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

POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

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

  • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    I'm saying that on paper doesn't matter. The season is over. And the choices Larry made, even though they may have looked good, were not good. And there were clues to every single bad move.

    Monta
    Stuckey
    Al Jefferson

    People on this very board explained why this would not work in the preseason. It's like when the Colts went all in on Andre Johnson and such and people predicted Super Bowl. They didn't make the playoffs. Just because they looked good on paper doesn't mean Grigson didn't mess up.
    A good move on paper is still a good move on paper. Whether or not it works out in actual execution is a different story. If it doesn't work out, then you go back to the drawing board and try again.


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

    Comment


    • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

      The moves looked good in a vacuum and individually "on paper". But fact is, while Bird acquired some talent, it didn't fit together well. It really is that simple.

      Comment


      • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

        I'm still trying to figure out how anyone thought that Rodney Stucky, Monta Ellis, LaVoy Allen & Al Jefferson even looked good on paper.

        From day one it was clear that our back court was to small, not athletic enough and could not shoot. While our front court was to slow, unathletic and could not shoot.

        This group of free agent signings from last year never looked good on paper or otherwise to me.


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

        Comment


        • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          I'm still trying to figure out how anyone thought that Rodney Stucky, Monta Ellis, LaVoy Allen & Al Jefferson even looked good on paper.

          From day one it was clear that our back court was to small, not athletic enough and could not shoot. While our front court was to slow, unathletic and could not shoot.

          This group of free agent signings from last year never looked good on paper or otherwise to me.
          It depends on what you thought their role should have been....Players like these fit specific needs on teams.
          Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 05-23-2017, 07:39 PM.


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

          Comment


          • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            I'm still trying to figure out how anyone thought that Rodney Stucky, Monta Ellis, LaVoy Allen & Al Jefferson even looked good on paper.

            From day one it was clear that our back court was to small, not athletic enough and could not shoot. While our front court was to slow, unathletic and could not shoot.

            This group of free agent signings from last year never looked good on paper or otherwise to me.
            So this is what I thought, Teague and Monta starting would work because Monta would just pass and get steals always cutting to basket. Turner and Thad would be an above average frontcourt rebounding and defense while great scoring. PG would be PG and mask anything we lost from Teague defensively and we would continue to get fast-break points, fueling our offense.

            I thought the bench would be Brooks/Stuckey/GRIII/CJ Miles/Al Jeff. I thought the defense would be bad, but Al would wreck bench units and kick out 3s all day to CJ Miles and Brooks and the offense would just over power teams.

            Obviously none of that happened, but just to give an idea on how someone thought it looked good on paper.

            Comment


            • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
              A good move on paper is still a good move on paper. Whether or not it works out in actual execution is a different story. If it doesn't work out, then you go back to the drawing board and try again.
              But whats the point here?

              I say Bird failed, and this situation with PG and our mediocre record is the fault of the Pacers FO.

              Your response is that it's not their fault, the moves looked good on paper.

              Who cares if the moves look good on paper? It didn't succeed, so the FO failed. If the moves looked terrible on paper yet the Pacers were still playing right now then the FO succeeded.

              Comment


              • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                I'm still trying to figure out how anyone thought that Rodney Stucky, Monta Ellis, LaVoy Allen & Al Jefferson even looked good on paper.

                From day one it was clear that our back court was to small, not athletic enough and could not shoot. While our front court was to slow, unathletic and could not shoot.

                This group of free agent signings from last year never looked good on paper or otherwise to me.
                Need some clarification, you thought the frontcourt was slow, unathletic, and couldn't shoot? Our front court being PG, Thad, and Myles?

                Re-read this, I guess you are talking about the second unit.

                Comment


                • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  I'm still trying to figure out how anyone thought that Rodney Stucky, Monta Ellis, LaVoy Allen & Al Jefferson even looked good on paper.

                  From day one it was clear that our back court was to small, not athletic enough and could not shoot. While our front court was to slow, unathletic and could not shoot.

