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

Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
    How does Roy stack up in the Defensive Player of the Year race? No shot or simply long-shot?
    Hook shot--or at least about the same percentage chance.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

      Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
      props to Gerald Green. Real nice game by him. Good defensive rotations and focus. Caused one 24-second violation all by himself.
      Our defensive rotations are getting SOOO much better by the game. Our wings are really starting to find the right spots and the right lanes defensively. There movements are so much more methodical. It is all coming together. We are starting to hit some shots more consistently. The shots that were bouncing of the rim the first couple of weeks are beginning to fall. Our spacing and off-the-ball movement is becoming much better, especially since we have added a lot more back door cuts for the bigs to work off and the PGs to lob to. I am really liking the way we are looking. I think our offensive ball movement is so much less stagnant and a lot of that has to do with confidence. So much of that confidence comes from knowing what their roles are and what they need to look for in match-ups. Vogel has really done a nice job with his rotations lately, IMO. The wing situation up to this point has been a couple of guys fighting for playing time and he has definitely pushed these to work harder to know their stuff and it is paying off. I am REALLY thinking this team is going to be a top contender to come out of the East. There are legitimately about five teams that could get there if they are playing well come playoffs. We need to keep playing "Spurs-like" basketball. Focus on minimizing our mistakes and our oppenents' opportunities off of them. The last couple of games we have really made progress. Cutting cable and getting internet LP was the best TV decision I have made in a long time.
      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
        Because they do the same things. Paul and Granger both would be better off playing with a ball handler at the SG position. And yes, Granger at this point is the better post player, but he's not great at it. It's not like Paul couldn't become as good or probably even better if we asked him to. Danny's basically a jump shooter like Paul without the passing ability and with an even worse handle. They're redundant on the offensive end.

        My point was that they aren't redundant because they're both very good at lots of different things. Using your logic, Granger is redundant with every SF or SG in the league with the exception of combo-guard types. And if we get one of those for our SG, well we already have one in our PG and we are thus redundant at our guard spots.

        LeBron James and Dwyane Wade are the definition of redundant players, and I know they are just terrible together. /sarcasm The only real difference is that LeBron is better. There's nothing wrong with stacking up on a couple of players who are both very good offensively and very good defensively.
        Last edited by aamcguy; 12-06-2012, 02:06 PM.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
          My point was that they aren't redundant because they're both very good at lots of different things. Using your logic, Granger is redundant with every SF or SG in the league with the exception of combo-guard types. And if we get one of those for our SG, well we already have one in our PG and we are thus redundant at our guard spots.

          [B]LeBron James and Dwyane Wade are the definition of redundant players, and I know they are just terrible together. /sarcasm [B]The only real difference is that LeBron is better. There's nothing wrong with stacking up on a couple of players who are both very good offensively and very good defensively.
          Lebron and Wade even though they won a championship are still a pair that don't match well, I think they both can do better with players that complement them.

          Regarding Danny/George, the Pacers for me to compete (one of this day) they need to have a player in that starting unit that can do things that PG/Danny can't do.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

            Have y'all read this yet? http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...t-the-blazers/

            If PG keeps getting better at this, which it seems like he's doing every game, then it would seem him and Granger compliment each other pretty well.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              I'm thinking the same thing, hopefully it doesn't become a Harden situation were they have to trade him because they can't pay him.

              Can anybody explain how that works? Hibbert 14mil, Hill 8mil, West 12mil?, Ian 4mil, Green 3 mil and Danny 14, can the Pacers pay Paul George anything close to what Batum is making?

              A total of 57mil for all those players mentioned without Paul George.
              If we don't pick up the qualifying offers to Tyler and Pendergraft next year, let Ben, Lance and OJA leave, we can make PG a pretty good offer on our own. If we let DWest walk and move Granger to the 4 spot with Plumlee and/or Mahinmi doing backup, we can make him a longer term extension/salary offer. PG is ours for next year either way. The big choice, IMO, is whether we lose West after this season and/or Danny after next season.Unless the Ps want to go deep into LT in the next 2/4 years, we can't keep evryone.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Lebron and Wade even though they won a championship are still a pair that don't match well, I think they both can do better with players that complement them.

                Regarding Danny/George, the Pacers for me to compete (one of this day) they need to have a player in that starting unit that can do things that PG/Danny can't do.
                I agree that they still don't match very well. But because of how talented they are, they still make it work. Fortunately for us, even though PG and Granger aren't as good as either of Miami's two players, the parts of their games that overlap don't involve them both wanting to be the guy that dominates the ball and runs the offense. You have two guys who can do some similar things, but won't get in each other way. It's not like both will take 20-30 shots every night when Granger's back; they can both take 12-15.

                Both can create for themselves, but both also know how to get open to take advantage of guys drawing the defense in. Which is something that honestly LBJ and Wade lacked when they first teamed up.
                Time for a new sig.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                  Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                  I agree that they still don't match very well. But because of how talented they are, they still make it work. Fortunately for us, even though PG and Granger aren't as good as either of Miami's two players, the parts of their games that overlap don't involve them both wanting to be the guy that dominates the ball and runs the offense. You have two guys who can do some similar things, but won't get in each other way. It's not like both will take 20-30 shots every night when Granger's back; they can both take 12-15.

