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 Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

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

  • #46
    Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

    Since this has become a defacto regular season post mortem thread....

    My only locks for beyond this season are G2, solo and maybe stuckey (with the caveat being a modest contract and role as off the bench specialist spark-plug).

    At worst solo can be a 8 man rotation guy in a good team, I think he can be better than that but his floor is reasonably high in my opinion. George Hill has been terrific and eased my doubts about him - I still have a nagging curiosity to see him at the 2 with a specialist play maker but that might just be a flight of fancy.

    For mine the biggest change needs to be philosophical - Im ready to stop pretending we have the formula right as in my view anchoring our defensive identity around Hibbert is also anchoring us to his numerable floors. Its all clearly subjective but the one thing he does exceptionally well no longer eclipses the things he does poorly - that may be because of the decline in team mates, regression, or something else - but as I see it, it is the state of things.

    Id like TPTB to beginning rolling out the PG13 blueprint for the next 5 years. Not a rebuild - but an assessment of the best series of pieces to complement a young elite defensive wing with a robust but not complete offensive game. George Hill can be a part of that vision.

    People will likely argue that such a philosophical overhaul may prove incompatible with Frank's approach, I'd like to think he developed a style that fit the pieces and he could again. Perhaps not - either way I'd rather know.

    That sum of which is, at least the initial stages of the rebuilding of our frontcourt - I cant see how that is achieved if all of west, hibbert, mahinmi, scola are retained. We have the essential ingredient (a star) and a nice complimentary player (hill) which makes me think an overhaul needn't necessarily = rebuild.

    Given all that I'd be sorely disappointed if we returned the same core next year and effectively settled for comfortable mediocrity.
    "I’m your favorite player’s favorite player. And it’s not enough for me for him to know that. I want the world to know that." -- Michael Beasley

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

      Originally posted by LG33 View Post
      Is the tide turning back against Stuckey now? We've needed better than 30% shooting from him over the past five.
      His wrist is also injured. I bet he wouldn't have played last night if it weren't for the fact we're fighting for the playoffs.
      Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

      www.jjhughesracing.com

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

        In Stuckey's defense he's been trying to play thru 1st a calf pull then a wrist injury. My question is does Vogel think playing and obviously injured player with a bad wrist on his shooting the best move while trying to win? Would seem Paul George even at 70% with a healthy shooting hand would be a better option than playing Stuckey trying to come back from 2 injuries.

        From some of the interviews almost seems Vogel wants to prove he can win without Paul, just my personal take from the entire PG comeback attempt. I don't think I've seen even one interview with Vogel even seeming remotely optimistic about PG coming back. Every time a word of encouragement of PG looking better, Vogel when asked seems like Debbie Downer.
        Last edited by diamonddave00; 04-01-2015, 09:24 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

          The, "it's not his fault!!! He wasn't even out there getting lit up!" Hibbert crowd is hilarious. It isn't his fault he sucks so bad he can't stay on the floor more than 19 minutes in a do or die game? Who's fault is it then? Who do we blame for him going 3-11 for 7 points and only grabbing 3 boards in 19 minutes? Vogel? I mean, certainly SOMEONE is responsible for him not being out there providing, "elite rim protection," right?

          Hibbert apologists, please tell me who I am supposed to hold responsible. Thank you.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

            Originally posted by Dece View Post
            The, "it's not his fault!!! He wasn't even out there getting lit up!" Hibbert crowd is hilarious. It isn't his fault he sucks so bad he can't stay on the floor more than 19 minutes in a do or die game? Who's fault is it then? Who do we blame for him going 3-11 for 7 points and only grabbing 3 boards in 19 minutes? Vogel? I mean, certainly SOMEONE is responsible for him not being out there providing, "elite rim protection," right?

            Hibbert apologists, please tell me who I am supposed to hold responsible. Thank you.
            It's about matchups. It's well known that faster bigs are a struggle for hibbert. Thus, Lavoy Allen plays a decent amount. WE ALL KNOW. It's so fricken annoying when all you hear is how much Hibbert sucks because he didn't put up the numbers you'd expect him to.
            Indiana State University Alum. Hardcore Pacers fan. Racecar Driver in need of sponsorship.

            www.jjhughesracing.com

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

              Originally posted by Guardshock View Post
              It's about matchups. It's well known that faster bigs are a struggle for hibbert. Thus, Lavoy Allen plays a decent amount. WE ALL KNOW. It's so fricken annoying when all you hear is how much Hibbert sucks because he didn't put up the numbers you'd expect him to.
              Brook Lopez... a legit 7 footer who is listed at 275... is now a "faster big" ?? Ok, it's clear some people will make up anything to support their mental narrative.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                Is the tide turning back against Stuckey now? We've needed better than 30% shooting from him over the past five.
                I'm curious as to how much his wrist is bothering him. He isn't attacking the rim much at all these past few games.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  I'm curious as to how much his wrist is bothering him. He isn't attacking the rim much at all these past few games.
                  I don't think there is any question that Stuckey is playing injured and that is affecting his game.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                    Just an fyi...Damo post all-star break is at a 54/51/100 shooting rate...ok he doesn't shoot many free throws but still for 20 games that's pretty impressive.

