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

3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

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

  • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    I thought you said you would wait and see if Monta was okay with it after he was healthy or lost? While both those happened months ago...and he stayed on the bench. Why not admit Nate benched Monta?
    Q: How do you think Monta Ellis has handled his reduced role coming off the bench?

    Bird: “Glenn (Robinson III) hasn’t been as consistent as I think as he or we would like, but the numbers don’t lie. When he plays, we do better. Monta, I’m not going to say he’ll ever accept the role of coming off the bench because that’s his mentality. But the thing is he’s going to do whatever it takes for us to win basketball games and he’ll continue to get better. I think when (Rodney) Stuckey gets back, I think that’s going to help. I think he gives us a big boost. But as far as Monta, I think Monta is going to do whatever he thinks will help us win basketball games. Monta knows I have respect for him and I have respect for all veterans. We’re going to do what’s right by him and we want him to be a big part of this, whether he’s starting or coming off the bench.”

    For the record I will state as follows, Nate did bench Monta. However further for the record he benched him after an injury and yes he stayed there for a good portion of the season but the past month or so we have been hearing about someone not happy with their role in the offense. It could be Thad Young or George Niang or Al Jefferson for all I know, or well it could also be Monta Ellis none of us know. All that we know is that Ellis is back to starting over Miles because somehow GR3 (who has been backing up Paul George btw) got injured.

    There now I've stated it for all to see.

    Your turn.

    Now I am have gone ahead and included the entire quote for you so you can't accuse me of cherry picking, it clearly say's in there that Monta is willing to do whatever it takes to make the team win. However it also clearly states that Monta is not willing to accept a role coming off of the bench.

    Now that you have made this about Monta Ellis, which is a perfectly good straw man btw which I allowed you to drag me down into so its as much my fault as it is yours let's get back to the real topic here.

    Now you explain to all of us how Frank Vogel took a team with similar if not less talent last season to 45 wins and a hard out in the first round to this team now at best and I mean at best can win 44 games (which it won't because we would have to win out) and honestly only you and maybe a couple of others are certain we will even make the playoffs now. Also don't even give us any of the "look at what Frank has done in Orlando" because that is a false equivalency. We know what he did here last season.

    I'm sure you have some advanced metric that you've spent hours searching twitter for that will explain to all of us that what we see is really not what we get. That the team is actually better and not worse than last season.


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

    Comment


    • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      Well you are making my point, all of that and Monta was still coming off the bench without a problem.

      Now Nate told him to start and he is starting (was putting great numbers as the starter before today).

      I will post it when I get some time but Fournier called your boy out the other day for not benching certain players.
      I am no longer going to just stand by and listen about what Frank is doing in Orlando because as Jim O'Brien would say "it's irrelevant". I know what Frank Vogel did here last year with this team. He won more games than what Nate is going to win.

      Even if we won out every single game he still would not win as many games.

      You can say it was time for Vogel to move on, I would disagree but I can understand why some would think so. But you can't possibly tell me that Nate was a better hire. The only stats that matter (the win/loss column) say otherwise.


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

      Comment


      • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Q: How do you think Monta Ellis has handled his reduced role coming off the bench?

        Bird: “Glenn (Robinson III) hasn’t been as consistent as I think as he or we would like, but the numbers don’t lie. When he plays, we do better. Monta, I’m not going to say he’ll ever accept the role of coming off the bench because that’s his mentality. But the thing is he’s going to do whatever it takes for us to win basketball games and he’ll continue to get better. I think when (Rodney) Stuckey gets back, I think that’s going to help. I think he gives us a big boost. But as far as Monta, I think Monta is going to do whatever he thinks will help us win basketball games. Monta knows I have respect for him and I have respect for all veterans. We’re going to do what’s right by him and we want him to be a big part of this, whether he’s starting or coming off the bench.”

