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

JO - Al, more shots? facts:

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

  • JO - Al, more shots? facts:

    So on the 17th JO had a hearty meeting with the staff and told them he wanted more shots in the low-post.
    Some have taken this statement and ran off with it, not just around the corner but almost on a world tour.
    The statement now leads its own live, re-occurring at regular interval in bball's theories of hidden agendas and made Peck stop posting.

    So, has JO gotten more touches, seeing the reactions undoubtedly.
    Seeing the numbers, also likely ? his scoring avg is way up so all the conspiracy theories can be underwritten, Al's is down so case is proven.......

    Not quite; some "facts"

    14 games in, both players have played 13 games (1 DNP)
    As Al's games was the first game AFTER the above mentioned talk, I have added that game to the "pre-talk" stats, so that both have exactly tjhe same amount of games before and after the talk.

    Additionally the game where JO sat out was lost, the game Al sat out was won.

    now some stats over the first 10 games:
    avg fga fgm % avg reb avg Ast avg Bs avg Pts
    Al 15.56 0.500 6.33 1.22 0 19.22
    JO 15.67 0.433 9.00 2.33 3.67 16.00




    Over the last 4 games (i.e. AFTER the talk):

    Al 12.00 0.292 11.75 1.50 0.25 8.00
    JO 14.50 0.517 10.25 3.00 2.50 23.25


    So let me get thsi straight, JO moving more into the low post, took away Al's shooting touch, and on top of that 3.5 fga's per game, which at his current % is about 1 fgm per game
    However, in fact JO is not getting MORE shots, he's getting LESS
    Shooting at a FAR higher percentage, i.e over 500, he did not only improve his shooting percentage, on less shots, but also increased his Ast ratio (@ 3 per game now) his rebounding, now over 10, and hsi scoring, now over 23 per game

    Though Al's fg % has dropped considerably, his "other" numbers have increased. his rebounding nearly doubled. his Ast ratio went up, and he even blocked a shot.

    Now let's assume that this has all happened (except for Al's slump) due to the "talk" JO had with TPTB, can anyone argue that is was NOT for the betterment of the team? Can anyone argue that JO is selfish, wanting to take "more" shots?
    or are there after 4 (5) games after the date some people ready to say "I misjudged the matter and am glad it happened seeing as the productivity had a positive outcome from it."
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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


  • #2
    Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

    Good post. As I saw it, there were two ways to interpret JO's "talk."

    1) JO wants the ball more - i.e. he is selfish. The stats say "no".

    2) JO wants to run the team and tell the coach how to do his job - i.e. JO is egotistical. The jury is still out on this one.

    Ultimately, neither of these things matter, because after "the talk" we have not shown any improvement as a team. Day in and day out, the starters are not getting the job done.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

      Well, nice try there Able. The one thing missing is the change in the number of free throw attempts per game by JO. The last five games he has been taking about 9.4 FT's per game, as opposed to about 2.7 FT's per game earlier in the season.

      Now, I think everyone knows that when a player is fouled on a shot attempt, that shot only counts as an attempt if the ball goes in. In other words they don't "penalize" player with a missed attempt on a shot during which he was fouled.

      Could it be that JO is actually taking as many, if not more, shots as before but because of where he is shooting from, he is getting fouled more often and not being assessed a missed attempt on those shots?

      I just thought it was interesting that your posted stats included everything (reb's, assists, blocks) but free throws.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

        Originally posted by Tom White View Post
        Well, nice try there Able. The one thing missing is the change in the number of free throw attempts per game by JO. The last five games he has been taking about 9.4 FT's per game, as opposed to about 2.7 FT's per game earlier in the season.

        Now, I think everyone knows that when a player is fouled on a shot attempt, that shot only counts as an attempt if the ball goes in. In other words they don't "penalize" player with a missed attempt on a shot during which he was fouled.