                  This group of free agent signings from last year never looked good on paper or otherwise to me.
                  You have to write their names on the paper and cut it into pieces. On their own, none of those guys are bad backups with the right mix of players. But they fit together so poorly their weaknesses show as gaping holes. Monta and Al actually were considered near all-star at one point or another in their careers. Those are not bad backups.

                  Comment


                  • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I'm still trying to figure out how anyone thought that Rodney Stucky, Monta Ellis, LaVoy Allen & Al Jefferson even looked good on paper.

                    From day one it was clear that our back court was to small, not athletic enough and could not shoot. While our front court was to slow, unathletic and could not shoot.

                    This group of free agent signings from last year never looked good on paper or otherwise to me.
                    Jefferson is the only new player on that list. His poor condition and inability to play defense was not a given. Stucky was duplication but he was good his first year with us prior to injury. Ellis lost his speed an is much inferior to his younger self. Those choices were not the best but were not clearly as bad as they became.

                    Comment


                    • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      I'm still trying to figure out how anyone thought that Rodney Stucky, Monta Ellis, LaVoy Allen & Al Jefferson even looked good on paper.

                      From day one it was clear that our back court was to small, not athletic enough and could not shoot. While our front court was to slow, unathletic and could not shoot.

                      This group of free agent signings from last year never looked good on paper or otherwise to me.
                      It's easy....these are all Players that played very well in Bird's perceived version of the NBA. They would have worked fine in the 2000 Team that made it to the NBA finals, they would have worked out well in the recent ECF version of the Pacers.....but they don't work well in the Stephen Curry version of the NBA where the 3pt shot is king. This was one of the reasons why I think that it was time for Bird to go......his view of the NBA is no longer compatible with the actual NBA as it stands now. He built a Team for the 90s to the GH/Lance/PG13/West/Hibbert version of the Pacers.....the problem is that the rest of the NBA moved on.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        It's easy....these are all Players that played very well in Bird's perceived version of the NBA. They would have worked fine in the 2000 Team that made it to the NBA finals, they would have worked out well in the recent ECF version of the Pacers.....but they don't work well in the Stephen Curry version of the NBA where the 3pt shot is king. This was one of the reasons why I think that it was time for Bird to go......his view of the NBA is no longer compatible with the actual NBA as it stands now. He built a Team for the 90s to the GH/Lance/PG13/West/Hibbert version of the Pacers.....the problem is that the rest of the NBA moved on.
                        See I disagree with this because IMO Bird was way to obsessed trying to be like G.S. East. He just went about it very poorly. The more and more I have thought about it the more I believe that the reason Satan was extended that extra year is because Bird in all honesty prefers that type of basketball and wanted us to desperately win that way. I think Frank came in and completely ruined what Bird was thinking by winning with the same group of players playing a totally different style of basketball. Yes the NBA moved on but you are not going to win trying to out Warrior the Warriors unless you can somehow come up with at least two of the greatest shooters of all time playing together and unselfishly in the back court.

                        Think about why he and Paul had the falling out, it was because Bird wanted to go so small that he wanted Paul to have to play power forward. This is not but three years removed from Paul playing shooting guard.

                        I think where Bird went wrong and ultimately the downfall came when Larry just absolutely gave up on even pretending that team chemistry was a thing. Sure we can have a run and gun team and we can even be successful with it but you have to have the right players and type of players and make them all fit together. Larry just felt like you could throw five good player together give them a ball and it would all work out no matter their skill set.

                        Let's not forget that those teams that were built for the 90's as you say, actually twice were in the final four teams left playing at the end of the year and one time it took everything that the Heat had to get past us. That is a far cry from the faster paced offensive tempo team he wanted us to be the past 2 seasons.


