Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Q.O.D. for Monday

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

  • Q.O.D. for Monday

    After the party I thought about the many questions I had typed on paper that I left on my kitchen sink so therefor forgot to ask.

    I'm going to compare the current team to the 90's team again so if you don't want to go down this road stop reading right here.

    What really was the differance between the two teams? Better coaching? More talent? Veteran leadership?

    Yes, a little of all of the above is true, but I have come to the conclusion that the one thing that seperates the current group of players from the older team is basketball I.Q.

    I just don't think player by player our basketball I.Q.'s are that good, in fact on some of our players I think they are very low.

    Any player on the starting five of the Pacers from 95 to 00 had either an above average or even excellent knowledge of the game for the positions they played.

    Reggie, Dale, Mark & Derrick had exceptional basketball I.Q's & Rik had an above average one.

    Travis, Jalen & Tony were all average.

    That accounts for 8 main stay members of the team. Mullin knowledge of the game was without a doubt masterfull, so that gives you another player.

    Kenny Williams had a low basketball I.Q. & so did Woody (however Woody made up for it in shear determination)

    I digress.

    What I want every body to do is give each player a grade on where you think thier basketball knowledge is.

    Now remember basketball knowledge does not mean athleticism. Example Jon Bender would have recieved an A+ for his athleticism but I would have given him an F for his knowledge of the game (at least for the first 3 years).

    We are going to base thier knowledge on how often they make mental mistakes, miss plays, get caught up in the moment & forget to follow the plan, etc., etc.


    A - Oustanding knowledge of the game (a Master if you will)

    B - Above average knowledge of the game

    c - just an average knowledge of the game

    d - below average knowledge of the game

    f - They don't have a clue


    Right off the bat I will tell you that IMO, we don't have any A's & we don't have any F's.

    There are times when a couple of them get close to both, but I think it's somewhere in between.

    I'll let you guys start.


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

  • #2
    Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

    Croshere - B
    Foster - B
    Gill - F
    Granger - C but there is obvious room for improvement, just this season I think he has improved
    Harrison - D like Granger, still improving, used to be a clear-cut F
    Jackson - D
    Saras - B could be lower or higher based on what you think bball IQ is
    AJ - B
    Freddie - D
    JO - C
    Pollard - B
    Peja - A
    JT - D

    p.s. I don't think Dale and Rik were as basketball smart as you put them but one thing, they did know how to play within a team extremely well and they knew their roles. Again, how you define bball IQ is key...it's all semantics.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

      A - Oustanding knowledge of the game (a Master if you will) - Granger will be an A one day but I will put him as a B for now.

      B - Above average knowledge of the game - Sarunas, Foster, Peja, Granger,

      c - just an average knowledge of the game - J Oneal, JT, Eddie Gill, AJ, Pollard, Croshere, Freddie Jones

      d - below average knowledge of the game - Harrison

      f - They don't have a clue - SJax

      Peck - Good Q.O.D!
      ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

        Good question, Peck!

        This is how I currently feel:

        Cro B
        JO C
        Dan B
        Peja A
        Sarunas A
        Jamaal C
        Jack D
        Dave C
        Fred D
        Polly C
        Gill - haven't seen him play enough to judge (from what I've seen though, no more than a C)
        AJ B
        Jeff B

        The guys with A and B are exactly the guys I said I wanted to keep next season in that poll a few days ago. Except for David Harrison.
        Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
        Bum in Berlin on Myspace

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

          A.Croshere B
          J.Foster B
          S.Jackson D
          A.Johnson B
          F.Jones D
          J.O'Neal C
          P.Stojakovic A
          J.Tinsley B

          Š.Jasikevičius A at Euroleague and International competitions (have seen him playing only in 6 NBA games)

          I can't judge D.Granger, D.Harrison, S.Pollard, E.Gill, have seen them playing just in 5-10 games.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

            Austin gets a B, not a master but has obviously learned to compete at a high level by using knowledge and expereince rather than physical attributes.

