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

All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

    I wonder, where were all you guys during the past 3-4 seasons when Vogel was talking about smashmouth? Did any of you have "that's not smashmouth" ideas, or is this just because Roy is involved and personal feelings toward Roy has now creeped it's way into whether or not Frank Vogel knows what Frank Vogel's own system is?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Coach designs his gameplan what he think will best work for his players.

      See how easy that is?
      Both are true but mine was relevant. You can't take everything a coach says to the media as gospel. There goal is not and should not be to inform fans.

      Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        I wonder, where were all you guys during the past 3-4 seasons when Vogel was talking about smashmouth? Did any of you have "that's not smashmouth" ideas, or is this just because Roy is involved and personal feelings toward Roy has now creeped it's way into whether or not Frank Vogel knows what Frank Vogel's own system is?
        I haven't really felt we were smashmouth for at least a year, probably closer to two. For me, a smashmouth team should definitely out freethrow attempt opponents, and we did a good job of that I believe up until last year. I think Hans leaving combined with the decline of Hibbert and wear and tear of age on West morphed the team.
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

          Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
          Both are true but mine was relevant. You can't take everything a coach says to the media as gospel. There goal is not and should not be to inform fans.

          Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
          Have I said we should take everything as gospel? Nope. I agree with that. There are most certainly topics that coaches put the best possible spin on, but we're talking about a game plan, where the PR fluff isn't needed.

          The problem is Vogel has said "This was my version of Smashmouth" and we have posters saying "No it's not."

          Uh, yes it was. I fully understand having a different opinion to what smashmouth means. It can mean different things to different people. But we're talking about one specific version, Frank's. Frank is the authority on what Frank's system was.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post




            I don't know how one could watch these and say he wasn't physical on offense, at least in these playoffs.

            Watching these is depressing. This was only 2 summers ago.
            Every time I watch these videos, I getting so ****ing angry that I want to punch a hole in the wall. Hibbert had the talent and size to be a DAMN good center.

            Aargh!

            I could have lived with his inconsistent game, if he was still bringing that type of game more often than not.


            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

            Comment


            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              We were a wing dominated team from the moment that season ticked off. We went 33-7 and were the best team in the league with PG and Lance dominating the ball. We were playing a much different style of offense than the previous two seasons. As soon as that season kicked off, the offense was oriented through Lance and PG. For the first two months of the season, PG was playing at an MVP level and Lance looked like an all-star.

              Now, ultimately we went too far with it. PG started shooting the ball badly and Lance ticked everyone off by thinking he was Magic Johnson. But we didn't turn to a wing-oriented offense at the all-star game. We had been a wing-oriented offense all year. We just went too far with it around the all-star game.

              It can't be denied that the wing-dominated offense ultimately got out of control, but I also don't think it can be denied that the very best this team ever looked was when we were 33-7 with an offense revolving around PG and Lance. It was head and shoulders the best team in the league and was playing a much different offense than it had the previous two seasons.
              I don't agree. That team wasn't running the Hill-West pick and roll as much as they should have been, but that was still their best play. As I've said, this was a failed experiment with unfortunate timing. They had something working, and it focused on David West as option #1, and as Roy and GHill got pushed down the pecking order this team got progressively worse. They made some poor choices -- were the ballhogs breaking plays or was Vogel calling plays for the ballhogs? Can't tell.

              But this doesn't really belong in the Hibbert thread. It belongs in the David West thread that doesn't exist.

              And the further away they got from a Hill-West pick and roll the worse they were overall. I'm not clamoring for more Hibbert post-ups. I just want fewer iso's and to keep the ball out of Paul George's hands until it is time to shoot. I didn't even mind Lance handling the ball until after Christmas. The iso's really started increasing in January of '14. I remember getting back from Maui and saying, "this is not the same team I was watching before Christmas... and it isn't as good."

              David was the one driving that team to a 33-7 start. In hindsight, we can all look back and realize that was because David knew that was his last, best chance as a starter to contend for a championship. And the further away from him that the team moved, the worse they were.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                That's probably the biggest reason why I'm so angry with Hibbert the basketball player and not with Hibbert the person. When he was on his game, he was a great center. Afterwards, he just "fell off" and became ineffective for no apparent good reason. I could actually live with the fact if he got lazy ala Kandyman after getting the big contract. However, all indications show that he was still trying to be a good center, and he wasn't succeeding for some unknown reason.

                I have never seen anything like that in all my years of watching basketball. All the stats in the world will show he was the "same" player, but the eye test was painting a totally different picture. It's like the stats are not matching what I'm seeing with my own eyes or matching the results of the season.


                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                Comment


                • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  Roy looks a lot slimmer.
                  https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

                  Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                    Is this a good analogy?

                    Have you ever gotten a sizable raise, yet still feel "broke" every week/paycheck?


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      This is the problem, Vogel created his own version of smashmouth, and you're telling him he's wrong. Why would a coach need to be a politician in this sense? He can call it whatever he wants.

                      Frank Vogel *I created smashmouth around our post players*
                      PD *No you didn't*

                      Good arguments.
                      Ok then lets look at Vogels version of smash mouth. By franks on admission he called the Pacers a power post up offense. (thanks for the quote).

                      IF you look at last year post up stats the Pacers indeed ranked 4th in league in frequency. The rub is this though, the Pacers ranked 18th in the league in PPP. So high frequency low efficiency. Now due to the lack of access stats I can not look up previous years numbers but if you were to look at the frontcourt stats from the 2012/13 season you will indeed see that they took a lot of attempts (5th in the league) but again the rub is the low efficiency (ranked 28th in fg%).