        Could it be that JO is actually taking as many, if not more, shots as before but because of where he is shooting from, he is getting fouled more often and not being assessed a missed attempt on those shots?

        I just thought it was interesting that your posted stats included everything (reb's, assists, blocks) but free throws.
        I think you have to view this as him working out of the low post. In the last few years his FTAs per game were much better than they've been so far this year, possibly due to too many jumpers per post attempt.

        I don't know about touches. I really think its a more about where JO is getting the ball on offense. Al is just in a slump IMO, no different than the first few games of the season in the "other" system. Al presses at times and relies on turnarounds and fades that can make him streaky.


        HOWEVER, JO didn't help his "bossy/selfish" case with his post-Toronto comments. On the heels of his office rant a little over a week or so ago he is starting to come off as "demanding". It's tough to get on him too much because he's been playing some great ball (other than sitting under the rim watching rebounds at times) but I'm not sure how his harsh complaining and yelling is supposed to be productive at this point.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

          Originally posted by Tom White View Post

          Now, I think everyone knows that when a player is fouled on a shot attempt, that shot only counts as an attempt if the ball goes in. In other words they don't "penalize" player with a missed attempt on a shot during which he was fouled.

          Could it be that JO is actually taking as many, if not more, shots as before but because of where he is shooting from, he is getting fouled more often and not being assessed a missed attempt on those shots?

          I just thought it was interesting that your posted stats included everything (reb's, assists, blocks) but free throws.
          So it's bad to be getting fouled?

          If JO provokes many fouls and his FT % is good, it's a very good thing imo not only for him, but for the team also.
          "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

          - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

            I let the FT attempts out, and don't know why, but in all honesty, from not taking any to taking close to 10, I take it.

            And yes, JO's comments post Tor made me think, though I read them after I worked this one out so I decided to post anyway.

            Thoughts I have by the post game comments are somewhat unstable as to how to explain, what does he really say.

            It almost reads as if the Star has taken it upon themselves to highlight anything that can be construed as "untowardly" by JO, while ignoring the facts, like they used to ignore te truth (or so some posters say).

            I have not seen or heard the rest of the comments he made, but I would be interested in hearing the question and the total remarks, not just the "highlights".

            On top of which, he seems to be right, as none of the "changes" have made a difference, we played Daniels as a starter for 2 games, and then he got a DNP, no Rawle got two starts, only to play 6 minutes of a game, if that is the gameplan, then why bother, no way any unit is going to gel or any player getting his confidence or the feeling that the staff has confidence in him (the players starting).

            As the team leader and so on and so on, you know what, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't say something.

            It is ok for Rick to do it, but not for JO?

            As I said, no crystalized thoughts on that one, can argue any side on it.


            But in the end I look at the hardest working players and must admit that JO's numbers in general are an improvement all accross the board, and his defense is stellar, if you work that hard, you are entitled to an opinion.
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

              Originally posted by able View Post
              As the team leader and so on and so on, you know what, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't say something.
              This is what is expected of JO to be leader IMHO...

              Regardless of the score or time in the game he fights for position and blocks out so his team can get a rebound even if he isn't the one who gets it

              Regardless of the score or time in the game he dives to the floor after a loose ball as if it's a 1 point game and the possession is the difference in winning or losing

              During the game he does what the coach has asked of him regardless of what it means for his own stats.

              After a loss he encourages and tries to motivate his teammates to keep doing what is in the gameplan... not get in a pi$$ing match with the coach and undermine team unity and the coach's authority 8 games into the season.

              He also shouldn't paint the team and others into a corner and create question marks with his comments to the press.

              He should never whine to the press.

              He should never utter the words: "I'm the leader of this team". If he is, then it will show and we'll all know it.

              ------

              Right now he's a whiney, egotistical, coach-killing, malcontent who needs to take his 'me first' attitude to another team (and take the overrated and inconsistent Tinsley with him).

