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

Q&A with Bird

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

  • Re: Q&A with Bird

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    #3 is also a reason for why the Pacers would want to do it, not why the opponents would.

    Just spell out a reason other than "you never know" so my deductive abilities don't mangle your reason.
    Hey Since, I thought this from a Grantland Article sums up what the initial hope probably was (If nothing else, I enjoyed the article.)
    http://grantland.com/the-triangle/an...power-forward/

    Why should anyone be excited about Paul George playing power forward?

    Because watching George try to carry the offense at small forward was nearly as painful as watching the Pacers try to be a contender with Roy Hibbert. If this shift were just about optimizing the Pacers’ roster to play small with Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey, the logic would be much harder to defend. But no. This is about the Pacers weaponizing Paul George.

    It makes sense that George would be cautious. Hearing “power forward” conjures images of Zach Randolph, and nobody wants to imagine a night against Z-Bo, especially someone coming off a broken leg. We’re still learning about what smaller players can handle. Most players aren’t as injury-prone as Dudley, but the concern over wear and tear is reasonable. Vogel will have to be careful about managing George’s minutes at the 4. But even if there will be nights when George’s job gets a little bit more complicated on defense, the uptick in his quality of life on offense could make the whole thing worth it.

    At small forward, George struggled to create off the dribble — especially in the playoffs. He still got his numbers, and his defense made him an All-NBA candidate regardless, but his game could look ugly as he tried to assert himself, and the Pacers offense wasn’t much better. When his favorite move — long, contested pull-up jumpers — wasn’t working, he had few other options in the half court. That’s when it got painful watching George try to be MVP.

    “I’m coming back as a fresh new player, with a new team,” George said this week. “But I’m not limiting myself. I still have the aspiration of being the MVP.”

    Right. He wants to be mentioned alongside KD and LeBron.

    Playing power forward is how he can do it?

    Playing power forward is how he can do it.

    This is where we end: People may see this as a case of Larry Bird asking too much of his best player, but really, this is the same kind of divine lineup intervention that made Dirk Nowitzki unstoppable. It’s also the change that someone like Carmelo Anthony never got in his prime.

    A smaller Pacers lineup means a faster Pacers team, which ultimately means George will get more easy looks in transition. In the half court, as he spaces the perimeter playing power forward, he’ll have the opportunity to match up with bigger players who are less equipped to handle his first step. Here, watch what he does to two power forwards:


    With no Hibbert or West down low, he’ll have more space than ever to attack the rim. It makes his biggest weakness — creating in the half court — less likely to slow him down. It makes his strengths — size that 3s can’t handle, speed that 4s can’t handle, shooting, finishing at the rim — more dangerous than ever. It’s not that he’ll be playing out of position to suit his teammates; he’ll be playing the position that best suits his skills.

    The rest of us should be psyched. The soul-crushing Pacers of the past are done, and if this change works, George could match KD and LeBron by playing a different game, and one that makes a lot more sense. He’s Scottie Pippen, not Jordan. And if Scottie Pippen played today, he would be absolutely vicious as a slashing stretch 4. That’s what’s on the table for Paul George this season. It might be “taxing on his body,” as Dudley warned. But it could pay off, too.
    Danger Zone

    Comment


    • Re: Q&A with Bird

      Bird wanted his best players on the court for as long as possible. I think he believed for that to happen Paul would need to play a few minutes at the 4. He also believed it'd take some pressure off Paul if he didn't have to chase around guards all game coming back off that surgically repaired leg. He did the exact same thing during his career and says it not that hard.

      Bird also probably thought it might help to toughen Paul up. Forcing him to get in there and bang. Birds no dummy, I'm sure he had his reasons.

      Comment


      • Re: Q&A with Bird

        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
        Hey Since, I thought this from a Grantland Article sums up what the initial hope probably was (If nothing else, I enjoyed the article.)
        http://grantland.com/the-triangle/an...power-forward/
        None of that explains why opposing coaches would guard PG with their 4. It runs on the assumption they would, but gives no reason for why they would.

        I understand the reasoning to get PG to play the 4 offensively. It creates a huge mismatch, which is the exact reason why opposing coaches wouldn't guard PG with their 4. You don't willingly create a massive mismatch for the opposing team's best player. It would be dumb. If Frank did it, I would call for him to be fired. It's that dumb of an idea.

