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

Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

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

  • #46
    Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

    Originally posted by ajbry View Post
    I agree with you wholeheartedly. Individually, Al has been producing well. However, he has definitely limited the offensive firepower for JO and Jack. We cannot win with Al as our leading scorer, it just doesn't work out well for our team.
    Al's offense has been brilliant thus far. There's no way you want him shooting less. The man who needs to be shooting less is the man missing 70% of his shots, thus killing his own team. I wont mention his name, but he needs to go a.s.a.p. because he's a very bad basketball player and only hurts the team.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

      Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
      More than anything, Rawle Marshall needs to play more, and needs to have the green light. Good things happen when he has the ball... and yes I only saw the end of the disas... I mean game.
      Rawle has looked promising, but in no way does he deserve minutes over Marquis Daniels. The sooner Daniels is playing 35 minutes a game, the sooner this team starts winning on a regular basis.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

        We need a tough rebounder man. We need a Dale Davis to bring some toughness back to our interior. Foster is our best rebounder yet he's more of a pest rather than a beast in the box. JO has been playing his butt off rebounding and blocking shots but he just needs help. I don't really blame anything on our players, I think they're doing an ok job. Maybe it's the personnel. Or maybe it's really Carlisle that's holding us back but who knows really. I just wish we had a banger down there though that can help JO out.
        http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

          That game was one of the most embarrasing performances i've ever seen..I really think we have a strong frontcourt but how can these guys give up one rebound after the other! I saw Celtics point guards grabbing offensive rebounds standing next to JO and AL.. A lineup change has to be made.. Harrison has to get some minutes..he would be the dale davis type of player, but how can he improve if sitting on the end of the bench all the time! Why isn't Baston playing?Why did they sign him?
          Also, why not giving Quis regularly his 20 minutes?
          JO's jumper isn't falling, so why is he always trying and trying again?
          Lot of things I can't understand but it was awful to watch the Pacers yesterday!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

            Here's what I agree with from this thread based on what transpired last night and thus far this year:

            -We have a rebounding deficient team.

            -Our early season energy and cameraderie seem to be getting more inconsistent along with our intensity and defense on a nightly basis. (We've now given up big time points to the Wiz and Celts. That's not good IMO.)

            -Minutes are being distributed amongst way to minute people. We need a tighter rotation but RC may not know what that rotation will consist of.

            Here's something I'm kinda surprised hasn't been mentioned yet (I don't think):

            -We've gotta get better PG play. I feel like Tins has been adequate but not good. But last night, outside a few nifty passes, Rondo and Telfair made him look downright sad out there IMO. Of course, we know our ten backup PG situation continues to be an enigma so we don't have much to turn to.

            Finally, I suppose I understand arguments to move people like Al and Jack to the bench from the standpoint of putting more pop in the second unit. Yet I still don't get why you'd do that with two of your most consistent guys so far. I could take these arguments more seriously if I felt they weren't based primarily on obvious agendas in favor of other players individual performance.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

              LARRY BIRD: (Re: Team not playing well) “Well, and we had a few days off. You know, it’s sort of sad that we came out and played like we did. But, I think Rick’s (Carlisle) got to find the right combination so when we’ve really got three of our starters playing well, like Granger and Tinsley and Jackson, really not playing that well. And Sarunas (Jasikevicius) is the first one off the bench, and he don’t play well. So really 4 out of the first 6 guys are not playing that well. And Paul (Pierce) and Sczcerbiak were hitting shots and they were getting better ball movement with… I feel like a coach here.”

              Not yet my friend, not yet...

              RICK CARLISLE: “I was a psyche major in college and I read the quote about the definition of insanity and that is doing the same thing over and over and thinking that it is going to change. I am a believer that this team can change. I am a believer that we can do things hard on a consistent basis. I am a believer that we can be a solid decision making team and I am a believer that we can be a team that plays with intensity on the defensive end and that can fuel our game and that will be our identity. I am going to keep preaching that to our team because I believe in them, I believe in them.”

              Is he admitting he's going crazy?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

                This team relies on individual talent alone. The talent disparity between NBA teams isn't all that great, so any team that doesn't have good on-court chemistry that allows them to play with confidence, focus, and aggression is going to be pretty near a 0.500 team, and lose often on the road to even the worst teams in the league.

                The rotations need to get juggled until one or more units are found where the play of that group actually exceeds the sum of the individual parts.

                Maybe no combinations of players can do that, and all the experts are right and this is a 0.500 team that will have to scramble to stay out of the lottery.
                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


                • #53
                  Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

                  Originally posted by D-BONE View Post


                  Here's something I'm kinda surprised hasn't been mentioned yet (I don't think):

                  -We've gotta get better PG play. I feel like Tins has been adequate but not good. But last night, outside a few nifty passes, Rondo and Telfair made him look downright sad out there IMO. Of course, we know our ten backup PG situation continues to be an enigma so we don't have much to turn to.
                  I think that same thing each and every game. But I don't say it for two reasons.