                  Both can create for themselves, but both also know how to get open to take advantage of guys drawing the defense in. Which is something that honestly LBJ and Wade lacked when they first teamed up.
                  I'm just reporting the numbers. It's clear Paul's playing better at SF, and it's not even close. Therefor they are redundant if their best position is the same and mostly do the same things on the court. I don't buy into a wings a wing philosophy that most people do around here. There's a reason Paul's playing better next to Lance than Green. There's a reason he's defending SFs better than SGs. It's a small sample size, but it doesn't surprise me at all. I've been saying this would happen for a year, and it's beginning to look like I'm not as foolish as some thought. He's not a SG.

                  As for Danny, he's never taken less then 16 shots a game. If when he comes back he takes 12-15 good shots a game I won't have a problem, but if he's the usual 26% usage, 10% assist Danny then I'll continue to say he's holding Paul back. Do we really want to see Paul revert to doing Lance's job on offense? I don't. We need him to continue his development and become the best player he can be if we want to have any chance at competing with the contenders. Playing in this offense and playing SG alongside Danny has slowed that development down IMO. I'd hate to see him become the 4th or 5th option again. Would that make the team better now? Probably, but not in the long run.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                    If he draws the best defender and defends the biggest threat, then what exactly is the difference between him playing SG and SF?
                    "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                      Originally posted by cgg View Post
                      If he draws the best defender and defends the biggest threat, then what exactly is the difference between him playing SG and SF?
                      There isn't one IMO as long as the team is balanced, and it's not if we have no real facilitators 1-3 in the starting lineup. When Danny comes back I'm afraid Paul's usage rate will drop, and he'll be back to defending strictly SGs and being defended by SGs which is not in his best interest IMO. Either way I'll be rooting for them even if they are a flawed team.
                      Last edited by CJ Jones; 12-07-2012, 07:11 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                        Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                        I'm just reporting the numbers. It's clear Paul's playing better at SF, and it's not even close.
                        What are these "numbers" you speak of? What's your basis of comparison?

                        I'll grant that Paul's playing better this year than last, but I've seen no indication that it's his position that's made the difference.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          What are these "numbers" you speak of? What's your basis of comparison?

                          I'll grant that Paul's playing better this year than last, but I've seen no indication that it's his position that's made the difference.
                          http://www.82games.com/1213/12IND7.HTM

                          Those are his numbers not counting the last 2 games. He had a PER of 18 at SF before his 0 and 4 games, and I'd expect it to go back up close to 17 after his last 2 really good games. He's been awful at SG this year though, both offensively and defensively.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                            Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                            http://www.82games.com/1213/12IND7.HTM

                            Those are his numbers not counting the last 2 games. He had a PER of 18 at SF before his 0 and 4 games, and I'd expect it to go back up close to 17 after his last 2 really good games. He's been awful at SG this year though, both offensively and defensively.
                            So basically you're saying that he plays better next to Lance than he does Young or Green. I can agree with that. But I also think that applies to every other starter; it's not just Paul George's game. It's not like a video game where if you stick a SG in your PF slot he's going to be guarded by the opposing team's PF. I understand that with SG/SF it's more subtle than that, but that's kind of what my point is. The position he's playing on 82games.com seems to be determined by who he's on the court with, which doesn't really determine who's guarding Paul and who Paul is guarding in actuality.

                            Unless they're playing a very small SG, Paul George typically guards the best wing player and is defended by the best wing player. You may be right that he will play better primarily as a SF, but I don't think that the stat you are using for support isolates the instance well enough.

                            Think correlation vs. causation.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                              Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                              http://www.82games.com/1213/12IND7.HTM

                              Those are his numbers not counting the last 2 games. He had a PER of 18 at SF before his 0 and 4 games, and I'd expect it to go back up close to 17 after his last 2 really good games. He's been awful at SG this year though, both offensively and defensively.
                              Come on, we both know that's not legit. You don't have a big enough sample size to even begin to make the claims you're making. Forget "correlation is not causation," you're not even proving correlation.

                              I like 82games, but if they're claiming that subbing Gerald Green for Stephenson is switching George back and forth from the 2 to the 3, then they're simply wrong. George is defending the other team's top wing scorer, no matter what their position. And he's playing the same spot on offense either way.

                              And NONE of this proves that Paul George can't do this next to Danny Granger.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Pacers/Trail Blazers postgame

                                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                                http://www.82games.com/1213/12IND7.HTM

                                Those are his numbers not counting the last 2 games. He had a PER of 18 at SF before his 0 and 4 games, and I'd expect it to go back up close to 17 after his last 2 really good games. He's been awful at SG this year though, both offensively and defensively.
                                You know the majority of Paul's minutes as a SG came at the beginning of the season, where no one played well.

                                Also last year his PER as a SG was higher than SF. Personally I do not know how they decide when he is playing SG and when he is playing SF so I don't trust how it is split to be accurate.
                                Last edited by Eleazar; 12-06-2012, 11:53 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X