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

Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

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

  • #31
    Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

    Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
    I would have thanked your post, but didn't due to the bolded part. Uncalled for even if I agree with you.
    I don't see what was so horrible about what he said? He didn't call him stupid, or an idiot or anything. He was just saying he didn't understand why the other guy didn't understand. Nothing harsh, uncalled for, or aggressive.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

      Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
      I only put that part because this is the third time in three different topics where he has tried to pretend that Vogel had the same exact situation as other teams. I wouldn't have put that if it was the first time I was making the argument. But the third time, I am going to ask why he is just ignoring the points and continue to try to hold Vogel to an unfair standard.
      I'm not sure what other two times you're talking about lol, but EVERYBODY had to deal with the lockout. That's just a fact. No Vogel prob didn't have enough time to fully implement what he wanted offensively or defensively, but neither did any other coach.

      I'm not trying to hold him to an omposs standard as I think he's a good coach, I just think some over state the fact that it was a lockout shortened season and we added a few new players. No it's not the SAME EXACT situation as other coaches and other teams, but different coaches have different issues to deal with.

      Van Gundy (whom I hate) had to deal with Dwight drama, Thibidoeau had to deal with injuries, etc. Vogel had to deal with trying to add new pieces on the fly, but that's his job as the head coach. He did a very good job, but I'm just not buying the lockout as an excuse for anything because everyone went through it.

      And again, I think Vogel is good. Has as much to do with the change in our culture as anybody. It'll be interesting what he can do with a full training camp.
      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 09-29-2012, 12:53 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        I'm not sure what other two times you're talking about lol, but EVERYBODY had to deal with the lockout. That's just a fact. No Vogel prob didn't have enough time to fully implement what he wanted offensively or defensively, but neither did any other coach.

        I'm not trying to hold him to an omposs standard as I think he's a good coach, I just think some over state the fact that it was a lockout shortened season and we added a few new players. No it's not the SAME EXACT situation as other coaches and other teams, but different coaches have different issues to deal with.

        Van Gundy (whom I hate) had to deal with Dwight drama, Thibidoeau had to deal with injuries, etc. Vogel had to deal with trying to add new pieces on the fly, but that's his job as the head coach. He did a very good job, but I'm just not buying the lockout as an excuse for anything because everyone went through it.

        Lol whys that part hard for you to understand
        No offense here. But if you honestly think that a first year head coach isnt significantly worse off losing training camp than a second year coach, then you need to get your head examined. Other coaches didnt need training camp to get their systems in place because they had them in place from the year before. Thats just common sense. The Bulls, Heat, Celtics, Thunder and Spurs could just go with last years system. Vogel couldnt do that. He was in a drastically worse position with 2 new starters. Thats also something that none of those teams had to deal with IIRC
        Last edited by Mad-Mad-Mario; 09-29-2012, 01:01 AM. Reason: iPhone is crappy for PD

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

          I would just let the starters figure out a way to score and with the size advantage most of them have, I think they will do fine during large parts of the game.
          If they struggle, Augustin can be of great help for our offense as the sixth man.
          It will be like a reward: hey man, u focused first on defense and then tried so hard to create offense on your own, I'll make it more easy for you, catch it and score...

          To finish games, DJ is probably our best option to create offense, but who could Frank substitute him in for?
          Hill is too good in the clutch and a very good defender. Paul is our best defender and can be a good scorer. Danny can shoot. West is clutch but not a great rebounder or rim protector. Hibbert is a good rebounder and great rim protector, but a bit slow to keep up in crunch time.

          Mahinmi perhaps. He isn't as good overall as our starters, but he can rebound, protect the rim and is useful on the perimeter to set screens and defend them.
          And scoring in the post is much more difficult late in games.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

            The best combination we could possibly get is,

            PG: DJ
            SG George

            Backup SG: Hill
            Backup PG: Stevenson

            DJ is a great facilitator we utilize him to the best of his ability at starting PG. Makes sense to start George over Hill to.

            Stevenson will be givin a chance a backup PG. If Augustin doesn't start then we have 3 PG's.

            Hill can spark the bench at backup SG.

            Unless we resign Barbosa then that's are best rotation.
            Last edited by PacersForever; 10-02-2012, 06:09 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

              Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
              No offense here. But if you honestly think that a first year head coach isnt significantly worse off losing training camp than a second year coach, then you need to get your head examined. Other coaches didnt need training camp to get their systems in place because they had them in place from the year before. Thats just common sense. The Bulls, Heat, Celtics, Thunder and Spurs could just go with last years system. Vogel couldnt do that. He was in a drastically worse position with 2 new starters. Thats also something that none of those teams had to deal with IIRC
              Well you're half right, a first year coach maybe, but Vogel had coached our team for half a season and a playoff series the season prior, not to mention he was an assistant to JOB as well, so it's not like he had ZERO familiarity with most of the players on our roster and vice versa. Yes we had to implement West and Hill on the fly, but again any team that added players to their team had the same issue.

              Was he in an ideal situation? No. But calling it drastically worse than any other coaching situation is kind of drastic. As I said before, Vogel is a good coach and it'll be interesting if we'll see drastic changes within our play book after a full training camp.

              There's no point in debating because you've already made this bigger than it is, and have misconstrued my words. We just disagree and that's now twice you've tried to say something offensive. You've made your point, I've made mine. Move on...