                      So yes the offense is a power post up offense that frank designed. The problem is that it doesn't smash anything and the efficiency sucks so bad that I am not sure you could look anyone in the face and say that its reasonable description. Its quite frankly is laughable. Call it what you want but like I said its a dressed up description that is only suitable as an antonym when you use it for ROy.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                        Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                        So yes the offense is a power post up offense that frank designed. The problem is that it doesn't smash anything and the efficiency sucks so bad that I am not sure you could look anyone in the face and say that its reasonable description. Its quite frankly is laughable. Call it what you want but like I said its a dressed up description that is only suitable as an antonym when you use it for ROy.
                        Whether or not the offense was smashmouth and whether or not the smashmouth offense was good, are two separate discussions that aren't dependent of each other.

                        Have I argued that the offense was efficient? No, because it wasn't.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          I don't agree. That team wasn't running the Hill-West pick and roll as much as they should have been, but that was still their best play. As I've said, this was a failed experiment with unfortunate timing. They had something working, and it focused on David West as option #1, and as Roy and GHill got pushed down the pecking order this team got progressively worse. They made some poor choices -- were the ballhogs breaking plays or was Vogel calling plays for the ballhogs? Can't tell.

                          But this doesn't really belong in the Hibbert thread. It belongs in the David West thread that doesn't exist.

                          And the further away they got from a Hill-West pick and roll the worse they were overall. I'm not clamoring for more Hibbert post-ups. I just want fewer iso's and to keep the ball out of Paul George's hands until it is time to shoot. I didn't even mind Lance handling the ball until after Christmas. The iso's really started increasing in January of '14. I remember getting back from Maui and saying, "this is not the same team I was watching before Christmas... and it isn't as good."

                          David was the one driving that team to a 33-7 start. In hindsight, we can all look back and realize that was because David knew that was his last, best chance as a starter to contend for a championship. And the further away from him that the team moved, the worse they were.
                          If West's usage rate actually went up as the season progressed, would that change your opinion?

                          West usage went up .1% post All Star.
                          Last edited by freddielewis14; 07-30-2015, 03:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Have I argued that the offense was efficient? No, because it wasn't.
                            The crazy part about this is......it wasn't efficient, but it produced results. Why? Because teams couldn't handle the smashmouth Pacers. Opponents had all kinds of trouble with their defense, and didn't have the bodies to bang down low. And by bang down low, I don't mean guard the post, I mean guard the post and rebound at a level to keep the Pacers to one shot possessions.

                            The Pacers smashmouth, as ugly and inefficient as it was, still produced results because other teams had so much trouble matching up against all aspects of the philosphy.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                              If West's usage rate actually went up as the season progressed, would that change your opinion?
                              It would probably change my opinion of the basis for calculating a usage rate.

                              Those stats still don't capture how the usage came into being. As I said before, I wouldn't have minded Paul and Lance with higher "usage rates" but not after the dribble away most of the shot clock. All of those guys, along with G. Hill, had an increase in beat-the-shotclock junk shots because the ball stopped on the wings. I'm harping on the transition to a ball-killing, motionless offense. I think we can all agree that Roy, David, Paul and George were all significantly worse when they would get the ball in a static offense vs. an active offense. I'm not sure Lance was worse in that situation, but the other four were.

                              Tell me what stat measures a player's efficiency when the ball has been in motion vs. when the ball has been killed in an iso.? Doesn't exist, does it?

                              Remember, I'm an eyeball-test guy. I rarely look at box scores except for long-after the fact and don't care much about advanced stats. Our family was a coaching family so scouting games (whether basketball or football) was a father-son activity -- that's how I work the eyeball test... what is the future opponent doing well that we will need to stop and what can we exploit.

                              If I was an opposing coach in 2013-14, I'd want the Pacers to have the ball in PG's or LS's hands as much as possible and I'd go out of my way to talk about how they were budding/ emerging stars just to see if they'd take the bait and help my team keep the ball out of David's hands. And the Pacers fell for it.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                ]

                                And the further away they got from a Hill-West pick and roll the worse they were overall. I'm not clamoring for more Hibbert post-ups. I just want fewer iso's and to keep the ball out of Paul George's hands until it is time to shoot. I didn't even mind Lance handling the ball until after Christmas. The iso's really started increasing in January of '14. I remember getting back from Maui and saying, "this is not the same team I was watching before Christmas... and it isn't as good."

                                David was the one driving that team to a 33-7 start. In hindsight, we can all look back and realize that was because David knew that was his last, best chance as a starter to contend for a championship. And the further away from him that the team moved, the worse they were.

                                West averaged 11.9 PPG in November, 14.0 PPG in December, 13.1 PPG in January , 16.6 PPG in February, 13.7 PPG in March, and 17.6 PPG in April. There is really no point at which we stopped going to David West and he was actually posting some really good numbers during the stretch where everything was going to hell. His usage rate was pretty much at the same point all season.

                                PG and Lance were dominating the offense on a 33-7 team. Lance and West had phenomenal chemistry and it was fun to watch them play together. PG played out of his mind the first two months of the season. I agree that things got out of control in the second half of the season, but the offense in the first half of the season revolved around PG and Lance. It worked until they both took it a bit too far. Your post makes it seem like PG and Lance weren't playing a major role in the offense when the team was 33-7, but that's just not the case. They both started that season on a fury and it was very successful for a couple of months.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X