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
    Right, which is exactly what happened. The offense was good when PG and CJ were on fire. Outside of that stretch, it's been ****. Which is why Vogel decided to stop doing it. The Pacers actually had a better Offrtg with Lavoy on the floor over CJ.
    Our offense was better with small lineup per this January 8th article...

    However, when considering offense — the end of the floor in which the organization primarily focused on during the offseason — if the Pacers go big and eschew the spread lineup, then they’re far from their “best.”

    Offensive statistics have plummeted whenever Indiana has played the starting unit that includes Allen and Mahinmi, the second-most used lineup at 140 minutes this season.

    Recalling the nostalgia of the smash-mouth era — which is to say low scoring, grind-it-out displays of tepid offense — the Hill-Ellis-George-Allen-Mahinmi lineup shoots 42.9 percent from the floor, three percentage points lower compared to the space-and-pace crew with C.J. Miles as the four. Also, the bigger group attempts less free throws, turns the ball over at the highest rate of the Pacers’ five-man units that have played 30 or more minutes together and generates just a 95.8 offensive rating. (It's 101.7 with the smaller unit.)
    http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...cers/78231392/

    But this is all without PG trying to play the 4.

    Comment


    • Re: Q&A with Bird

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      Our offense was better with small lineup per this January 8th article...



      http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...cers/78231392/

      But this is all without PG trying to play the 4.
      With CJ on the floor, the Pacers offrtg is 104.4.
      With CJ off the floor, the Pacers offrtg is 104.8

      On Court IND 1090 .505 19.7 74.5 46.4 54.4 10.0 8.0 15.3 104.4 .507 25.5 80.3 53.6 55.1 8.6 7.7 17.6 104.2 -.002 -5.8 -5.8 -7.1 +53.8 +9.9 +7.9 +15.2 +0.2
      Off Court IND 1191 .487 27.0 75.6 51.7 52.3 9.1 7.4 15.7 104.8 .469 24.4 73.0 48.3 53.9 8.4 7.2 16.5 99.7 +.018 +2.6 +2.6 +3.5 +51.7 +9.0 +7.4 +15.5 +5.0
      On − Off IND 48% +.018 -7.3 -1.1 -5.3 +2.1 +0.9 +0.6 -0.4 -0.4 +.038 +1.1 +7.3 +5.3 +1.2 +0.2 +0.5 +1.1 +4.5 -.020 -8.4 -8.4 -10.6 +2.1 +0.9 +0.5 -0.3 -4.8
      http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/milescj01/on-off/2016/

      Nov is when CJ/PG went nuts offensively. CJ, for example, shot 43.7% from 3 during the whole month of Nov. Outside of that stretch, the offensive small ball hasn't worked. In order for CJ's on/off numbers to balance out, they've had to go through a just as bad stretch. CJ's offrtg in Jan? 79!!
      Last edited by Since86; 02-01-2016, 03:37 PM.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: Q&A with Bird

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        With CJ on the floor, the Pacers offrtg is 104.4.
        With CJ off the floor, the Pacers offrtg is 104.8

        On Court IND 1090 .505 19.7 74.5 46.4 54.4 10.0 8.0 15.3 104.4 .507 25.5 80.3 53.6 55.1 8.6 7.7 17.6 104.2 -.002 -5.8 -5.8 -7.1 +53.8 +9.9 +7.9 +15.2 +0.2
        Off Court IND 1191 .487 27.0 75.6 51.7 52.3 9.1 7.4 15.7 104.8 .469 24.4 73.0 48.3 53.9 8.4 7.2 16.5 99.7 +.018 +2.6 +2.6 +3.5 +51.7 +9.0 +7.4 +15.5 +5.0
        On − Off IND 48% +.018 -7.3 -1.1 -5.3 +2.1 +0.9 +0.6 -0.4 -0.4 +.038 +1.1 +7.3 +5.3 +1.2 +0.2 +0.5 +1.1 +4.5 -.020 -8.4 -8.4 -10.6 +2.1 +0.9 +0.5 -0.3 -4.8
        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/on-off/2016/
        I don't think CJ on/off means small or big lineup. Especially coming off the bench now.

        Also, the crux of the discussion is PG giving the 4 a try, so pointing out numbers where CJ was the one doing it doesn't really say much either.
        Last edited by freddielewis14; 02-01-2016, 03:43 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Q&A with Bird

          Obviously there is no middle ground here. I think because Bird and Carlisle suggest something similar, it worth taking a look at. I'm not even arguing it will be successful. You're saying Bird is an idiot and it shouldn't be explored because you know exactly how it will unfold. So I'll just agree to disagree.

