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

Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

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

  • #61
    Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

    I think all of the extremely negative preseason comments should be moved to this thread as a memorial of how bad some takes were coming into this season.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

      Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
      The amazing thing is that Paul's defense can get even better which will probably come with more time back and getting used to guys that improved last season.
      I didn't see last night's game, but overall I've noticed this too. Little things, like getting rubbed off more screens than he used to. While he's already an excellent defender, I think he can still get better.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

        Franks a really good coach but Dan Burke deserves a ton of credit for the defense as well.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          Also, the truth is that people who doubted the ability of this team to play defense owe a damned apology to Frank Vogel. And that's real as I can be.
          My crow tastes good.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

            We are playing well right now, so it is really easy to throw rocks at pessimists, but I do not think we are immune to a 2-3 game losing streak. Will all of you throwing rocks eta the same crow you are attempting to serve up in November when the team falters?

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Sorry Nunt but if you think I'm gonna be serious while the team is 8-5, tough cookies. They've out performed everyone's expectations and the defense over the past 2 weeks has been just as good as it ever was with Roy.

              Which was one of the points I made many weeks ago.

              The most important player to our defense was always Paul George, because his instincts and skill are irreplaceable.
              If the team sucked this year, then everyone would have agreed that the moves didn't work. There wouldn't have been any other way to spin it.

              However, I knew that if the team had a good start like this, you'd have people who think that we'd be winning 65 games and eliminating the Cavs if only we had that old Hibbert/West frontcourt that had such little demand around the rest of the league. Even if this team wins 50 games, some people still won't admit that Bird made the right moves. That's fine, we are all free to our opinion, but some of it is really starting to sound like sour grapes at this point.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                but I do not think we are immune to a 2-3 game losing streak.
                Even the best team in the league can have a 2-3 game losing streak at the drop of a hat, so I don't think there's anyone who would disagree with that.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  Sorry Nunt but if you think I'm gonna be serious while the team is 8-5, tough cookies. They've out performed everyone's expectations and the defense over the past 2 weeks has been just as good as it ever was with Roy.

                  Which was one of the points I made many weeks ago.

                  The most important player to our defense was always Paul George, because his instincts and skill are irreplaceable.
                  Also last year Ian was effectively equal to Roy on defense, so that was never a concern for me. Even less so when they drafted a Roy clone with a Smits-type scoring game.


                  This team was a playoff team last year, at least virtually. They missed the playoffs by 1 game and if Memphis hadn't needed that final game of the year they very well could have slipped in. When you add an AS level PG back to the team and have Hill right from the start you clearly have a 2-4th seed team.

                  The only argument against that was the loss of West, Scola and Hibbert. Hibbert could barely be played in the 4th the last 3-4 months of the season and was awful on offense. West spent all but maybe a few weeks looking like a player that didn't care to be out there, and this is me talking about my favorite player of the last few seasons. I often wondered with only partial sarcasm if he was intentionally tanking games, that's how bad his play was. Of the 3 only Scola was really on track and that was primarily rebounding.

                  So Ian and Turner replace what Roy was giving your LAST YEAR. West/Scola were NOT playing "muscle" PF defense, and really never did. West was an above average defender when focused, but that was all hands/tips, and a small ball PF can replicate that. Also Scola and West had transitioned into mostly spot up mid-range shooters rather than their younger crafty low post versions. Again, that can be replaced by a small ball PF.


                  But that could still tip back and forth as the small ball group learned HOW to replicate the overall production with different methods. The curve ball that has brought about faster growth, especially given the injury hits to Turner, Stuckey and Hill (illness) is Jordan Hill. That dude has rocketed from extreme doghouse (DNP-CD for game 3) to giving the team as much or more than you were getting out of West last year and has been in the ballpark of Scola's best nights.



                  It was just not reasonable to view last season's defense as really sharp, which makes the loss of players that were part of that middling defensive output meaningless. I like Roy, but if Ian had the hands he does this year he might have pushed into the starting lineup ahead of Roy last season. Ian's defensive rating was at 100 last year while Roy was at 101. It's the 98 vs 101 offensive rating that was the issue. Roy's 101 was a step down from his prior 2 seasons (97,98) and similarly West was down to 102 after posting a couple of 99s. Roy also put up career lows in blocks and steals per 36. And Roy was reduced to only 25 mpg last year which is borderline 6-7th man PT.

                  Obviously a major factor was the lack of Paul George...but to me that speaks to PG being more critical to the defense than Roy.



                  Also I think the coaching deserves credit because I see Ellis physically fighting through screens and in traffic to make defensive plays. And its obvious that their coordination and rotations are very dialed in, even when they give up buckets.


                  And I think it's going a bit unnoticed that CJ Miles is very much a Granger clone, albeit a lesser version. He plays with wingspan, is very disruptive to passing lanes, bodies up on post defense in a similar way, obviously is a big time 3PA guy, and is less PG athletic and more DG solid. And just the DG/PG combo was lethal a few years ago, let alone the full team. While CJ isn't DG, the Granger version of PG was not playing at the level PG is now, so in total impact the CJ/PG pair does run close to the DG/PG combo. I'll note that CJ is running a Def rating of 99 right now, by far the best of his career (he's 107 O vs 99 D this year). DG's best year with PG/Vogel was a 111/104 and PG was 108/100 that year.