        The idea works, as long as you think opposing coaches aren't smart enough to realize why the Pacers would do it. At the very least, they'd simply match the small ball lineup and play another 2/3 at the 4, and both teams would be guard dominant with one big. They wouldn't play two bigs and have one guard PG. Nope, never will believe it until I see someone dumb enough to actually do it.
        Last edited by Since86; 02-01-2016, 04:14 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Q&A with Bird

          Imagine playing the Bulls and PG guarding McBuckets or Mirotic instead of Bulter.
          Imagine playing the Cavs and PG guarding Love or, say, Shumpert instead of LeBron.
          Imagine playing OKC and PG guarding Ibaka or, say, Robertson instead of Durant.
          Imagine playing Toronto and PG guarding Scola or Crowder instead of DeRozan.
          Imagine playing the Knicks and PG guarding Tayshaun instead of Wiggins.

          "Hey let's not play our best perimeter defender on our opponents best wing scorer, let's play him on the 5th leading scorer. Let's see if their leading scorer can beat this mismatch, while we hold down that guy averaging 12pts to 7."

          They wouldn't be an NBA coach for long. They'd be fired, and deserve every over the top criticism lobbed their way.
          Last edited by Since86; 02-01-2016, 04:29 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: Q&A with Bird

            But the opposing team running a 3 out to guard PG (playing at the 4) would leave their 4 to guard the Pacers' 3. Or they are going to have to pull their regular rotation 4 and go to the bench to matchup and now they are not necessarily playing to their strengths. So even if they can counter PG at the 4 effectively, there's still the issue of what to do with the Pacers' 3. It's not all about PG.

            At least on offense.

            The other side of the coin would be if PG could guard the position well enough not to give up the offensive advantage they are trying to create.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • Re: Q&A with Bird

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              I would need a link showing Jermaine was injured from playing center, or Lebron left Miami because he played PF. Sounds like speculation to fit your opinion.

              The facts are, Jermaine had his best years at center. Third in MVP votes playing next to Al and highest scoring average playing center as well. LeBron won his only championships playing the majority of his minutes at PF. So these players tried it, and had success. I'm just saying I wish PG would try it so we could use it sparingly. Maybe even only a game week for spot minutes. Just gives the team another dimension.
              About Jermaine:

              I didn't follow the NBA before 2010. Therefore, I have never seen Jermaine O'Neal live in a Pacers uniform. Everything I know from that era comes from reading past threads on this very board. Therefore, my knowledge on the Jermaine-era Pacers comes completely from second hand information found on this site. I'm by no means an expert on it. But yes, I have read several people say that Jermaine's switch to Center negatively impacted his health.

              About LeBron:

              LeBron didn't exactly left Miami because they made him play PF. First of all, let's clear something up. LeBron didn't play PF at Miami. Or to be more precise, he played as much PF in Miami as PG played PF this season. The reason why players like Shane Battier and Mike Miller were so important for the Heat was exactly because they were ones doing what LeBron hated to do. They were the ones that guarded PFs like David West and Zach Randolph. LeBron rarely guarded those players and when he did he came out publicly and said that he didn't like doing it.

              LeBron won titles in Miami for a number of reasons but "playing PF" wasn't among those reasons. The main reason why LeBron won back then was because he was by far the most dominant player in the NBA at the time.

              Originally posted by Rogco View Post
              So he wanted to go to a team with a PF who was even worse at defending?
              I never said that LeBron is good as a GM
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Q&A with Bird

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                He also believed it'd take some pressure off Paul if he didn't have to chase around guards all game coming back off that surgically repaired leg. He did the exact same thing during his career and says it not that hard.
                And that's exactly the elephant in the room. The switch from SF to PF worked for Bird so he naturally thinks that it's the best possible course of action. But PG is not Bird. And Bird is refusing to acknowledge the fact that PG is a completely different player.

                That's the problem here. I don't think that Bird was crazy when he suggest that PG should switch to PF. It's a move that worked for him so it's natural for him to suggest it. But he still hasn't recognized that PG is nothing like him as a player. Not all SFs are the same. Some SFs are closer to PFs (like Carmelo and Bird) and others are closer to guards (like PG and Jimmy Butler). Some are strong and can play in the post while others are slashers who rely on athleticism and shooting. If there was a Pacer star SF who could benefit from a switch to PF that would be Danny Granger and not Paul George.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Re: Q&A with Bird

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  But the opposing team running a 3 out to guard PG (playing at the 4) would leave their 4 to guard the Pacers' 3.
                  So? David West routinely guarded the likes of Mike Miller and Shane Battier against the Heat. Heck, he even guarded Ray Allen at times. Was that what beat us in the end?

                  When we used the small lineup opposing teams would routinely cover CJ with their 4. It worked when CJ was on fire but it stopped working when CJ started to miss.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X