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

Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

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

  • Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

    I hope this is the case, last night David Impressed me he was energetic he was hustling on the boards he served up a good facial on Kwame.

    This kid can diffenently play if given minutes.

    HOPEFULLY RICK Realizes this.

    GO Hulk show em what ya got!

  • #2
    Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

      Well, he needed Foster in when Brian Cook came in, because there is no way he could guard Cook out on the perimiter.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

        Originally posted by Isaac@Section216
        Well, he needed Foster in when Brian Cook came in, because there is no way he could guard Cook out on the perimiter.
        There is also no way Cook could guard David in the post, but as usual Rick wasn't concerned with that.
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

          Originally posted by Isaac@Section216
          Well, he needed Foster in when Brian Cook came in, because there is no way he could guard Cook out on the perimiter.
          Why should we "play down" to Brian Cook when there's no way the Lakers could "play up" to us?

          There's a phrase for that: "Bad Coaching."
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

            Originally posted by SoupIsGood
            Soup, you have violated international copyright laws using the Jonathan Bender response icon. Please cease and desist.
            The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
              Why should we "play down" to Brian Cook when there's no way the Lakers could "play up" to us?

              There's a phrase for that: "Bad Coaching."
              No it isn't bad coaching. At least it isn't always bad coaching. Is it bad coaching when the Pacers play Pollard against Shaq or Harrison against Shaq. Or is it only bad coaching when the coach goes small.

              Each case has to be looked at individually. But changing your lineup based upon who the other team has in the game is not always a bad thing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

                How come a team always keeps the same lineup against us and we always change? And people wonder why we never have the same lineup for more then 2 games and have no chemistry on the court. Why cant we force teams to change their line up for us.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck
                  No it isn't bad coaching. At least it isn't always bad coaching. Is it bad coaching when the Pacers play Pollard against Shaq or Harrison against Shaq. Or is it only bad coaching when the coach goes small.

                  Each case has to be looked at individually. But changing your lineup based upon who the other team has in the game is not always a bad thing.
                  The difference is, against Shaq (and a handful of other notable exceptions) the other team clearly has the advantage.

                  We're talking little Brian Cook vs. BIG David Harrison here. And we went small (and mitigated the advantage David could - AND WAS - giving us) to match up with Brian Cook. Why? What's he done? The Lakers needed a stong dose of David that night.

                  Yes, there are times when matching up to the other team is the right thing to do. Shaq. Iverson. Etc. But more often than not, forcing them to match up to our strengths is a far better strategy.

                  And with David, playing "big" is usually a strength for the Pacers. We aren't even very good at playing small-ball. WHY?? Why would we do this to ourselves?? Why did we let Phil Jackson dictate that we'd play small? For as stubborn as he can be, Rick sure 'caves in' at all the wrong times.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                    The difference is, against Shaq (and a handful of other notable exceptions) the other team clearly has the advantage.

                    We're talking little Brian Cook vs. BIG David Harrison here. And we went small (and mitigated the advantage David could - AND WAS - giving us) to match up with Brian Cook. Why? What's he done? The Lakers needed a stong dose of David that night.

                    Yes, there are times when matching up to the other team is the right thing to do. Shaq. Iverson. Etc. But more often than not, forcing them to match up to our strengths is a far better strategy.

                    And with David, playing "big" is usually a strength for the Pacers. We aren't even very good at playing small-ball. WHY?? Why would we do this to ourselves?? Why did we let Phil Jackson dictate that we'd play small? For as stubborn as he can be, Rick sure 'caves in' at all the wrong times.

                    Maybe he's been talking to Isiah for some tips? Isiah was the king of always trying to matchup with the other guy no matter what. "Hey, they're putting their scrub in.... I gotta put our scrub on him!"

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

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

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

                      Well, though I was hoping for Peck's usual deposit in the "thoughts" department, there is no post from him so let's use this one

                      Jay, do you happen to agree with me that the first 8 minutes of the game and sporadic thereafter (for a grand total of 5 more minutes) it looked like we had a real frontcourt?