                  1) I think it is obvious and goes without saying. Why state the obvious after every game.

                  2) I don't want to beat a dead horse.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Actually now that I've had more time to think about this I have to say this.

                    What is Rick's fasination with small ball? By small ball I don't mean our starting lineup because I don't consider them small.

                    I mean knowing that our team is having massive problems right now rebounding why did he choose to keep four point guards active as well as two swing men & one big guy he won't play?

                    We have two players who have proven on this level that at least they could rebound on accident if they had to & a rookie who showed promise in the pre-season of looking like a rebounder.

                    Why de-activate Powell? Why not take out Harrison if he won't play him other than garbage time?

                    I think Rick dreams of fielding a team of 6'6" and under some day.

                    I think this combines with Rick's emphasis on defense and means he is desperately trying to find a combination that leads to consistent perimeter shooting. This is especially the case on nights like last night where we get mobbed on the inside without any consequences since we can't hit the broad side of the barn from anywhere on the floor.

                    I know we focus heavily on rebounding, but on the offensive end at least there are a couple of ways to improve rebounding without sending everyone to the board:

                    1) Hit the shot so no rebound is possible
                    2) Spread the defense so that fewer defenders are available to crash the boards

                    I really don't think we'd be so upset about rebounds on the offensive end if our outside shooting was perceived by teams as more dangerous.
                    BillS

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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      I think this combines with Rick's emphasis on defense and means he is desperately trying to find a combination that leads to consistent perimeter shooting. This is especially the case on nights like last night where we get mobbed on the inside without any consequences since we can't hit the broad side of the barn from anywhere on the floor.

                      I know we focus heavily on rebounding, but on the offensive end at least there are a couple of ways to improve rebounding without sending everyone to the board:

                      1) Hit the shot so no rebound is possible
                      2) Spread the defense so that fewer defenders are available to crash the boards

                      I really don't think we'd be so upset about rebounds on the offensive end if our outside shooting was perceived by teams as more dangerous.
                      Good post, Bill.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Post Game Thread: Whats the problem?

                        Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                        Postgame quote from Ryan Gomes, regarding Al's performance in the 1st half: "We became aware of him and made sure we kept on our rotations, while staying on Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson, but rotating towards Harrington."

                        So, essentially, it seems as if JO, Al, and Jack just haven't figured out how to compensate for any matchup problems yet. Hopefully they'll be able to develop a strategy in that aspect, or else it's going to be more nights like this - Al leading the way, JO out of his groove, and Jack with only 10 attempts.
                        I read the above and it makes sense to me! Here's why:

                        Originally posted by INdyBoy39 (my alias at IndyStar message board)
                        Quote from RC, "Maybe these pieces don't fit together."

                        Good thing he finally realized this 8-games games into the season. Would hate to see how things would be by game 20 had he not come to see this early on

                        Frankly, I've been saying it since it was first announced that JO, Al and Granger would play together in the front court. Al's playing out of position. If anything, you slide JO to Center, but then you've got him playing out of position as well. You have to space these guys out (JO and Al); put 'em on opposite sides of the blocks. Otherwise, you've got one trying too hard to be a 4-part player (scorer, shot blocker, rebounder, assist - that would be JO) while another is looking just to score (that would be Al). Don't believe me? Look at the box scores for every Pacers game to date. Notice that Al doesn't have one blocked shot*. Not one! You also notice that he has very few assists. Not saying he's hogging the ball. Just saying maybe he's not looking to defend nor share the ball as much as he should.

                        Anyone who honestly believes JO isn't doing his part is fooling himself. He has scored in double figures in all but one game thus far. He's avg. just under 3.5 blks per game (24 total on the season so far). Nobody else has nearly as many blocked shots as he. (Jeff Foster is 2nd on the team w/a mere 7 blks!!!)

                        It goes right back to what JO said at the end of last season - get him someone who can block shots down low right along w/him! If it's just him trying to do it all, this team will not go very far.

                        Something else that troubles me is the fact that our Guards still haven't got it together on either end of the ball. They defend well in spurts, but their offense is still very inconsistant. They just aren't scoring the ball very well at all. I honestly believe a lineup change is in order. Not necessarily because players aren't doing their part, but rather because the "parts" just aren't clicking.

                        * Box scores as illustrated on FoxSports.com
                        Chemistry, ladies and gentlemen...this year's team make like one another, but there's still something not quite right among them. And I think Ryan Gomes may have given us our first real clue.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X