        For the record I will state as follows, Nate did bench Monta. However further for the record he benched him after an injury and yes he stayed there for a good portion of the season but the past month or so we have been hearing about someone not happy with their role in the offense. It could be Thad Young or George Niang or Al Jefferson for all I know, or well it could also be Monta Ellis none of us know. All that we know is that Ellis is back to starting over Miles because somehow GR3 (who has been backing up Paul George btw) got injured.

        There now I've stated it for all to see.

        Your turn.

        Now I am have gone ahead and included the entire quote for you so you can't accuse me of cherry picking, it clearly say's in there that Monta is willing to do whatever it takes to make the team win. However it also clearly states that Monta is not willing to accept a role coming off of the bench.

        Now that you have made this about Monta Ellis, which is a perfectly good straw man btw which I allowed you to drag me down into so its as much my fault as it is yours let's get back to the real topic here.

        Now you explain to all of us how Frank Vogel took a team with similar if not less talent last season to 45 wins and a hard out in the first round to this team now at best and I mean at best can win 44 games (which it won't because we would have to win out) and honestly only you and maybe a couple of others are certain we will even make the playoffs now. Also don't even give us any of the "look at what Frank has done in Orlando" because that is a false equivalency. We know what he did here last season.

        I'm sure you have some advanced metric that you've spent hours searching twitter for that will explain to all of us that what we see is really not what we get. That the team is actually better and not worse than last season.
        I've already said I was wrong about Nate and Bird's roster. I drank the koolaid on "accountability" and even if he did show that by benching Monta he was not able to get this group together.

        And there is no straw man, you made a comment about Sarge and Monta and accountability. I thought that was a terrible example because that's like the only thing most the board was happy with Nate doing.

        As for the Bird quote, I don't see anything wrong with it. You don't have to accept it mentally. CJ Miles said something similar. All that matters is you do it without being a problem. Vogel couldn't get that done.

        Comment


        • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          I am no longer going to just stand by and listen about what Frank is doing in Orlando because as Jim O'Brien would say "it's irrelevant". I know what Frank Vogel did here last year with this team. He won more games than what Nate is going to win.

          Even if we won out every single game he still would not win as many games.

          You can say it was time for Vogel to move on, I would disagree but I can understand why some would think so. But you can't possibly tell me that Nate was a better hire. The only stats that matter (the win/loss column) say otherwise.
          IMO Vogel underachieved last year and Nate underachieved this year.

          Comment


          • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            I've already said I was wrong about Nate and Bird's roster. I drank the koolaid on "accountability" and even if he did show that by benching Monta he was not able to get this group together.

            And there is no straw man, you made a comment about Sarge and Monta and accountability. I thought that was a terrible example because that's like the only thing most the board was happy with Nate doing.

            As for the Bird quote, I don't see anything wrong with it. You don't have to accept it mentally. CJ Miles said something similar. All that matters is you do it without being a problem. Vogel couldn't get that done.
            See you were fine up until that part. He wasn't allowed to get that done. He tried, Bird would NOT allow it.


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

            Comment


            • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              IMO Vogel underachieved last year and Nate underachieved this year.
              See I just differ with you in the fact that I don't think either underachieved. I believe that Larry Bird has built and extremely flawed roster and that Gregg Popovich himself would maybe only be able to string a few more wins out of this group.

              I freely admit that I was dead wrong about Thad Young. When the trade went down I was excited and thought it was a good move, I am now convinced he has to be moved (or Myles but I don't see that happening). He is just not physical enough and no it has noting to do with his wrist injury, he was struggling way before that.


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

              Comment


              • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                See I just differ with you in the fact that I don't think either underachieved. I believe that Larry Bird has built and extremely flawed roster and that Gregg Popovich himself would maybe only be able to string a few more wins out of this group.

                I freely admit that I was dead wrong about Thad Young. When the trade went down I was excited and thought it was a good move, I am now convinced he has to be moved (or Myles but I don't see that happening). He is just not physical enough and no it has noting to do with his wrist injury, he was struggling way before that.
                Pop wins 55 games with this Pacers team. Pop is a ****ing wizard.