                      And if so, do you think that the line-up is better then anything else we can muster there at this moment in time?

                      Finally; do you also fear that tonight will be either (or and/or) Cro - Foster again?

                      I can only say that when David sat down, our frontcourt threat went out of the window, 2 missed lay-ups was all that was needed to leave Jeff alone in there and concentrate on JO again.

                      Give that front court with DG, DH and JO a chance for 5 games or so, let's see, I'm ready to bet the farm that is our best line-up in the front court, heck it even made AJ look half decent.
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

                        What I said at Pizza King the other night was that it was crucial, IMO, that David gets his minutes with JO (and Danny.) First of all, JO needs David to absorb some of the physical beating. Secondly, not many teams have a legit "C" as a backup, so let's avoid the whole mis-match discussion that we're having here and put David out there against the first unit.

                        Some nights, it might not work. But every minute of experiece David gets means we are one minute closer to being a legit contender with a legit big man.

                        And yes, I'm certain that Rick will bench David as soon as he can start somebody else he likes better.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?


                          And yes, I'm certain that Rick will bench David as soon as he can start somebody else who works harder and understands just what to do on the baketball court.
                          I fixed that quote for you, Jay.

                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            What I said at Pizza King the other night was that it was crucial, IMO, that David gets his minutes with JO (and Danny.) First of all, JO needs David to absorb some of the physical beating. Secondly, not many teams have a legit "C" as a backup, so let's avoid the whole mis-match discussion that we're having here and put David out there against the first unit.

                            Some nights, it might not work. But every minute of experiece David gets means we are one minute closer to being a legit contender with a legit big man.

                            And yes, I'm certain that Rick will bench David as soon as he can start somebody else he likes better.
                            I agree with you here with the lineups and what David changes for us. But do you honestly think that a PROFESSIONAL coach of any sport is going to play favorites over who they think will give them the best chance to win???????? They do get fired pretty regularly you know...........

                            He's down on Davod for stuff David does. Or doesn't do. You don't give ANYBODY a chance (minutes) when they aren't hustling 100%. When they don't block out (Unless you average 20/10 like Jermaine). IF he's not in great shape because he's not working hard enough in practice and conditioning then that's HIS fault. No worthwhile coach is going to tolerate that and reward it with increased PT.
                            THis isn't some 10 year vet, this is a KID that is LEARNING what it takes and how to play the game at this level. He's teaching the kid a lesson that lots of newbies have to learn.
                            WHen he's gotten the message, he'll play. SEEMS like that might be happening now.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is Rick convinced David can get good minutes?

                              Originally posted by pacertom
                              who works harder and understands just what to do on the baketball court.
                              Wait a minute.

                              Beyond his draft scouting report, where have we heard that Harrison is not a hard worker? This goes right up there with the Harrison foul myth. It's a stereotype, without much foundation in truth.

                              There's a cliche in business: "We work smarter, not harder." I agree that Harrison does not have all the tools and reactions of an All-Star center. But where is he supposed to learn this stuff?

                              From his coaches? - not one was an NBA big man.

                              From a Big-man specialist? - we haven't bothered to bring one in.

                              During an off-season camp? - Harrison was still recovering from injury this summer.

                              From his teammates? That not working. It's pretty clear to me that Harrison is emmulating and trying to learn from JO only without the necessary timing. It seems that every time Harrison is yanked off the court, it is because a simple pump fake gets him off his feet. O'Neal has an uncanny sense of when to jump and when not to. Harrison does not possess that gift. Plus, look at Harrison's post game early in the season - who did it remind you of? O'Neal.

                              From scrimmage? How do you learn to properly defend the centers of the league when you're scrimmaging Foster and Croshere? One has no outside game and few play calls, the other hangs out on the perimiter.

                              Again - where is Harrison supposed to learn to do the right things on the basketball court? ANSWER: during the games, because the Pacers have given him no other option or opportunities.
                              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X