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

Addressing multiple threads: Current State of the Pacers

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

  • Addressing multiple threads: Current State of the Pacers

    Two different threads have left me with the same exact thought regarding the Pacers, so I'm polluting the board with a thread of my own.

    Peck said this regarding Austin Croshere:

    Croshere brings something totally differant to the floor when he is out there & other teams have to adjust to us, not us adjust to them.
    And PacerTom said this regarding the difference between the Spurs and Pacers:

    Very high basketball IQ.

    In the 4th quarter when the Pacers needed a defensive stop they could never get it. Nobody on the Spurs is breaking a play to launch a three or dribbling aimlessly into a double team. The ball goes to Duncan and good things follow and you can't stop it even if you are expecting it.
    There are two things I know about basketball that have been true from the day the sport began and will continue to hold form until the last basket is made.

    1. Stick to what you do best. This is something I've been preaching for several years on this forums and I'll probably never stop. The players and teams that put their lineup out on the floor and say, "Ok, try to stop us," almost always win. The key is to make your opponents adjust their gameplan to counteract what you're doing. It may even seem contradictory to a point because your opponent may have a bad matchup for your team and they may look to isolate on that match-up. But guess what? They've now changed their whole offensive philosophy and its absolutely going to fail, despite the sense it makes on the surface.

    Conversly, what I'd do if I were the team with the mismatch advantage, you can exploit it, but within your normal offensive scheme. Say you have a big guard being defended by small guard and you want to post him up. Go for the post up, but mainly to draw the double-team and get the other team scrambling. If they don't double, just run your normal offense. If you're a good offensive team, you're hurting yourself by switching things up.

    This is as simple as a player/coach/system as being proactive or reactive. The teams that struggle are the ones with players who are unsure of themselves and/or don't stick to what they do best. They let their opponents knock them back and they spend their time trying to adjust so it doesn't happen again. The teams that win big in any level of basketball are those that force the action. They make you adjust to them. They make you change your gameplan to stop them.


    2. Herefore it shall be known as the "Luke Walton" rule. I've always referred to this as "this guy really knows how to play basketball." Its not something you can quantify, you just have to see it for yourself to know that its true.

    Its as simple as reading someone's eyes, recognizing foot position before a guy attempts a spin move, knowing when your teammate is really open when he doesn't look open (and vice versa), etc, etc. The guys that play basketball like its chess and plan 4-5 moves ahead always succeed.

    These guys rarely make stupid mistakes, especiallly in crucial situations.

    ------

    Now lets take a look at the Pacers and the Spurs in context of Chauncey's two rules of basketball. Here are the things that stand out to me:

    1. The Pacers offensive philosophy, at least in part, is to shorten the game and minimize the total # of possessions in an attempt to help on the defensive end. This is the single biggest thing that drives me crazy about watching the Pacers, especially knowing that there is quite a bit of offensive talent on this roster. Thats a self-defeating philosophy if I've ever seen one. The Spurs play offense with an intent to score.

    2. The Spurs are LOADED with guys who fall into the "Luke Walton" rule. Hell the only guys they have that I wouldn't put in that category off the top of my head are Rasho and Nazr. Look at Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, Finley, Horry et al. These are basketball players. You'll never mistake them for a great athlete that happens to play basketball. They're basketball players that happen to be great athletes. Now ask yourself how many of the Pacers would you put in the same category. I'd put Croshere in there, probably JO....maybe Tinsley, Saras would go in there...and thats about it I think.

    3. How many times have you seen Ron Artest break the offense to post up a smaller man? It may sound like a good idea, but its taking way from what the team does best. Tinsley does this too.

    4. What is Jeff Foster's value on the offensive end? He can creep around the basket and clean up some garbage, but does anyone honestly think that will help the Pacers beat good teams? Austin Croshere forces a man to guard him with his perimeter shooting. As Peck has said, playing Foster ahead of Croshere is absolutely ridiculous. Relating to #1, playing Foster doesn't fall into an offensive philosophy of trying to score the ball...it falls into a reactive philosophy of "after we miss, he can get us some offensive rebounds." Newsflash, if you start scoring buckets, you dont need offensive rebounds. Austin can help this team score.


    Basketball is an offensive game. Probably about 60% of the time, the offense is going to score from the field or the FT line on each possession. According to my scientific (lol) estimates, 40% of the time the offense scores because they're that damn good, 20% of the time, the offense scores because the defense is that damn bad, 20 % of the time the offense doesn't score because the offense is that damn bad, and 20% of the time the offense doesn't score because the defense is that damn good.

  • #2
    Re: Addressing multiple threads: Current State of the Pacers

    I agree with you on both rules, but I'm not sure I'd put quite the emphasis on offense that you do. You have to score to win, but in most sports defense is more critical than offense. I'm thinking that part of this may be because you are a Laker fan and they are generally known for their offensive prowess. However, Larry Brown teams and post-LA Riley teams are very much focused on more of a defensive scheme. Offense comes and goes, but defense is a constant that you can control. If you are a good defensive team you can bring that every night. Even the best of offensive teams can put up some scary nights of shooting.

    You have really hit the nail on the head with the Luke Walton rule. That in a nutshell is the problem with this Pacer team. We don't have a team that is full of solid B-ball players. We have many athletes, but some folks who just don't know how to play the game at a high level. I have often referred to this team as one that "scores in a Jalen Rose Way" or "doesn't take what the other team gives them" on a daily basis. We do some good things, but it almost seems as if it is by accident at times. If Foster misses one more pass in the lane I think I'll scream. If Jack misses one more 2 foot shot after making a nifty drive to the basket, I'll scream louder.

    I also agree that you should make the other team adjust to you, one quirk I don't like about Carlisle. However, I still think this Pacer team is struggling to figure that out. What does this team do best? Right now, I'm not able to come up with an answer and it would appear they are having the same problem.
    “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
    motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
    Reggie Miller

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Addressing multiple threads: Current State of the Pacers

      I agree with everything you wrote, Chauncey.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Addressing multiple threads: Current State of the Pacers

        One of the main frustrations with this team for many years now has been the individual and collective lack of basketball IQ. If Luke Walton is the standard, and we give him a 10, I'd out our dearly departed Bender at 0. We have a lot of guys much closer to zero than to 10.

        I'm an old and chubby guy without much game anymore. When I was younger I had some game. I was never athletic and wasn't good at anything but basketball, but I could shoot and I could find my teammates. I loved walking into the YMCA and being the last man picked and being guarded by the other team's scrub until I lit him up. I loved it when I had on my team other guys of similar mindset and we just whalloped the bigger, stronger, faster opponents that couldn't figure out haw to defend screens, refused to hustle, and didn't understand what was a good shot.

        Austin gets it. I think Jermaine is starting to get it. Saras was born with it. I think that MOST of the time Tinsley at least has an idea of how to make his team as a whole hard to defend. Everybody else, I'm just not so sure. Granger hopefully.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Addressing multiple threads: Current State of the Pacers

          Originally posted by Hicks
          I agree with everything you wrote, Chauncey.
          Ditto. Not too much to argue with there.

          Which once again begs the question -- is Rick Carlisle the right man for the job now? And if not, who is?

          Comment

          Working...
          X