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

Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

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

  • Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

    Agree or disagree?

    Over the course of a few games, it seems like the offense completely stalls when Jeff Foster is on the floor.

    Empirically, the Pacers seem to play with less tempo and aggression is on the floor. It seems as though his veteran presence has little to no positive impact on the floor as the Pacers struggle to control the ball and make defensive stops during critical possessions.

    Statistically, the Pacer's points and rebounds per game have decreased since Foster's return while their opponents have increased.

    ---
    Fact: It should be noted that the more Josh McRoberts plays, statistically, the Pacers out-score and out-rebound their opponents. I am not sure as to whether or not this translates into wins. However, I am sure that if a user did the research it would indicate so.
    ---

    It seems like Foster's role should be limited. I like Jeff, I just don't think he can contribute on a team that's primary goals are to stretch and spread the floor. I especially do not think he compliments Roy Hibbert in any way, share, or form.

  • #2
    Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

    The offense stalled long before Jeff started playing 3 games ago.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 12-27-2010, 03:22 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

      Totally agree with you! I mean he is a tremendous rebounder and blue collar player, and to be honest is exactly what bird said he wanted in a pf earlier this year but like you stated it doesn't go with the direction of the team.

      I would for Jeff to stay for the pacers until he retires but business is business and we have to let him go or trade him to get a good piece for our future. And hopefully he comes back as a big man coach to teach our players who are probably gonna be athletic based players who to play down low.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

        Maybe, but the defense and rebounding he provides in most match ups, more than makes up for it, imo.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

          I'd say it's a toss up...

          Rebounding has clearly been a problem for this team of late. So, do you continue to play Foster behind Hibbert or do you pair them together thus freeing Hibbert to work underneath while allowing Foster to clean up the offensive glass, or do you let Foster backup Hibbert and mitigate the improved performance of Solo while still lingering in rebounding and forcing the Guards to pickup that slack?

          My vote: Pair Hibbert w/Foster but ONLY as Jmac's backup.

          In other words, DON'T change what was working; just modify it.

          Hibbert and Jmac worked only in the sense that Jmac plays above the rim and he gets down court in transition very quickly which is what JOB wanted him to do. He receives the outlet pass in transition very cleanly and will "throw it down with authority", not to mention he does have a decent shooting stroke for someone of his size and length.

          PROBLEM: He doesn't box out well enough to positon himself for offensive rebounds; nor Hibbert for that matter. So, you need to overcome this deficiency somehow. In comes Foster, our rebounding king!

          PROBLEM: Foster doesn't score the ball very well, nor does he have a strong first step to the basket, a post-up game, nor does he OR WILL HE put the ball on the floor at any time when he's up high along the perimeter. So, he forces the offense to come to him EXCEPT when Dunleavy's in the game and the two of them can either work "give-N-go" plays or when Foster knows Dunleavy will make backdoor cuts to the basket. Otherwise, the only thing Foster's truly good for is rebounding (or an occasional 10-12 ft shot).

          Foster's presense is minimized only if:

          a) you use him in PNR plays; or,

          b) you have a strong post player to work underneath the basket.

          Right now, the Pacers have neither because Hibbert's game has gone in the tank and JOB ISN'T using Dunleavy/Foster as outlined above (PNR/GNG plays). So, Foster's presence is a wash.

          You can also look at this same deficiency w/the our reserve bigs. Solo may be improving his game, but he's not a good rebounders, nor does have have a post-up game. THAT'S THIS TEAM'S BIGGEST WEAKNESS...NO REAL POST PRESENCE OTHER THAN HIBBERT (who as I said who's game has really gone downhill of late)!!!

          Our PGs (Collison) are having a difficult time knowing how to run the offense because the "offensive landscape keeps changing".

          Solution: Stop playing the "matchup game" and just play basketball! Keep the lineup the same, but make the adjustments during the game. In this way, players know when they'll play and when they won't. I think most players can even handle having their minutes reduced IF they know it's for the betterment of the team, to move the team forward. But when you're constantly moving players in and out of the lineup it messes things up; players can't get into a rythme because you're having a difficult time figuring out where this player is suppose to be as opposed to knowing where this player WILL be.

          THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!!

          Think about how the offense moved so much better even while the Pacers were on their first Westcoast road trip. They made mistakes, but they moved so much more fluidly. Contrast that to how they've played since their home game against the Lakers recently. Sure, teams have scouted them and they know what to expect; they aren't so caught off-guard by their improved defense now as they were before, but I blame JOB for this because he keeps moving the goal post so-to-speak.

          If you're going to remove a player from among the starters because he's not performing well, THEN DO IT! Bench the guy for goodness sakes!! But don't play a guy one game, see that he performed well, but then sit him for the guy you benched the last game OR to replace that player with someone else. Now, instead of having 1 player riding the pine you have 2...what sense does that make?

          STOP with this "player by committee BS" and put your best players out there at their relative positions no matter if they're rookies or vets and LET THEM PLAY BALL!!!
          Last edited by NuffSaid; 12-27-2010, 03:49 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

            Disagree. It's the other way around. The defense stalls when Foster is not in the game. Maybe stalls is not the right word. But rebounding certainly is not optimal.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

              In my opinion Foster is like Posey. Both bring something that can be very useful to the team, but both are specialist who should only be playing under certain circumstances. They add depth, but they shouldn't be main pieces, they should compliment the main pieces which should be Hibbert, McRoberts, and Hansbrough.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

                Originally posted by joeyd View Post
                Disagree. It's the other way around. The defense stalls when Foster is not in the game. Maybe stalls is not the right word. But rebounding certainly is not optimal.


                You know what kills me about this play? I kept thinking, over and over again, "McRoberts would have challenged that." Bare minimum - he would have gotten off of the floor.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

                  The offense was already a problem, and I don't think Jeff makes it worse. Honestly he's just doing what Josh was trying to do, that is to say, before Josh started pretending to be Troy Murphy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

                    The offense stalls because we have poor PG play. I finally have come to that conclusion.
                    JOB is a silly man

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      The offense was already a problem, and I don't think Jeff makes it worse. Honestly he's just doing what Josh was trying to do, that is to say, before Josh started pretending to be Troy Murphy.
                      You have to blame JOB on that, its clear that JOB wants his 4 to stretch the floor.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

                        Originally posted by jhondog28 View Post
                        The offense stalls because we have poor PG play. I finally have come to that conclusion.
                        I disagree. We all know what the problem is with the point guard situation. Furthermore, in a system that doesn't favor point guards, it doesn't help when everyone is shooting threes. Especially when they are missing them.

                        Hicks:

                        You're right. McRoberts evolved from board-crasher to Troy Murphy. I would take back the October-November version of McRoberts in a heartbeat.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

                          Originally posted by ryheathco View Post


                          You know what kills me about this play? I kept thinking, over and over again, "McRoberts would have challenged that." Bare minimum - he would have gotten off of the floor.
                          Well, this play is going to keep killing you then until you realize that McRoberts might have also lost at least half a step b/c of the screen or pick like Foster did. Also, I think it's unfair to have one play dictate things. McRoberts, as much as I like the guy, has had his share of "missed opportunities" and poor decision-making this season.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

                            Originally posted by joeyd View Post
                            Well, this play is going to keep killing you then until you realize that McRoberts might have also lost at least half a step b/c of the screen or pick like Foster did. Also, I think it's unfair to have one play dictate things. McRoberts, as much as I like the guy, has had his share of "missed opportunities" and poor decision-making this season.
                            The thread is based on a series of games.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Agree or Disagree | Jeff Foster

                              Originally posted by ryheathco View Post


                              You know what kills me about this play? I kept thinking, over and over again, "McRoberts would have challenged that." Bare minimum - he would have gotten off of the floor.


                              bad flashback

                              this team should be at 17-11 rather than 13-15 based on the games we shouldve finished out and the bad teams we shouldve beaten
                              In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X