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

Starting at the 2....

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

  • Starting at the 2....

    Ok, so it seems this has been the biggest problem for the Pacers this year as we've had the nice surprise of solid point guard play.
    With the addition of Harrington as a go-to scorer in the starting lineup, i really think Jackson's post-up skills which are much more reliable than his jump shot would be better served in the 2nd unit, and plus, he doesn't seem to mind coming off the bench.
    I honestly haven't seen enough of Quis to comment about him, but his inability to hit the open 3 bothers me if he's going to be a starting shooting guard on this team that alreayd doesn't shoot well.
    Rawle is simply too inexperienced and needs to polish up his offensive game a bit although i must say, the defensive effort is tremendous.

    Lately, i've really been thinking that RC should try using Sarunas as a starter/combo guard with Tinsley. They've played very well together this season thus far and I think Sarunas will hit the open shots created by JO and Harrington post-ups while also providing some much needed ball handling.
    More importantly, this will allow him to get into the game early on and start getting his rhythm which seems to take more than the 5 minutes of play he is sometimes alloted.
    As for the rotation, I think Sarunas should be the first one off the court, maybe halfway through the first quarter, so that he can come back on early in the 2nd and get to play a little with the second unit. This sort of rotation would be most beneficial to him, and the team.

    Your thoughts?

  • #2
    Re: Starting at the 2....

    Sarunas has played well in a few, brief spurts this year. He in no way has shown that he has earned a starting spot by any means. You can't bench two more veteran, higher paid, and flat-out better players to start some guy because it seems to take him a while to get into the flow of the offense. He's a bench player and this is the NBA...you better be ready when the coach tells you to get in the game.

    To me, Jack is clearly the starter. And the fact that JO and Al are doing most of the scoring is only a benefit, as I see it. It allows Jack to not force shots or press offensively, and generally use his other abilities....ones that I really wasn't even sure he had.

    He's also been our best defender so far.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Starting at the 2....

      Though the team is undefeated when he has scored in double figures. Which has been only like 4 or 5 games, but he has had back spasms, and hasnt gotten minutes at times soooo. make what you want of it, fact is, he plays well, the team seems to do well.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Starting at the 2....

        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
        Sarunas has played well in a few, brief spurts this year. He in no way has shown that he has earned a starting spot by any means. You can't bench two more veteran, higher paid, and flat-out better players to start some guy because it seems to take him a while to get into the flow of the offense. He's a bench player and this is the NBA...you better be ready when the coach tells you to get in the game.

        To me, Jack is clearly the starter. And the fact that JO and Al are doing most of the scoring is only a benefit, as I see it. It allows Jack to not force shots or press offensively, and generally use his other abilities....ones that I really wasn't even sure he had.

        He's also been our best defender so far.
        Agreed. Once he gets his shooting touch, there's essentially no debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Starting at the 2....

          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
          Though the team is undefeated when he has scored in double figures. Which has been only like 4 or 5 games, but he has had back spasms, and hasnt gotten minutes at times soooo. make what you want of it, fact is, he plays well, the team seems to do well.
          We are starting to use Sarunas differently. Some of his Euro fans mentioned this strategy. This seems to occur in two ways. First, he is brought out against players like Damon Jones who are not particularly athletic. Second, he might guard an athletic player, but we clearly cover for him. For example, recall that he was guarding Lebron for awhile...

          The idea is to double team Lebron, who needs doubled anyway, and use Sarunas as the first layer...with JO playing goal tender. It seems to work as well as anything else against Lebron and might be a way to benefit from Sarunas' productivity on offense.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Starting at the 2....

            Jack has been our best defender? How has Jermaine been excluded from that conversation?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Starting at the 2....

              I think the two is gonna be done by committee. As far as who will be the "starter" I don't think it really matters as Jack will probably get the most minutes regardless. I think a lot of our two guard rotation this year will be determined by the type of two guards we play. For example, last night the Cavs are a team that play two small guards the whole time so we encountered with RUni and he responded.

