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

Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question_061025.html

    Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?


    Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2006
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If you'd like to pose a Question of the Day to Conrad Brunner, submit it along with your full name and hometown to Bruno's_mailbag@pacers.com. Brunner’s opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Pacers players, coaches or management.

    QUESTION
    OF THE DAY
    Conrad Brunner

    Q. The new emphasis on flexibility is blurring the traditional (positional) roles. Is it possible this breakdown could also extend to a blurring of the distinction between starters and bench players? I know Donnie Walsh talks about how unimportant that distinction is, but I doubt the players buy it. Can you see a scenario in which first and second string no longer have meaning? That would be truly flexible. (From David in Austin, Texas)

    A. This opens the door to an interesting philosophical discussion, but I'm not entirely sure how practical. Let's begin with the blurring of traditional positional definitions. In the Pacers' system, there really is just one traditional position: point guard. The point guard doesn't interchange, doesn't share roles or assignments. There's enough responsibility wrapped up in that position for it to stand alone.

    As Rick Carlisle explained it recently, the shooting guard and small forward spots are interchangeable and thus defined as "wing" positions for the purposes of Xs and Os. When you have players like Stephen Jackson and Danny Granger in those places, it's relatively easy to understand the ability to swap roles because they're similar in stature and skills. When it's Sarunas Jasikevicius and Al Harrington, however, things would probably need to be a little more traditional.

    Up front, Carlisle doesn't really define power forward and center separately. He views those as two interchangeable inside positions. That caused a bit of a fuss when he mentioned using Harrington as a center with Jermaine O'Neal at power forward, but that's only for purposes of box score designation. How those two matched up, defensively, would depend on the opponent. O'Neal generally would guard the other team's biggest post player in that scenario. Again, when you have players like Harrington and O'Neal, the flexibility is obvious. It is less so when using Jeff Foster with either Harrington or O'Neal because his skill set is so different.

    Though there will be some flexibility in the lineup between the big group (Foster, O'Neal and Harrington up front) and the small group (O'Neal, Harrington and Granger), I'm not sure this -- or any -- team is quite ready for a blurring of the lines between starters and reserves. Because of the natural evolution of the game, it has become relatively normal for a player to shift between positions on the floor. But it remains a point of honor for players to be known as starters, because that's been ingrained since their very first youth basketball game.

    It's also embedded in the language of the sport. When a player is sent from the first to second units, it's said he's been "demoted" or "benched," both of which carry negative connotations. When a player moves the other direction, it's considered a "promotion." The "first unit" is naturally considered to be ahead of the "second unit." Because five players have to take the floor at the beginning of the game, there always will be starters, and to be one always will be a goal for most players.

    Philosophically, you can make a very strong and compelling argument, as Walsh has, that the players who finish the game are more important than those who start. As true as that may be, there's nothing in the language or structure of the game to recognize that particular reality. There's no such thing as a "finishing lineup," and the public address announcer doesn't identify those players as they exit the floor after the final buzzer.

    Of course there will always be some exceptional players to whom it really doesn't matter, as long as the team wins and they're in a position to contribute. And there will be many more who say as much, although their sincerity can be doubted until their actions speak otherwise. It may well be an increasingly silly and superficial distinction to care about being known as a "starter," but it remains a very real part of the structure of the game.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

    When the line between starters and reserves is blurry, you have a mediocre team.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      When the line between starters and reserves is blurry, you have a mediocre team.
      Hammer meets nail. That was a perfect one line reply to everything in the above article.

      IMHO...
      -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

      • #4
        Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        When the line between starters and reserves is blurry, you have a mediocre team.
        Or a pretty good team.

        Regardless, I think the idea of a blur between bench and starters is greatly exaggerated here.

        Foster <<< JO
        Powell << JO

        Powell < Al

        Daniels is close to Danny

        SaJas <<< Tinsley
        Greene < Tinsley
        Armstrong << Tins

        Daniels is close to Jack

        At times Rawle has looked in the range of average starter talent.


        But basically you have the big 7 and then the bench. Most teams have a 6th and 7th man that can at times work as a starter without a real drop-off. The Pacers don't have more than that themselves, after Foster and Daniels we haven't seen guys seriously pushing into the "I need 35 mpg" level.