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

              ------

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

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

                Originally posted by able View Post
                It almost reads as if the Star has taken it upon themselves to highlight anything that can be construed as "untowardly" by JO, while ignoring the facts, like they used to ignore the truth (or so some posters say).
                I've noticed this, but not just with JO. It looks to me like the Star has gone from reporting on the games to reporting on what goes on off court.

                Hearing everything causes people to dislike the team or players. For instant Peck being mad at Jermaine because of what he read in the newspaper. Would Peck be happier not knowing that?

                People are never going to like this team with Kavitz and Wells looking to report dirt rather than what goes on between the lines.

                Personally I prefer to read about the games and not player and team problems that happen off the court. Everyone has problems, but dragging them though newspapers for everyone to read isn't journalism, it's just plain sensationalism.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

                  First off, good post and rebuttle, able!

                  I was going to bring up this very subject on the IndyStar board, but now that I've found this I think I'll just link it to this thread while adding my 2-cents worth.

                  For what it's worth, I think JO is fully justified in wanting to change things up as far as how they approach the game, as well as insisting on a set-rotation. It's always a good idea to play to your player's strengths. And on the issue of rotations, the revolting door of lineups does more to confuse and frustration your players than it does to motivate them.

                  I, too, had noticed that since the Boston game Al's scoring has decreased. Maybe the reason for this is part "change in the approach to the game" as far as how these two players are utilized. But it could also be other issues as well, i.e., player deferment (one settling in on one facet of the game while letting the other do other things to help move the game along), ego ("I gotta have my touches so I'll just pout until my number is called more often), or the right-hand not speaking to the left...both players (JO and Al) not fully understanding the expectation and/or roles of the other.

                  I think that this latest lineup change will help to clarify their roles and quite possibly solidify the rotation. In fact, the lineup as listed for tonight's game (11/28/06 against the Blazers) is exactly what I'd hoped RC would go with since the season began. After all, they are the team's best players.

                  'Nuff said.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    This is what is expected of JO to be leader IMHO...

                    Regardless of the score or time in the game he fights for position and blocks out so his team can get a rebound even if he isn't the one who gets it

                    Regardless of the score or time in the game he dives to the floor after a loose ball as if it's a 1 point game and the possession is the difference in winning or losing

                    During the game he does what the coach has asked of him regardless of what it means for his own stats.

                    After a loss he encourages and tries to motivate his teammates to keep doing what is in the gameplan... not get in a pi$$ing match with the coach and undermine team unity and the coach's authority 8 games into the season.

                    He also shouldn't paint the team and others into a corner and create question marks with his comments to the press.

                    He should never whine to the press.

                    He should never utter the words: "I'm the leader of this team". If he is, then it will show and we'll all know it.

                    ------

                    Right now he's a whiney, egotistical, coach-killing, malcontent who needs to take his 'me first' attitude to another team (and take the overrated and inconsistent Tinsley with him).

                    -Bball
                    And you argument is based on what ?


                    If TPTB followed your opinion, you would be calling for their heads, because we would be a lottery certainty.

                    Stop spitting in the coffee, start enjoying life, or find decent arguments to carry your case.
                    Your rants grow old
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      And you argument is based on what ?
                      The product on the floor.

                      And when JO is out the team has historically played better basketball. The movement was better. The chemistry was better. The talent looked better. And it looked better to start the season this year WITH him... until he decided the world needed to revolve around him.

                      Dispute that all you want with whatever stats you want to spin but we've all seen it with our own two eyes. It's time to address that 800lb gorilla in the middle of the living room.

                      If TPTB followed your opinion, you would be calling for their heads, because we would be a lottery certainty.
                      And if they follow your's we'll be... what exactly?

                      Stop spitting in the coffee, start enjoying life, or find decent arguments to carry your case.
                      Your rants grow old
                      Is there an "I Don't Care" smiley?

                      -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: JO - Al, more shots? facts:

                        Be nice guys! Please!

                        We don't need two pillars of the digest community getting into it with each other.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X