared to open jumpers a few feet in.

            As long as you stretch the defense by making open shots, you do it.

            One thing, though: The mid-range jumper guy absolutely can't bomb from downtown if he can't hit it. That's the Pacers' problem.

            Just look at Wade as a rookie. Not exactly deadeye from downtown, but far, far more valuable than the jackers of the league.

            You win games by taking and making high-percentage shots. The person who does that best, of these two choices, is who you plug in.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              Would you rather have a shooting guard who can create his own shot and is good around the basket at drawing fouls, however they have no long range shot so to speak. They are good till about the 20' mark let's say.

              Or would you rather have a dead eye shooter who is very good at the three point shot however requires help getting his shot off and can't creat off of the dribble.

              It's either a shooter or a creator.

              OK, I'll play along, and I won't answer with the first thing that came into my head. Which was it depends on what type of point guard and small forward we have.

              I would rather have a creator without question. Someoene who can create his own shot, someoene who can draw fouls, someone who is good around he basket. That is an easy answer for me.

              My dream Pacers game: Pacers shoot about 65 free throws. I would love the Pacers to lead the NBA in getting to the free throw line. In fact I think FT attempts is probably the most important team stat there is.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                OK, I'll play along, and I won't answer with the first thing that came into my head. Which was it depends on what type of point guard and small forward we have.

                I would rather have a creator without question. Someoene who can create his own shot, someoene who can draw fouls, someone who is good around he basket. That is an easy answer for me.

                My dream Pacers game: Pacers shoot about 65 free throws. I would love the Pacers to lead the NBA in getting to the free throw line. In fact I think FT attempts is probably the most important team stat there is.
                Agree 110%. WHY don't they stress FT more? What would Shaqs lifetime scoring average be if he improved his FT by....3....per game? How many more games would he have won?
                I would say that if actually plotted out, most games are won or lost at the freethrow line.


                Then add in rebounding and you have the entire season sewn up.


                My problem with a creator is that he has to dominate the ball to be effective. I don't like anyone dominating the ball, I like ball movement. Besides, even tho a fan of the old ABA, I'm getting bored with the 3 ball and feel it is ruining HS and college ball.
                Last edited by indygeezer; 06-14-2007, 06:57 AM.
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

                  Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                  Agree 110%. WHY don't they stress FT more? What would Shaqs lifetime scoring average be if he improved his FT by....3....per game? How many more games would he have won?
                  I would say that if actually plotted out, most games are won or lost at the freethrow line.


                  Then add in rebounding and you have the entire season sewn up.


                  My problem with a creator is that he has to dominate the ball to be effective. I don't like anyone dominating the ball, I like ball movement. Besides, even tho a fan of the old ABA, I'm getting bored with the 3 ball and feel it is ruining HS and college ball.


                  Larry Brown always stressed it a lot and his teams always got to the free throw line a ton.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

                    In general I want a creator on the team. If he can't hit 3's then so be it. ...Of course he needs to understand that he can't hit 3's and so take the majority of them in the off-season and after practice trying to work on that weakness (not jacking them up during games).

                    BUT.... this player doesn't HAVE to be the SG. As a team builder I'm looking for a creator first but I'd take him at any of the wing positions.

                    But if my scoring 'creator' can't hit 3's then I do want that skill at another position (but I'd be surprised that a dedicated player, with coaching, couldn't improve his 3 point range... Which is not to say I'd count on that scenario).

                    Ideally, my PG could hit an open 3 with some regularity which would allow me some flexibility at the 2 and 3 positions.

                    And I think balance is key. An over-reliance on an inside player known for bad decisions and poor FG% is NOT going to make your wing players shine or allow that aspect of their game to evolve. Not having a flow (rythm, timing, etc.) to the offense is going to hurt most wing players.

                    So the answer to your question... IMO... is "It depends".

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Would you rather have a shooting guard who can create his own shot and is good around the basket at drawing fouls, however they have no long range shot so to speak. They are good till about the 20' mark let's say.

                      Or would you rather have a dead eye shooter who is very good at the three point shot however requires help getting his shot off and can't creat off of the dribble.
                      I believe you have described the two types where by you have forced a person to take the creator. You put limitations that are much more severe on the shooter vs the creator. If you had said a shooter who is dead eye and can get his shot when he wants then you would be fair.

                      However with your description I choose creator. With a more fair description
                      I choose a shooting guard as that is what a shooting guard should be able to do....shoot....from long range.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

                        I think classically I want my 2 to be best from mid-range to outside and if screens or other help is required to increase his percentage, that's fine. In this classical system my 3 is the penetrator and shot creator from mid-range on in.

                        In reality I'd like to see those mixed a bit because it gives you the ability to address a specific defensive situation being thrown at you. Either way, the point would be not to win the game on jumpers (because they sometimes just go bad on you) but to constantly keep the defensive pressure off the 4 and 5 so that the lane is available for the easy shots.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

                          Give me the shooter. Since Reg retired how many times have we seen our guys wide open and can't hit a shot. That's the only reason it did hurt to see Peja not re-sign with the team.

                          When the ball was swung around into Reg's hands or Peja I expected that shot to go in. Watching someone like Freddie Jones, or Al, or Stephen take the shot I was hoping it would go in.

                          I want someone you can feel confident they will hit the shot when open. Ray Allen, Michael Redd, or Rip Hamilton aren't exactly big creators. They just know how to shoot the ball.
                          You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

                            I like shooting guards that can shoot.....
                            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Q.O.D. 6-14-07

                              I'll take option #1. If he can hit from anywhere until they get to the 20' area, it wouldn't take much more than some practice to add an extra 3' of range onto that shot. It sounds like option #1 is Marquis Daniels, #2 is Reggie Miller. Of course Reggie became better and better off the dribble as his career went on, so why couldn't Daniels get better and better at shooting from outside as his career goes on?

                              Even if the creator can't shoot, he can be enough of a threat to open things up for someone else that can. However, I'd rather stick a fork in the three-pointer and just try to get the 3 the old fashioned way -- from the free-throw line.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X