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

Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

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

  • #31
    Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

    I went through the last 5 box scores to refute Pacergeek's post. Quite honestly, I cannot disagree. He is being outplayed most of the time. Maybe 1 out of 5 games he will outplay the opposing starting C. I think he's just average at best for the position. Not terrible and IMO definitely a starting quality C. But he's overrated. We are talking a 10ppg and 7 or 8 board starting C. Average at best.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I went through the last 5 box scores to refute Pacergeek's post. Quite honestly, I cannot disagree. He is being outplayed most of the time. Maybe 1 out of 5 games he will outplay the opposing starting C. I think he's just average at best for the position. Not terrible and IMO definitely a starting quality C. But he's overrated. We are talking a 10ppg and 7 or 8 board starting C. Average at best.
      Perhaps Roy is a borderline starting NBA center, but he is not a true difference maker on the court. Definitely not a player that a contending team would need to keep for their core.
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        To me, that is the absolute worst case scenario. It would at least earn us a coveted "Jim O'Brien Award for Outstanding Achievement" since his teams loved teasing us like that, but that's about it.

        IMHO, this season was only going to be a success in two scenarios:

        1) Team makes the playoffs as a scrappy low seed that can compete with its opponent much like the 2011 team against Chicago.

        2) Team has an abysmal season record wise, but gets a high single digit pick as consolation for the vicious PG loss.

        The just missing out on the playoffs and getting stuck with something like the 11th or 12th pick is the worst case scenario. You don't make the playoffs, but you also don't have high consolation for a season in which you lost your superstar player. An 11th pick is by no means "decent" lottery wise. There are only 14 lottery picks, so 11 is near the bottom of the lottery.

        West should have been traded. Huge fan of his, but now he is in his mid 30's and is at the point where he is looking like a fossil.
        If you lose out fighting for one of the last playoff spots that's the place you end up. The only way not to have that happen is to either not fight (tank, lose on purpose, tell your ticket buyers "thanks for the money, you now owe us for next year") or be good enough not to have to fight (in which case the conversation isn't happening).

        At one point people were saying that there were not going to be any decent picks after about 5th. Now the idea is that if we had just lost enough to get the 9th pick we'd be fine? Or is it that getting in the bottom 10 wins us the pingpong ball draw, baybee?

        I'd rather see the fight. Imagine being one of the teams missing the playoffs in the West and having worse picks.
        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


        • #34
          Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          I went through the last 5 box scores to refute Pacergeek's post. Quite honestly, I cannot disagree. He is being outplayed most of the time. Maybe 1 out of 5 games he will outplay the opposing starting C. I think he's just average at best for the position. Not terrible and IMO definitely a starting quality C. But he's overrated. We are talking a 10ppg and 7 or 8 board starting C. Average at best.
          10 ppt and 7 or 8 boards? So six straight years of stats better than that mean nothing?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
            Perhaps Roy is a borderline starting NBA center, but he is not a true difference maker on the court. Definitely not a player that a contending team would need to keep for their core.
            See, this is where I disagree. I think Roy is an adequate starting C who can fill that middle position on a contender. Yes, his weaknesses would need to be covered up. But he does some things defensively that disrupt the offense of the other team. Yes, he isn't great defending the opposing C but he clogs the lane and that's valuable for a contender...and quite frankly the best teams these days don't have C's as their best player. So, for all these reasons Roy is fine IMO.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

              Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
              10 ppt and 7 or 8 boards? So six straight years of stats better than that mean nothing?
              Actually, the last two years, taken together, his rebounds have averaged UNDER 7. But I will give him another point and push that to 11 or 12 even though that is also over this year's average.

              BTW, his best days in the NBA are actually behind him. The league has him figured out.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                Originally posted by sav View Post
                Roy completely shut down Robin Lopez last night. He didn't score a point or grab a rebound against Roy.
                Of course, Robin was matched up with Marc Gasol last night a couple thousand miles away.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                  Ping pong balls bouncing the right way are our only hope right now.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                    I just hope West retires.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                      This was just loss 39 for me. Nothing less. Props to some of Brooklyn's players for going into video game mode. Clearly a more talented team with their players healthy and our franchise wing not. If there has been anything striking about this season, it is that it has gone pretty much the way you would expect. This is what the Pacers are if they are not the best team in their division.

                      Ian Report: His first half defense, like most everyone else's, what nothing to give $5 gift certificates for. Our centers are always hesitant to close out hard on shooters, both to be in a position to go back and protect the rim, and to cover up for the rebounding debacle that is the rest of the team. But at some point, when the other team is that hot (and the Nyets were), you gotta executive decision that ***** and poke someone in the nuts. He cleaned it up in the second half and had a really strong game on offense. He set multiple butt-based screens, crashed the offensive glass (with one board taken away via hatin'), and would have had at least three assists if it weren't for dickish scorekeeping and CJ Watson. I don't know the exact number, but a shitload of angels can't fly anymore because of Watson's play yesterday. In less than 20 minutes, Mahinmi was solid. 'B'
                      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                        Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                        This was just loss 39 for me. Nothing less. Props to some of Brooklyn's players for going into video game mode. Clearly a more talented team with their players healthy and our franchise wing not. If there has been anything striking about this season, it is that it has gone pretty much the way you would expect. This is what the Pacers are if they are not the best team in their division.