              Now excuse me as I get my head examined

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                Originally posted by PacersForever View Post
                The best combination we could possibly get is,

                PG: DJ
                SG George

                Backup SG: Hill
                Backup PG: Stevenson

                DJ is a great facilitator we utilize to the best of his ability at starting PG. Makes sense to start George over Hill to.

                Stevenson will be givin a chance a backup PG. If Augustin doesn't start then we have 3 PG's.

                Hill can spark the bench at backup SG.

                Unless we resign Barbosa then that's are best rotation.
                That's a fine scenario throughout the game. But the real question comes down the stretch. Who plays then? I can't see Hill sitting.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Well you're half right, a first year coach maybe, but Vogel had coached our team for half a season and a playoff series the season prior, not to mention he was an assistant to JOB as well, so it's not like he had ZERO familiarity with most of the players on our roster and vice versa. Yes we had to implement West and Hill on the fly, but again any team that added players to their team had the same issue.
                  I disagree. The half season Vogel coached was spent simplifying the offense greatly over what JOB had in place, which gives very little basis for an offensive system that would be available to run without a training camp. In fact, I would propose that the simplified offense that carried over is exactly why we were easy to defend in far too many cases.

                  While I assign a little more weight to the system this year than Mario does in terms of determining Vogel's future, in my case I want to see a system that has more depth to it even if it takes a while for the players to get into it. It will be extremely important to separate execution of a well-planned system (which would be on the players to a certain extent) from lack of a system (which would be on Vogel).
                  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


                  • #39
                    Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    I disagree. The half season Vogel coached was spent simplifying the offense greatly over what JOB had in place, which gives very little basis for an offensive system that would be available to run without a training camp. In fact, I would propose that the simplified offense that carried over is exactly why we were easy to defend in far too many cases.

                    While I assign a little more weight to the system this year than Mario does in terms of determining Vogel's future, in my case I want to see a system that has more depth to it even if it takes a while for the players to get into it. It will be extremely important to separate execution of a well-planned system (which would be on the players to a certain extent) from lack of a system (which would be on Vogel).
                    If you read the story from the Indy Star this morning, Vogel touched on the ability to implement more schemes both offensively and defensively this season. I essentially agree--we were very predictable offensively last year. It will certainly be interesting to see how much more complex and we will be able to be offensively this season.

                    I guess the point I was trying to make is that I believe that this is the year we find out what Vogel is. We shouldn't pretend this is his first year, and completely discount what he's done in his first two years here, both positive and negative. If we are somehow still very predictable offensively, a lot of that falls on the head coach's shoulders. The fact that last season was a lockout shortened season shouldn't change that fact..in my eyes.

                    Now I'm not saying if we don't win 50 games, we should can the guy. In fact if we got off to a bit of a slow start because we are attempting to make sure we run every set to a T, then I wouldn't complain at all. All I'm looking for is improvement and a system that we can hang our hat on--especially offensively; because with this group of players we will have to rely on execution and strategy to take out other teams with superior talent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                      I think people forget that Vogel is essentially a "second-year" player. He's still very young and inexperienced as a head coach, so you have to allow for growth on his part, also.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        I think people forget that Vogel is essentially a "second-year" player. He's still very young and inexperienced as a head coach, so you have to allow for growth on his part, also.
                        How many second year players get tossed under the bus if they don't make improvement that year?

                        I am in favor of Vogel having his option picked up ASAP, which means no matter what happens this year he will have next year as well. However, that doesn't mean I don't think he should show something this year before he gets a contract extension.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                          They only get tossed under the bus by fans, and generally illogically, so that point isn't very valid. Fans are idiots.

                          Who would give up on Paul George now, he has two years under his belt. Exact same amount of time for Vogel. Of course we expect improvement from them. But if Paul George only improves 10% this year, are you going to throw him away?

                          I already think Vogel is very very good, especialy considering how little experience and age that guy carries with him. I also think he's going to get better every year. We've done what we have these past 2 seasons despite absorbing some of Vogel's learning curve --- imagine how good we'll be once the guy starts to really figure it out. Man, that sounds familiar...
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 10-01-2012, 12:26 PM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                            There are three aspects that make up a great general, their motivational skills, their strategic skills, and their ability to spot talent. I would say motivation is the most important, followed closely by spotting talent, and then strategic. Vogel has proven he is a great motivator, and most people believe he has the best assistant coach in the league. He just needs to prove he can be a strategist also, or at the very least is willing to use the talent he has collected around him to make up for his short comings.

                            I would say he is 70% of his way to being a great coach. If he can show he can be a strategist also we may have a franchise coach on our hands. If not, he will never be anything more than an average coach.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              There are three aspects that make up a great general, their motivational skills, their strategic skills, and their ability to spot talent. I would say motivation is the most important, followed closely by spotting talent, and then strategic. Vogel has proven he is a great motivator, and most people believe he has the best assistant coach in the league. He just needs to prove he can be a strategist also, or at the very least is willing to use the talent he has collected around him to make up for his short comings.

                              I would say he is 70% of his way to being a great coach. If he can show he can be a strategist also we may have a franchise coach on our hands. If not, he will never be anything more than an average coach.
                              Absolutely right, and strategy is usually earned with experience. We're talking a guy who has been a head coach for barely 2 years. Period. He wasn't a head coach on any level and found himself HC of an NBA team at the age of 37. Of course his strategy is likely going to be his worst skill. He seems smart enough and has the guys around him to nurture that skill, I have full faith that he will.
                              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Our two starting guards and offensive firepower

                                One of the best strategic decisions he ever made was to immediately ditch all of JOB's weird strategies.
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X