                  By the way, while looking at this I noticed something pretty awesome - George Hills Off-Def ratings. Off the charts.
                  117-105
                  117-102
                  115-102
                  117-103
                  110-100 this year

                  Compare it to PG who's never been questioned on his productivity, unlike scapegoat Hill
                  103-104 (rookie)
                  108-100 (Hill arrives)
                  104-97
                  107-97
                  injured (87-99)
                  110-97

                  Hill vs PG in per 100 rating differential
                  +12 vs +8
                  +15 vs +7
                  +13 vs +10
                  +14 vs injured
                  +10 vs +13

                  The +14 last year for GH is especially ridiculous, it dwarfs the quality of any other player last season.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-22-2015, 10:45 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Going into this evening, the Pacers had the fourth best defensive rating in the league. Last year with Hibbert playing 76 games, the Pacers had the seventh best defensive rating in the league. A lot of people around here said that our defense would be in shambles without Hibbert (i.e. that we'd pretty much be one of the worst defending teams in the league). So far, those people were dead wrong. So far, our defense is better than it was last year (short sample size, but 13 games is nothing to sneeze at) and the team is winning games and appears to have a good future. Sure, maybe our rating will fall a bit as time goes on, but the same can be said for other teams too. With our coaching, there is no doubt in my mind that we will be very high all season.
                    I don't know what others said, Sollozzo. I do know what I said, though. And what I said is that we would still be a damn good defensive team. Here's what I wrote back in August:

                    Originally posted by Nuntius
                    I absolutely agree that we will be a top 10 defense. I never said the opposite. I have absolute faith on Frank and both PG and GH are amazing defenders.

                    We won't be top 3, though. That's what I'm trying to say. It will take some time before we're good enough defensively to contend.
                    Here's the link to that thread -> http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...t=#post2033397

                    Was I dead wrong about what I said? Not really. Now, I freely admit that the difference between #3 and #4 is not that big and that we're indeed playing slightly better defense than I expected. But if we had retained a defensive-minded philosophy and Bird had brought in a defensive-minded C we would be #1 by far. We had a chance to be really special defensively this season instead of just really good.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    No one has ever disputed the fact that Hibbert was a major reason in us being the number 1 defense two years ago
                    That's not really true. A number of people tried to rewrite history this off-season.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    but that team was not going to exist this year. A lot can change in two years.
                    It's possible that you're right but since this team is no more we have no way to verify it.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    So far, Bird's off-season has been a very solid success. It had a rough 0-3 start as the new parts were trying to get used to each other, but since then they've been on a massive roll. The only two losses since then were a close loss in Cleveland and a one point loss in Chicago without George Hill and Stuckey.
                    It depends on what your expectations for this season were. This team is meeting my expectations so far. They have a good chance to surpass them and I will be very glad when that happens. But the expectation I had for the team that Bird blew up was nothing short of the #2 seed and an ECF/Finals appearance. So, it's going to be hard for me to see Bird's off-season as a success since I believe that we would be even better if he didn't decide to blow it up.

                    But what I believe about this off-season doesn't really matter. It's what I (and everyone else in this forum) believe about our current Pacers team that matters. And I love this team just like I loved our old team. And they deserve all the credit in the world for their performance so far.

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    I don't get clinging to the past when the present and future are so promising, but to each their own.
                    I'm not clinging to the past. I'm defending the past from the revisionism that is being attempted lately. That isn't stopping me from enjoying the present and future of this team


                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Sorry Nunt but if you think I'm gonna be serious while the team is 8-5, tough cookies. They've out performed everyone's expectations and the defense over the past 2 weeks has been just as good as it ever was with Roy.
                    Once again, it depends on one's expectations
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                      I'm still shocked people think we'd be better with Roy/West. Give me Monta, Stuckey, and JHill over DWest/Hibbert 7 days a week.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                        Really weird people still say Bird blew up the old Pacers team. He replaced two declining players that didn't want to be here with better players that not only put us in a better position this year, but also set us up with space/flexibility while keeping all our picks and assets.

                        If Pacers remain a top 4 team in the East Bird will be GM of the year.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          I'm still shocked people think we'd be better with Roy/West. Give me Monta, Stuckey, and JHill over DWest/Hibbert 7 days a week.
                          What can I say? My belief is that this team was going to pick up right where it left off when PG got healthy.

                          But what I think about the past doesn't really matter. We have a darn good team right now so let's support it.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                            Yeah, I'll eat crow. I certainly loved the team on paper. Just see my signature about loving most of the moves. I honestly thought it was gonna take at least half the season to figure things out and build chemistry. Testament to Frank. He's made adjustments to how he coaches and they've worked out great.

                            The thing I love the most is that Frank finally realizes he has players that can get after the ball. Pacers are racking up steals like crazy. It's just fantastic to see that. Taking possessions away from the other team will help offset the lack of rebounding by the Pacers.

                            Pacers still need to protect the ball better and shoot better from the FT line, but man, these guys look like they enjoy playing with each other (that's not what she said), and are having some fun.
                            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                              Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                              I'm still shocked people think we'd be better with Roy/West. Give me Monta, Stuckey, and JHill over DWest/Hibbert 7 days a week.
                              Hibbert/West no, Hibbert/athletic 4 probably. Hibbert has always been better when playing next to a more athletic 4. Two slow plodding big men is rarely a plan for success no matter what era you are playing in.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Jay's Official season-long post game (rant) thread

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Even the best team in the league can have a 2-3 game losing streak at the drop of a hat, so I don't think there's anyone who would disagree with that.
                                But what are we? I maintain that we are a 500 team and we will regress to the mean at some point. Obviously we are playing well, so rocks are being thrown at anyone who had concerns. The season is long and the tables will be reversed at some point.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X