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

                        Comment


                        • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                          Originally posted by pta View Post
                          Jefferson is the only new player on that list. His poor condition and inability to play defense was not a given. Stucky was duplication but he was good his first year with us prior to injury. Ellis lost his speed an is much inferior to his younger self. Those choices were not the best but were not clearly as bad as they became.
                          His conditioning you could argue was in question, obviously according to Pritchard he reported to camp way out of shape. However his inability to play defense was never in question. I am not joking with you when I say several years ago (probably 8 by now) I wrote an entire odd thoughts based on watching Al Jefferson and Troy Murphy play against each other and try and determine who cared about defense less.

                          At the peak of his career Al was a below average defender, but for most of his career he has been a horrendous defender, this past season was just a continuation of his horrendous defense just now he has the added excuse of weight and age to help justify why it is even worse than normal.


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

                          Comment


                          • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            His conditioning you could argue was in question, obviously according to Pritchard he reported to camp way out of shape. However his inability to play defense was never in question. I am not joking with you when I say several years ago (probably 8 by now) I wrote an entire odd thoughts based on watching Al Jefferson and Troy Murphy play against each other and try and determine who cared about defense less.

                            At the peak of his career Al was a below average defender, but for most of his career he has been a horrendous defender, this past season was just a continuation of his horrendous defense just now he has the added excuse of weight and age to help justify why it is even worse than normal.
                            I agree that Jefferson has not been a good defender. His defense has become a disaster. He moves like molasses and is often winded. He can only perform repetitive automatic offensive moves. He has become unplayable. His defense was poor and is now nonexistent.

                            Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              See I disagree with this because IMO Bird was way to obsessed trying to be like G.S. East. He just went about it very poorly. The more and more I have thought about it the more I believe that the reason Satan was extended that extra year is because Bird in all honesty prefers that type of basketball and wanted us to desperately win that way. I think Frank came in and completely ruined what Bird was thinking by winning with the same group of players playing a totally different style of basketball. Yes the NBA moved on but you are not going to win trying to out Warrior the Warriors unless you can somehow come up with at least two of the greatest shooters of all time playing together and unselfishly in the back court.
                              I think that we are talking about 2 different things....one that you allude to and one that is a different topic.

                              It is possible that Bird prefers the Warriors style of Play and preferred the JO'B style of NBA Basketball. But that's seperate from the type of Players that he prefers to have on his roster.

                              JMHO....but all of the Players that are mentioned in this specific topic....Stuckey, Monta, Lavoy and AlJeff....TOTALLY DO NOT FIT the mold of Players that anyone would want for a Warriors EAST lineup. None of those Player promote ball movement nor are capable shooters from the 3pt line.

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Think about why he and Paul had the falling out, it was because Bird wanted to go so small that he wanted Paul to have to play power forward. This is not but three years removed from Paul playing shooting guard.

                              I think where Bird went wrong and ultimately the downfall came when Larry just absolutely gave up on even pretending that team chemistry was a thing. Sure we can have a run and gun team and we can even be successful with it but you have to have the right players and type of players and make them all fit together. Larry just felt like you could throw five good player together give them a ball and it would all work out no matter their skill set.
                              As I've been saying....he's too old school cuz that's what he was familar with during his Celtic days.

                              Originally posted by Peck
                              Let's not forget that those teams that were built for the 90's as you say, actually twice were in the final four teams left playing at the end of the year and one time it took everything that the Heat had to get past us. That is a far cry from the faster paced offensive tempo team he wanted us to be the past 2 seasons.
                              I think that Bird recognized this ( style=fast paced ball movement 3pt shooting ) but he thought that he can acquire the type of talent that he prefers ( all old school type Players that worked in the 90s and early 2000s ), put them into a bowl, mix it together and hope that they figure things out on their own.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 05-24-2017, 03:14 AM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: POLL - What do you want to do with PG13?

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                I think where Bird went wrong and ultimately the downfall came when Larry just absolutely gave up on even pretending that team chemistry was a thing.
                                If you change "chemistry" to "complementary players" you've got my thought exactly. Bird thinks every player should be able to adjust his skillset to fit with every other player on a moment's notice (or at least within a single training camp) and without a coach defining whose skillsets need to be what.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X