                        Ian Report: His first half defense, like most everyone else's, what nothing to give $5 gift certificates for. Our centers are always hesitant to close out hard on shooters, both to be in a position to go back and protect the rim, and to cover up for the rebounding debacle that is the rest of the team. But at some point, when the other team is that hot (and the Nyets were), you gotta executive decision that ***** and poke someone in the nuts. He cleaned it up in the second half and had a really strong game on offense. He set multiple butt-based screens, crashed the offensive glass (with one board taken away via hatin'), and would have had at least three assists if it weren't for dickish scorekeeping and CJ Watson. I don't know the exact number, but a shitload of angels can't fly anymore because of Watson's play yesterday. In less than 20 minutes, Mahinmi was solid. 'B'
                        I tend to agree with you. A bad loss, but mostly because any loss is bad at this point. JMO, but every season there will be games like this where either you or them will shoot the lights out. Bogdanovic scored 21 points on 8 shots. Some of those were fairly open, but it just didn't seem to matter. The Nets shots 75% in the 4th. Stuff happens.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                          Originally posted by sav View Post
                          Roy completely shut down Robin Lopez last night. He didn't score a point or grab a rebound against Roy.
                          Could not have said it better myself and people here will continually make excuses for him...I would take 25 starting centers in the NBA over Roy he has so many weaknesses. ..gives up twice the amount of points as he stops..let's not forget 5 games with 0 and 0 ...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                            This season has proven that Roy Hibbert is not an NBA starter. Without PG, this was supposed to be the opportunity for Roy to step up. Instead the exact opposite has happened, and Roy continually gets out-played by mediocre to just bad NBA payers. For a player that is supposed to be a defensive specialist, he consistently gets lit up by the better scoring centers. Al Jefferson has absolutely no problem scoring on Roy, and Robin Lopez torched him last night. People on this forum make excuses when this happens, as if it's OK to get lit up by the good offensive centers. My question is that if Roy is so valuable as a defender, what is the point when he cannot stop opposing centers from scoring. Yes, Roy can impact shots at the rim, but if you can't stop your man from scoring, than what is the point. Roy's offensive game is laughable, and he still feels the need to be a scorer, and this honestly hurts the offense whenever Roy puts up a shot. Roy is horrible at offense, and very overrated at defense IMO
                            I'm not making exuses, I just think you're wrong on about 80% of what you're saying. I don't see what you see, if Roy were that bad we wouldn't still be one of the top defensive teams in the league and we are. With Paul and Roy we have a defense that's elite and Larry isn't giving up on that.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                              I still hope that we can make the playoffs, if not then so be it. I never wanted them to tank. The mentality of purposely losing a game is never a bright idea, and ultimately it may lead to a losing culture, losing locker room, etc. And at this moment, for what? We already had enough wins that our draft pick will be in the middle of the pack.

                              I also agree that Frank should rest West every other game. I watched almost all the games this season, and Scola and Lavoy has been decent as an starter and bench respectively. And both of them rebound the ball really well. Also, Rudez should be a staple off the bench. I scratched my head when Frank has 10 players that can play decently and he will only field 8.

                              It's as simple as:
                              If CJ Miles is not doing well, let's try Rudez.
                              If CJ Watson is not doing well, let's try Sloan.

                              It's not like those two players are terrible. Both of them help us with half of our 30 wins. CJ Watson and Miles did not as they are oft injured. Frank has 15 players for God sake and his in game adjustments has been pretty off lately.

                              I don't have a comment with Roy cause he's a hit or miss, I'd rather comment when he's consistently hitting or worse, when he's consistently missing.

                              Lastly, two positive things that we have this season is GH's tremendous improvement, and a guy named Solomon Hill who can only improve this summer and be better.
                              Pacers + Colts + Seahawks = Game mode on!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Post game for 3/21/15 vs Nets

                                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                                I'm not making exuses, I just think you're wrong on about 80% of what you're saying. I don't see what you see, if Roy were that bad we wouldn't still be one of the top defensive teams in the league and we are. With Paul and Roy we have a defense that's elite and Larry isn't giving up on that.
                                As a Hibbert supporter, I will venture to say that if Bird is in the position this Summer to trade Hibbert and sign or trade for another one to replace Hibbert's defensive production ( or at least do a solid impression of a rim protector ), I would not be surprise if he it's traded.

                                However, I would not be surprised if PG13 returns....improves the overall perimeter defense of this team and Hibbert starts to become the defensive force that we are used to seeing. To be clear, Hibbert's effectiveness on the defensiveness is greatly dependent on the perimeter defenders not only keeping who they are defending honest but also pushing them to Hibbert when needed. like everything else, having PG13 in the lineup will help all facets of the Pacers offense and defense.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X