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

3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

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

  • #46
    Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

    Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
    I'm to the point I think Ian Mahinmi should start over Hibbert. Let Roy come of the bench and dominate back up centers to get his confidence back up. Mahinmi can start play 8 minutes then bring in Roy perhaps the demotion to the bench will light a fire under him. I don't care if he is making 13+ mil this year his performance ( more lack of) is not getting it done. Roy's too damn passive this season.
    He couldn't post up Larry Sanders, I dont think Roy can dominate back up bigs at this point. BUT I like the idea of starting Ian

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      I'm not sure I completely agree here. There's a difference between moving without the ball while reading a defense and moving without the ball as part of an offense designed to put you in an area rather than plant you in a specific spot.

      While we don't have guys who do the former, the latter is within the reach of pretty much anyone smart enough to be in the NBA - IF the offense is designed for it, rather than being "go here - plant - don't move until something specific happens (like a screen set or a defense shift or whatever)". While that is a bit of an exaggeration, I feel like our offense is closer to "plant" than it is to "be in this area and be aware of the ballhandler".
      Don't think that the Pacers are the only team with a movin less type of offense, OKC's offense right now is as bad as the Pacers offense, they pretty much play ISO offense all the time, the only difference is that OKC has two superstars, just look at their starting unit, only Durant is a decent passer and I probably put him on the Paul George category regarding passing.

      New York had the same issue last year but do you know what they changed? their starting point guard and their starting shooting guard were replaced with two above average passer and high IQ players in Felton and Kidd.

      I guess my point is that for the Pacers to fix their issues they either have to have somebody to become some kind of star were he can take over anytime even if the offense is bad or they need to make some trades to bring high passing high BB IQ players to the team.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

        Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
        You'd think with our size we would want to focus on setting a lot of off-ball screens to get someone open.
        This.

        Or anything a little more complex than iso ball with not very good iso players or pick and roll with not that great of pick and roll players.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Don't think that the Pacers are the only team with a movin less type of offense, OKC's offense right now is as bad as the Pacers offense, they pretty much play ISO offense all the time, the only difference is that OKC has two superstars, just look at their starting unit, only Durant is a decent passer and I probably put him on the Paul George category regarding passing.

          New York had the same issue last year but do you know what they changed? their starting point guard and their starting shooting guard were replaced with two above average passer and high IQ players in Felton and Kidd.

          I guess my point is that for the Pacers to fix their issues they either have to have somebody to become some kind of star were he can take over anytime even if the offense is bad or they need to make some trades to bring high passing high BB IQ players to the team.

          Walsh isn't going to make trades 9 games into the season. He'll wait and hope the players "bail" him out of his off season blunders. He'll only make a trade when he has no other option, and with a "wait and see attitude" it will be a long wait for others wanting a trade. Just get prepared to be more frustrated, and watch other NBA games if you want to view good BB being played.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

            I think the "selfish" tag on Tyler and especially West is a little harsh. Both of these guys get the ball a lot in situations with very little time on the clock, nobody moving to open a lane, and both of them have taken those shots their entire career. Tyler is more of a ball stopper than David, IMO, but check the time clock when TH gets the ball. Unless he just takes it from someone, or grabs a rebound and goes for the foul, his time is usually very short to make a move. That being said, I've posted before that Frank should make Tyler shoot 500 elbow jump shots a day and fine him for misses. He came here with a jump shot, I think he traded it for those cool goggles!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

              For those calling for Vogel to lay into his team (there were a lot of those posts in the last few game threads) - he is.

              "The normally mild-mannered coach lost his cool in the locker room at halftime of Tuesday’s loss to Toronto. Then he came unglued after the first quarter Wednesday with his team down 16 points. Vogel ripped into his team so loudly, he could be heard on press row along the baseline."

              http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...yssey=obinsite

              Also from the article:

              "Vogel is in a tough situation because he has to toe the line when it comes to criticizing his players. Players like West and George Hill can handle being scrutinized, but the Pacers as a whole are a weak-minded team. You can see it in their body language on the court. Their team morale is the lowest it has been since Jim O’Brien was coach."

              Ugh.
              Last edited by gummy; 11-16-2012, 05:10 PM.
              "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

              "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

              "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                Originally posted by gummy View Post
                For those calling for Vogel to lay into his team (there were a lot of those posts in the last few game threads) - he is.

                "The normally mild-mannered coach lost his cool in the locker room at halftime of Tuesday’s loss to Toronto. Then he came unglued after the first quarter Wednesday with his team down 16 points. Vogel ripped into his team so loudly, he could be heard on press row along the baseline."

                http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...yssey=obinsite

                Also from the article:

                "Vogel is in a tough situation because he has to toe the line when it comes to criticizing his players. Players like West and George Hill can handle being scrutinized, but the Pacers as a whole are a weak-minded team. You can see it in their body language on the court. Their team morale is the lowest it has been since Jim O’Brien was coach."