                    His true shooting percentage is at 80%, and effective shooting percentage is at 71% lol.

                    My point, give him more minutes Frank please, he's playing less minutes per game than before the all-star break.
                    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                    ----------------- Reggie Miller

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                      My view of next season:

                      1) PG. Nothing but a net positive there.
                      2) GHill. Also a big positive after stepping up this season.
                      3) Solomon Hill. If he catches the work bug from GHill and PG, this summer could lead to a big improvement next season. While I seldom agree with the whole "really his rookie season" thing, the number of minutes have shown where he is weakest and have given him things that can be worked on.
                      4) David West. Bring him off the bench next year so we don't have two lumbering front court players.
                      5) Roy Hibbert. Roy is Roy, he'll be here next year. I think (like Rik Smits) with the right guy next to him it could improve his effectiveness on offense and keep from leaving such a big hole when he has to help on defense.

                      6) Rodney Stuckey. I really want him coming off the bench for us next year, but I never want to see him at point.
                      7) CJ Miles. I'd be OK with him off the bench but he's a little too streaky for the role I'd like him to play. I see him as expendable.
                      8) CJ Watson. An adequate bench PG. Let him work with Stuckey when GHill has to rest.
                      9) Damo Rudez. I could see him filling the bench shooter role better than Miles. I'd love to have Stuckey for the fearless drives and Rudez for the kick-out 3...
                      10) Ian Mahinmi. Good backup 5, keeper.
                      11) Luis Scola. I like Scola, but I don't want him starting. I'm afraid he's teetering on the edge and could slip downhill easily. That would impair his effectiveness off the bench.
                      12) Lavoy Allen. I wish he was more consistent offensively when given minutes. He's the type of guy I'd like to have stepping into the starting spot for hisd quickness and defense, but we need scoring too badly at the PF spot for him to be the guy at this point.
                      13) Chris Copeland. buh-bye.
                      14) Donald Sloan. 13-15 man.
                      15) Shane Whittington. See how he develops in his second year.

                      The position I think needs the greatest shoring up is starting PF. With a quicker guy who can rotate when Roy has to double and is a scoring threat, I think the starting 5 is pretty set (if Roy Hibbert is your worst starter, I think you're in pretty decent shape).

                      The problem is still consistent scoring, even from the players who are supposed to be shooters and scorers. I've never seen a team vary so much between glacier cold and lava hot. It isn't the offense as such - shots are wide open and they have plenty of time to shoot. Some of it is confidence - lots of hesitation before shooting. Some of it is timing - we have no real catch-and-shoot guy, and I don't remember PG being great at that either. It may be pressure - no go-to guy means every shot is so important the rim "shrinks". It may be a curse or locker room disease or guys from Moron Mountain. What I'd like to see most is shooting improvement.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Honestly I know by looking at the stat line you would think Allen sucked big time and for the love of God he needs to work on some type of offense other than the open 16' shot, but I thought his defense on Lopez was brilliant. In fact IMO he was every bit as much responsible for stopping the juggernaut that was the Nets in the second by bodying up Lopez and doing to him what Al Horford does to Roy. On the other hand in the first quarter Mahinmi had it so I had to question if this was Brook Lopez or Blake Griffen.
                        I thought Lopez was going to kill us when Lavoy came in and we went small, but I was completely wrong and it was very effective.
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          I thought Lopez was going to kill us when Lavoy came in and we went small, but I was completely wrong and it was very effective.
                          Lavoy is a good defender. Not much of a shot blocker, but he is good at keeping his man from getting good position and contests his shots.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I thought Lopez was going to kill us when Lavoy came in and we went small, but I was completely wrong and it was very effective.
                            Low center of gravity and he is strong as an ox. I'll agree with your scoring assessment of him but I would also throw in that I would like to see him be more aggressive but sadly I do not think that is something you can develop, you either have it or you don't. Not saying you can't be a good or even great player without it but can you just imagine LaVoy Allen's body with Tyler Hansbrough's motor?


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                              Originally posted by sav View Post
                              Lavoy is a good defender. Not much of a shot blocker, but he is good at keeping his man from getting good position and contests his shots.
                              Actually I think LaVoy is a very good shot blocker, what he is not due to height and arm length is a rim protector. There is a difference.


                              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Post Game Thread 3/31/2015 - Pacers @ Nets

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                Actually I think LaVoy is a very good shot blocker, what he is not due to height and arm length is a rim protector. There is a difference.
                                I stand corrected.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X