                Comment


                • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  See I just differ with you in the fact that I don't think either underachieved. I believe that Larry Bird has built and extremely flawed roster and that Gregg Popovich himself would maybe only be able to string a few more wins out of this group.

                  I freely admit that I was dead wrong about Thad Young. When the trade went down I was excited and thought it was a good move, I am now convinced he has to be moved (or Myles but I don't see that happening). He is just not physical enough and no it has noting to do with his wrist injury, he was struggling way before that.
                  I think the rosters were flawed, but still didn't max potential. I think both struggle with lineups.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Pop wins 55 games with this Pacers team. Pop is a ****ing wizard.
                    Probably but hey my hyperbole sells my narrative better.


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

                    Comment


                    • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

                      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                      I think the rosters were flawed, but still didn't max potential. I think both struggle with lineups.
                      I can live with that, however neither can do anything about the putrid shooting that Bird has given them to work with.


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

                      Comment


                      • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        IMO Vogel underachieved last year and Nate underachieved this year.
                        And here's we differ. You believe that both of them underachieved because in general you believe that the roster is good. Those of us that disagree with this usually say that while the players may be good individually the fit (and the shooting and the rebounding and so on) are absolutely horrible. That's why we will never say that either coach underachieved. Because, ultimately, there is only so much that they can do with a roster as flawed as this.

                        Personally, I believe that Frank overachieved last year (so much that it made some of you think that the roster is better than it actually is) while Nate has neither underachieved nor overachieved.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

                          I think we overachieved last year and we have overachieved this season. I thought this roster is good for 32-34 wins and we may still make it to 40.

                          We haven't had a single acquisition which would have made me be happy since the original deal of Stuckey. Teague is empty stats, ThadYoung is a career loser, Monta is a career loser to the power of 3, AlJeff time as an effective NBA player run out with an injury in playoff series versus Miami in Spring'14, JoeYoung/Niang/Xmas/GRIII/Whittington and all other our 2nd-round draft picks are just bench fillers (no Jokic in that group, not even Brogdon), Brooks make me puke an so it goes...


                          Geez, you could make up a better NBA roster by having PG13 and randomly pulling names from the hat. Only ray of sunlight is that we are not in financial dire straits (ie. we are not Trail Blazers). Please, FIRE BIRD & PURGE OUT THE WHOLE ROSTER!!!!

                          Comment


                          • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            I am no longer going to just stand by and listen about what Frank is doing in Orlando because as Jim O'Brien would say "it's irrelevant". I know what Frank Vogel did here last year with this team. He won more games than what Nate is going to win.

                            Even if we won out every single game he still would not win as many games.

                            You can say it was time for Vogel to move on, I would disagree but I can understand why some would think so. But you can't possibly tell me that Nate was a better hire. The only stats that matter (the win/loss column) say otherwise.
                            I thought the Nate hiring was **** but the Frank firing was the right thing to do, if anything he has proven in Orlando is how mediocre of a coach he is (was).

                            In reality arguing about either guy is like arguing which turd is more shinny, in my opinion they are both trash.

                            Now also on their defense (and Birds) I don't really know what else you can do to win if your star is a baby that keeps poisoning the lockeroom with his complaining and crying, PG is getting close to Dhoward territory, now everything is about him and his feelings and ****, I don't even think his teammates like to play with him or be around him, by the way my prediction is Teague is not signing with Pacers if PG doesn't get traded (same with CJ).
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: 3/29/17 Game Thread #75: Pacers vs. Grizzlies

                              I think everyone knows Vogel had his flaws. Of course he did.

                              What Vogel was good for though was establishing a grit within the team that meant that they sometimes won when they played poorly. This was good for say 5-6 wins a year anyway.

                              That doesn't seem to happen anymore. Everyone has to be on it in order to win. When we play poorly, we lose. Simple as that.
                              https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

                              Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X