                Ugh.
                Weak minded team.

                Man, that hurts.
                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                  @ChrisDenari: The @Pacers "D" and rebounding good enough to win. 4th in Scoring "D", 1st FG% "D". Major problem: 30th in scoring, FG%; 26th 3FG%, 20th FT.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                    Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                    Weak minded team.

                    Man, that hurts.
                    To bad it is true, and it all starts with Hibbert.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      . . . Scout No. 1
                      "They're searching for who should get the ball at the right time. (Coach Frank) Vogel has condensed his offense to only a handful of plays and runs them all the time. You know what's coming. They're easy to defend because you can play everybody straight up without the concern of getting beat. There's only occasional times where Roy Hibbert is going to go off. You know how he's getting the ball, the plays that are coming. They don't strike fear in anybody."
                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      . . . The playbook is too simple and has very little "punish you for attacking too much" type of secondary responses in terms of movement, picks and screens. . .Frank needs to take the next step more than Paul, Roy or George do. I hope he can, but I'm worried that he can't.
                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Obviously the professional scouts are correct however in defense of Frank here a little I want to say this. . . I'm not saying Franks offense hasn't been an issue, it has, but Phil Jackson couldn't win with your only two reliable post players are continually missing easy shots that the offense has produced for them.
                      I read the scout's take as a defense of Frank, not a condemnation. That Frank is doing pretty much all he can to make the offense simple enough for the players to run. The comments were not that the offense was bad in and of itself, but that Frank has had to simplify things so much [so the team is able to run it] rather than Frank's offense is bad. I thought it was saying our Pacers players are not very smart, not that the coach can't design an offense.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                        Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                        I read the scout's take as a defense of Frank, not a condemnation. That Frank is doing pretty much all he can to make the offense simple enough for the players to run. The comments were not that the offense was bad in and of itself, but that Frank has had to simplify things so much [so the team is able to run it] rather than Frank's offense is bad. I thought it was saying our Pacers players are not very smart, not that the coach can't design an offense.
                        I think you are right. And before the next person says "How much more simple can it get?" (a comment based on last year's system) the implication is that the coaching staff tried to install a more complex system during camp and the players can't run it. Consequently, we have never actually seen it this year.

                        Now that's partly on our team (low BB IQ overall) and partly on the coaching staff - they need to have a good feel for what the players can handle. But I understand that this can be difficult, because you do want to challenge your team to grow. Now that we're in the mess we're in I think it's clear that Frank and co. are going to need to do more than just simplify. We also need to diversify (even if the additional plays end up being relatively "simple").
                        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                        "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                        "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                          Really. I thought those guys were brutal on Vogel. Maybe its the unsaid part... hard to imagine an experienced coach having some of the same issues right now, and I think that is what those anonmymous scouts were getting at. Frank looked good in the honeymoon period, but now that things aren't going well it could be that we're seeing a lack of depth in his bag of coaching tools. Vogel has simplified the offense for the benefit of his no-so-smart, poor ballhandling team and the scout is saying, "this is pretty easy to defend", questioning the decision to over simiplify (as he's clearly not getting the desired results.)
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                            The fan base fell in love with McBrick a few years ago because he made thundering dunks. That was all that he could do. Green may be about the same but more athletic.....
                            That was not all he could do. He was the best passer on the team and better at that than anybody the Pacers have now. Heaven knows we could use that now.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                              That was not all he could do. He was the best passer on the team and better at that than anybody the Pacers have now. Heaven knows we could use that now.
                              Oh, please. He shouldn't even be in the NBA......

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: 3 scouts brutally honest assessment of the Pacers - Indystar

                                Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                                Tim, would you be of the opinion that making West a larger part of the offense at this time, in a sense encouraging him to be a bit selfish, would enhance the probability of winning a few more games until either additional players (Hibbert, George) can "step up" or Granger returns?
                                Sorry...got wrapped up at work.

                                I agree with this, though I think "assertive" is probably a better word. West is shooting at a near-career high clip in terms of attempts, but he's been missing over the last three games. I think West & Hill should be the guys looking to score, and every one else should play off of that.

                                BTW...one of the big things about West needing to score more is that it alters the mechanics of the offense. Last year, West did a great deal of facilitating, and was generally the guy who reversed the ball, getting the offense to move from side-to-side. That isn't happening consistently - and when it does, they aren't converting on the shots as much.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X