              In short, I'd like to see us play to the matchup at the two guard spot. We are already good enough at the other positions to just try and get decent production from the two.


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Starting at the 2....

                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                Agreed. Once he gets his shooting touch, there's essentially no debate.
                He is the most reliable perimeter shooter we have presently.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Starting at the 2....

                  Sarunas has played well when paired with a PG, and last night's game was a good example of that. I wouldn't be against him getting the start myself. Jack by all accounts has played pretty well this season, even considering his hideous shooting %, but IMO Jack should play at SF more than SG (at least offensively, defense is a match-up game), and coming off the bench has worked very well.

                  I haven't made it to the thread concerning this yet, but why did 'Quis not play last night?

                  I'd be absolutely fine with Sarunas starting, but as rimrock said, he should also be first off the court so he can play with the subs, because there's a great energy there.
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Starting at the 2....

                    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                    He is the most reliable perimeter shooter we have presently.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Starting at the 2....

                      Hmm...I don't know about the starter. What I do think is that we need to get our best guys on the court. I would honestly not mind Rawle starting if our second unit consisted of Quis, Jack, Foster, Armstrong, and Sarunas. If matchups necessitated, swap in a big guy-Powell, Baston, DH (will we ever hear of him again?). Otherwise, let them match down to us. Try to push the pace, move the ball, etc.

                      I know this has been stated now for several years, but you have to think our 2nd unit (whoever might constitute it) is an area we can exploit against a lot of teams, at least in the East. Call "depth" on me if you want, but it would appear this is true. Besides, we know the main guys will get their minutes anway whether it be off the bench or not.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Starting at the 2....

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        He is the most reliable perimeter shooter we have presently.
                        Most reliable? I guess it depends on who you consider possible SG options. If you only include Quis, I would agree. However, I think we have other options.

                        While Jack is at 21.4% from 3, Saras is at 37.5% and as bad as DG's shooting is being perceived, he is hitting the 3 at 39.6% clip. That is much better than Jack has EVER shot it. Just because Jack launches it a lot of times, does NOT mean he is good at it.

                        ...and if you don't think DG can play SG, you have to admit he can do it on offense. In that case, find someone else, Jack or otherwise, to defend the SG on the other end...and play a slashing roll on offense. Both Quis and Marshall are excellent options there as well.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Starting at the 2....

                          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                          I know this has been stated now for several years, but you have to think our 2nd unit (whoever might constitute it) is an area we can exploit against a lot of teams, at least in the East. Call "depth" on me if you want, but it would appear this is true. Besides, we know the main guys will get their minutes anway whether it be off the bench or not.
                          Agreed 100%. The starters are on notice that they habe been a liability at the start. I think pride will kick in and they will get it together soon. Our depth is great so we should not tinker too much with the rotation. I still think Quis is our best option at the 2 but Jack's D has been impeccable. if we could have a hybrid of Jack's D and sarunas' O ...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Starting at the 2....

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            He is the most reliable perimeter shooter we have presently.
                            Granger, Al, Saras, and D.A. are all 4 far better shooters than Stephen Jackson.

                            As for our starting 2-guard, I'll go with Quis.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Starting at the 2....

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Most reliable? I guess it depends on who you consider possible SG options. If you only include Quis, I would agree. However, I think we have other options.

                              While Jack is at 21.4% from 3, Saras is at 37.5% and as bad as DG's shooting is being perceived, he is hitting the 3 at 39.6% clip. That is much better than Jack has EVER shot it. Just because Jack launches it a lot of times, does NOT mean he is good at it.

                              ...and if you don't think DG can play SG, you have to admit he can do it on offense. In that case, find someone else, Jack or otherwise, to defend the SG on the other end...and play a slashing roll on offense. Both Quis and Marshall are excellent options there as well.
                              Sorry I meant to say that sarunas was the most relaible perimeter shooter presently not Jax. The individual whose thread I was addressing mentioned both Sarunas and Jax.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X