            Jeff gets a B, this is an improvement from recent years. Ever since Jeff has had hip problems he has learned to be a more efficient and effective player

            Jackson gets a D, knows how to play the game just not how to keep his head in it.

            Jermaine gets a C, very smart at the offensive end (good footwork, positioning, etc...), average at the defensive end (please stop trying to block every shot, and box out!), and sometimes has issues staying focused.

            Peja gets a B, a master offensive player, average on defense, but always focused.

            Tinsley gets a D, dumb plays, never focused, poor shot selection, lazy passes, but knows how to blow by any defender on offense.

            Harrison gets an F, sorry. He is one of my favorite players, but if the guy doesn't get a handle on the defensive end he will never be anything. Horrible man defense and team defense. Only a good weakside shot blocker. Not to mention he sometimes makes Jackson look like Confucious. He has all the physical attributes, but is being held back by his intelligence.

            Granger, gets a B. This will be the next player to get an A on the team. For a rookie this guy has shown incredible intelligence for basketball on both ends of the floor. He is already our best defender, and I'm not sure he ever takes a bad shot. Plus he always has in mind in the game.

            Saras gets a C. Pretty smart on the offensive end when he is not trying to showboat with risky passes in traffic. His man defense is atrocious, however I can't decide yet if that is because he is making bad decisions or just can't physically hang with NBA athletes.

            Pollard gets a B. Just reference the Heat game for details.

            Gill gets an INC. Just don't get see him enough

            Johnson receives a C. Average intelligence on both ends of the floor, but IMO his defense is overated. But one huge flaw is that the guy cannot run a fast break to save his life. If he is leading the break we will either end up with a turnover, a three pt shot attempt, or a broken break that ends with us running our half court offense.

            Fred Jones also recieves a C. Decent defense, but the guy often just jumps in the air on offense without a clue of what to do. He has been playing horrible of late. In fact whenever he gets the ball I wish that Japanese guy from Major League 2 was standing courtside to yell "Yooouuuu Suuuuucckkkkk!!!"
            House Name: Pacers

            House Sigil:



            House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

              Peck the biggest difference between that team and this team is that they had the right coaches (Larry then Larry/Rick) at the rite time. This current team has the wrong coach. Its as simple as that. I guess you could argue that its the wrong players for the coach as well but the players were here first.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

                Excellent premise, the basketball IQ of this team is pretty low.

                The other big difference, and its hard for me to separate this from basketball IQ, is mental toughness. This team is absurdly weak, mentally. I don't know if just the natural breakdown from spending too much time with Mr. Cancer, these guys at one time showed much more collective mental toughness.

                Here are my grades:

                Player - bball IQ - mental toughness

                1. JO - A - C
                2. JT - B - D/F
                3. SJax - F - D/F
                4. Peja - B - ??
                5. Foster - C - A
                6. Croshere - B - A
                7. Fred - D/F - B
                8. AJ - B - B
                9. Danny - B - B
                10. David - B - D
                11. Scot - B - C
                12. Saras - C - D
                13. Gill - D - C

                Departed:
                14. Bender - F - F
                15. Ron - B - F


                Now, I know the JO bashers are going to get on me for giving him an A for bball IQ. I think (1) JO is just following his coach's instructions, and (2) just because he's not very good at passing out of the double team does not automatically mean his bball IQ is low. Not every big man can have Walton's passing skills.

                He, and his coaches, are just more confident with him taking a shot out of a double-team than passing the ball.

                Most of our criticism of JO falls into the "mental toughness" bucket, not the "bball IQ" bucket.

                Ditto for me giving AJ a "B" for bball IQ. He doesn't get the ball and think, "I'm going to get myself pinned into a halfcourt trap." He's just not talented enough as a ballhandler to avoid the pressure.
                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


                • #9
                  Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

                  Originally posted by Peck
                  I have come to the conclusion that the one thing that seperates the current group of players from the older team is basketball I.Q.