          Comment


          • Re: Q&A with Bird

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            Obviously there is no middle ground here. I think because Bird and Carlisle suggest something similar, it worth taking a look at. I'm not even arguing it will be successful. You're saying Bird is an idiot and it shouldn't be explored because you know exactly how it will unfold. So I'll just agree to disagree.
            I think the Pacers should start a lineup like this GHill/Monta/GRIII/CJ/PG. We don't know whether or not it will be effective until it's tried.

            You agree with that, or do you think a little bit of common sense and logic can be applied? You've given be nothing but the "hey you never know" rationale, which is what people who go out and spend $50 on powerball tickets each week think.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Q&A with Bird

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              I think the Pacers should start a lineup like this GHill/Monta/GRIII/CJ/PG. We don't know whether or not it will be effective until it's tried.

              You agree with that, or do you think a little bit of common sense and logic can be applied? You've given be nothing but the "hey it can work" rationale, which is what people who go out and spend $50 on powerball tickets each week think.
              Reason why I think it can work at the very least, for spot minutes...

              1. Bird suggested it. I think he knows a thing or two. And he built the big/smashmouth team in the past, so I don't think he's some Don Nelson/O'brien type that just want to try crazy lineups that can't be successful.

              2. Carlisle is trying and in a small sample size it's adding a dimension for Dallas.

              3. It could open up the floor for the entire team and clear out the lane even if teams don't put a 4 on PG.

              4. If they do chose to put a 4 on PG, then he can take players off the dribble easier.

              So those are my reasons why. You may not agree with them, but that's just like your opinion man.

              Comment


              • Re: Q&A with Bird

                Those are reasons for why Pacers should try it, not reasons why opposing teams would willingly go along with it. I understand why the Pacers would want to try it, I have no clue why we think opposing coaches would just simply say "okay, you (our 4) have PG tonight since his name is listed 4th on the lineup card."


                Find me a reason why an opposing coach would willingly create a mismatch for PG, the Pacers leading scorer at 23.5pts per game, over CJ, their 4th leading scorer at 12.1pts per game.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Q&A with Bird

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Those are reasons for why Pacers should try it, not reasons why opposing teams would willingly go along with it. I understand why the Pacers would want to try it, I have no clue why we think opposing coaches would just simply say "okay, you (our 4) have PG tonight since his name is listed 4th on the lineup card."


                  Find me a reason why an opposing coach would willingly create a mismatch for PG, the Pacers leading scorer at 23.5pts per game, over CJ, their 4th leading scorer at 12.1pts per game.
                  This is my last response on this. See 1 - 3

                  Comment


                  • Re: Q&A with Bird

                    "Bird suggested it" is a reason for why opposing coaches would guard PG with their 4. We've went off the deep end.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Q&A with Bird

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      "Bird suggested it" is a reason for why opposing coaches would guard PG with their 4. We've went off the deep end.
                      I thought you could deduce that meant Bird and Carlisle had devised ways to put the coaches in more difficult/complicated situation that you're aware of that's partly highlighted in #3...

                      Comment


                      • Re: Q&A with Bird

                        It's all a moot discussion in a way. At the end of the day, the main goal of moving PG to the four was to create better spacing and increase the pace of play. As far as spacing goes, i would say it has been a bit better (purely eye test) but has been hampered by some poor movement, passing and shooting. As far as pace, I think we are right about where Bird wanted us, up from 19th to 7th in the league.

                        Thing is we kept the same starting small-ball lineup just with CJ playing 4. End result was just about the same (and Since, I think you are right, opposing defenses would have defended us exactly the same regardless of whether we call CJ or PG a 4.) Thing is, if we play Ian and Myles, or Myles and JHill, we are athletic enough at our bigs to keep up the pace, and we have enough shooting in Myles to effectively be able to stretch the floor (random note: JHill's inside game is MUCH better than I thought). Also, shout out to Allen. He doesn't get much love around here, but IMO he's been a solid player for us
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


                        • Re: Q&A with Bird

                          Also FYI, David West called it that PG wasn't going to play any PF:

                          AP @Ananth_Pandian
                          "He ain't gonna play power forward." - David West on Paul George playing pf in Indy
                          12:31 PM - 28 Sep 2015
                          Danger Zone

                          Comment


                          • Re: Q&A with Bird

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            I thought you could deduce that meant Bird and Carlisle had devised ways to put the coaches in more difficult/complicated situation that you're aware of that's partly highlighted in #3...
                            #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.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • 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.
                              You clearly don't follow what I said. I was pretty specific in saying the opposing coach not changing his lineup could still help the Pacers, and how. You just disagree, which is fine. But don't pretend I haven't given you a reason.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Q&A with Bird

                                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                                You clearly don't follow what I said. I was pretty specific in saying the opposing coach not changing his lineup could still help the Pacers, and how. You just disagree, which is fine. But don't pretend I haven't given you a reason.
                                Then quote it. I have no problem rereading it.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X