        Guys like Harrison, Powell, Baston, SarJas, White, Williams, Marshall aren't quite ready to normally start, and some of them are pretty far from it IMO.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

          The lines have been blurred for a long time. There is no defined starting line up and there hasn't been for awhile under Rick.
          Life without water is tough, life without air is hard,life with one leg only is wobbly, Life without Reggie Miller, is impossible.

          Do Not Trade Austin

          Originally posted by Conrad Brunner
          Veteran Austin Croshere, the longest-tenured Pacers player on the roster, has proven reliable when called upon, invariably ready to step in regardless of the circumstance.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

            Originally posted by 8.9_seconds View Post
            The lines have been blurred for a long time. There is no defined starting line up and there hasn't been for awhile under Rick.
            That's not fair. Most of that wasn't his fault.
            STARBURY

            08 and Beyond

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              Or a pretty good team.

              Regardless, I think the idea of a blur between bench and starters is greatly exaggerated here.

              Foster <<< JO
              Powell << JO

              Powell < Al

              Daniels is close to Danny

              SaJas <<< Tinsley
              Greene < Tinsley
              Armstrong << Tins

              Daniels is close to Jack

              At times Rawle has looked in the range of average starter talent.


              But basically you have the big 7 and then the bench. Most teams have a 6th and 7th man that can at times work as a starter without a real drop-off. The Pacers don't have more than that themselves, after Foster and Daniels we haven't seen guys seriously pushing into the "I need 35 mpg" level.

              Guys like Harrison, Powell, Baston, SarJas, White, Williams, Marshall aren't quite ready to normally start, and some of them are pretty far from it IMO.
              I agree with Hicks here. The line can be blurred between a few starting positions. However, you need at least 2 superstars. Look at Jordan & Pippen. OK, They haven't played in a while. How about Shaq & Dwade/Kobe? The Pistons were the only team I can remember in all my years watching the NBA that didn't have a 1-2 punch that were not all-stars, but superstars! The problem is Reggie & J.O. were a nice inside/out threat & Artest was an awesome all-around player. I'm not crying, but your missing 2/3rds of that combination. What's left is a team that is going to be mediorce unless Al proves he's as good as Artest & Granger or at least somebody proves they are a dangerous 3 point threat. That team still had too many holes to win the title starting off w/ the point guard spot. Most of the anaylists I respect most picked Detroit last year when many went with the Pacers, because of the PG positon which has became even worse.
              1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
              3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
              5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
              7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.


              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

                A. This opens the door to an interesting philosophical discussion, but I'm not entirely sure how practical. Let's begin with the blurring of traditional positional definitions. In the Pacers' system, there really is just one traditional position: point guard. The point guard doesn't interchange, doesn't share roles or assignments. There's enough responsibility wrapped up in that position for it to stand alone.

                Well it sure is a good thing we've got that position taken care of!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  When the line between starters and reserves is blurry, you have a mediocre team.
                  OR a very good one.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

                    Only if you have an all-star team, which we certainly do not.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

                      If the line blurs between starters and reserves and you have a very good team then it won't be good for long because players won't be happy with their roles.

                      -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

                      • #12
                        Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

                        Maybe a team that has blurred lines between starters and reserves can also suggest that we have a deep team?

                        A deep team that maybe mediocre....but a deep team nonetheless.....
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Brunner} Is Line Blurring Between Starters, Reserves?

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Only if you have an all-star team, which we certainly do not.
                          Yeah, but my follow-up past "or a pretty good one" showed that frankly the Pacers DO NOT have a blurred line from starters to bench.

                          If I say this is the lineup
                          JO
                          Al
                          Granger
                          Jack
                          Tinsley

                          With Daniels and Foster first off the bench, who else goes into that mix as a REALISTIC possible starter barring injury?

                          No one. And Foster and Daniels only start under special matchup situations. And this was 100% true the last 2 years until suspensions and injuries ruined any sense of roster consistancy.

                          I really like what Powell, Greene and Marshall bring right now, what Williams and White could become, what I'd like Harrison and SarJas to be. Heck, I even think Baston is a decent bench guy.

                          But none of those players start on this roster, period. Only for some experiement or something, not because it actually places the 5 best players out there. Not unless some of these players really improve.

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X