                  I just don't think player by player our basketball I.Q.'s are that good, in fact on some of our players I think they are very low.

                  We are going to base thier knowledge on how often they make mental mistakes, miss plays, get caught up in the moment & forget to follow the plan, etc., etc.
                  It strikes me that our answers so far reflect our biases about players and that what you are really defining as basketball knowledge is lack of knuckleheadedness. Others have seemingly voted for hustle and attitude as well, which have an impact on knowledge, but aren't knowledge.

                  I think Jax2 and the tinman have more basketball savvy than we are giving them credit, but they score high on the Knucklehead Index, so we're giving them lower scores.

                  The Knucklehead Index:

                  A - Oustanding knowledge of the game (a Master if you will) -- Pollard, Foster, Granger, Croshere, Stojakovic,
                  B - Above average knowledge of the game --
                  c - just an average knowledge of the game -- jermO, AJ, Sarunas
                  d - below average knowledge of the game -- Fred, tinman,
                  f - They don't have a clue -- Jax2, harrison

                  The guys I voted for A most resemble the 2000 team in attitude, desire, role playing, etc, therefore the least knuckleheadedness. Did Jax1 sometimes throw a bad pass or do his little wiggle down the court? Sure. Did Reggie argue with the refs while his man scored on the other end? yeah. Did Dale sometimes glare when he threw an offensive rebound into the hoop? yup.

                  You know what? I think we gave those guys more slack because they were WINNERS. Yes our current team has a higher Knucklehead Index, but because they haven't won 50 games, we're also less tolerant of them.
                  Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

                    Good insight, Peck.

                    I would argue that Derrick McKey had the highest BBall IQ on that team, which is saying a lot based on the other teammates. It's why I've always been a McKey fan.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

                      I think Foster has the highest BBall IQ on this team, with Pollard a close second.

                      Just behind is Cro, Granger, and Runi.

                      I think Jax is near the lowest (remember him shooting a halfcourt shot with ten seconds on the clock?)

                      Just above Jax in the lowest category is Tinsley, Freddie, and Harrison.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan
                        Good insight, Peck.

                        I would argue that Derrick McKey had the highest BBall IQ on that team, which is saying a lot based on the other teammates. It's why I've always been a McKey fan.

                        It's hard to judge that team player vs. player because each of them were masters at their own position.

                        Satan knew exactly how to play the sf spot without a doubt. However was his I.Q. higher than Reggie at his spot? It's hard to say.

                        out of that group I would say that Jackson probably had the best overall, but that is just subjective. You could make arguments for Satan, Reggie, Mark & yes I'll throw in Dale (but I understand why people would discard that).


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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

                          A - Oustanding knowledge of the game (a Master if you will)
                          B - Above average knowledge of the game
                          c - just an average knowledge of the game
                          d - below average knowledge of the game
                          f - They don't have a clue

                          Tinsley - D. Streetball - A
                          Johnson - B. Team player.
                          Jasikevicius - A minus. Just needs one more year to addapt.
                          Jones - C, Shot selection average at best
                          Action Jackson - A on defence, F on attack
                          Granger - B (in two years will be A).
                          Peja - A
                          JO - A, why do everybody does not love him?
                          Pollard - B
                          Foster - A,
                          Harrison D (in two years will be D . Psychologically unstable.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            Here are my grades:

                            Player - bball IQ - mental toughness

                            10. David - B - D
                            12. Saras - C - D
                            I really aggree with you on splitting this into both Bball IQ and Mental Toughness.

                            However, you rate David a "B" for his basketball Intelligence and Sarunas a "C" ? Aren't you letting your personal dislike of a player get into the way of a fair analysis in this one?

                            Offcourse, the list is personal, I'm just quite curious how you could possible EVER call David "smarter" (in Bball terms) then Sarunas, because I see it completely the other way around to be honest.

                            Regards,

                            Mourning
                            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Q.O.D. for Monday

                              Fred Jones is easily the dumbest basketball player on our team. He should get a F from everybody.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X