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

Blazers post game thread

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

  • #16
    Re: Blazers post game thread

    When Jamaal Tinsley was on the floor his 37 min, the Pacers were +30. He didn't play 11 min of the game and so Pacers won only +13. That's more than impressive.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

    - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Blazers post game thread

      It doesn't matter how you use the stats. Tinsley brings it episodically. Other PGs don't need to ratchet up their game as JT does. I don't know what to expect for any given game or quarter with JT. I would like to see JT more consistent and if he is not get a PG who is because this team needs can't win with half-effort play from their PG

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Blazers post game thread

        Originally posted by hoopsforlife View Post
        I disagree. If JO had played we wouldn't have gotten the 13-2 lead in the first place. We would have been down 13-2 and would have had to fight back all game to come close.

        This game turned in the second half on the strengh of Jamal Tinsley's play. When he brings intensity he's hard to beat. I wish he would bring it every night. Danny Granger was very intrumental in this game, too. He made some timely drives to the basket and some fortuitous shots. Sarunas played well and Baston was very good in JO's place. Jackson played very well within his capabilities.

        Wow, I think I just described a TEAM win, and JO didn't play in it at all. hmmm


        That's funny. JO would have made a 32-9 run even worse then it was! How do I know this?! Well..uhm..Because I don't like JO much..!!!!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Blazers post game thread

          First note - my comments about the great fastbreaking is in that "no more breaks..." thread I started the other day.

          Tinsley just was killing the Pacers in the first half with his sloppy play. Several poor efforts to protect the ball. Saras was looking just okay, but a little off his recent regular game.

          And then there was the 3rd qtr Tinsley turnover - as Chris and QB noted it was like a light switch. From that point on TINSLEY WENT OFF. That's the old Tinsley I've been talking about being missing. Like the DEN game where I complained about his lax game despite making shots, THIS was Tinsley playing his top caliber ball.

          He finally denied a RETURN PASS on the PnR, something that's been killing the team. He tipped passes, tipped shots, disrupted dribbles, and most of all moved well with the ball and passed it well too.

          WHERE THE BLEEP HAS THIS DUDE BEEN?!? I don't know, but please stay because it's very enjoyable to watch, win or lose.

          (this was a lot like Foster in DEN vs Foster in ORL where the stats looked good in both, but clearly his ORL (and POR) effort dwarfed his DEN output)


          Baston - I already admitted that Bird was right on Baston. Mace proved it again vs POR. Again, forget blocked shots or dunks. It's his awareness and smart play that I like. He maxes out his spacing on both ends, except for the few times he still makes newbie mistakes, he reads plays well, he forces other teams to play legit. He won't let a defender cheat off him, he'll attack the rim or set a pick or get rebounding position.

          He looks like a steal at his salary now. I was surprised to not see him back in sooner in the 2nd half.


          Jack - another great game. His play off the ball remains strong, and in the meantime he's finding his outside shot AND attacking the basket even more aggressively than before (though I thought he stayed steady about trying to find inside points even when stuff wasn't falling).

          Early in the game that dunk he got on the break came from him starting about 5 steps off the baseline in the corner with THREE Blazers farther upcourt than him. He outran his man and those 3 (including Dixon who was watching Tins at midcourt from his FT line instead of a guy running right past him) to catch the long bomb pass from Tinsley. That's hard core effort.

          I watch him off the ball a lot on defense and he rotates and helps as much as any player on the team. He got beat on a pass to Dixon when he came to the lane to cover Pryz after a PnR left Foster having to stop the dribble on the far side and leaving the lane empty. His man made the 3, but at it was the penetration that caused the problem. He at least made them shoot a deep ball rather than a dunk by Pryz. That's why I praise his all-around effort. Big improvement since even last season.


          Foster - another classic great Jeff game. Again much better than the DEN game despite the box score. This is why you want Jeff and why the halfcourt works so well for Indy. Great rebounding, good defensive pressure most of the night. I'd say more but I think most people appreciate what Jeff brings.


          Al - a little off and on. Mostly good, especially as a #1 offensive threat type. Occassionally he falls asleep on defense or rebounding, but I don't think he ever shows a full game of that kind of play. He wasn't the key to the win, but he was productive along the way.


          Saras - solid but not great night. This is what I expect out of him typically, meaning I don't need greatness to not be pleased. He still only got 3 assists to 2 turnovers, he still struggled to stop penetration. He had his share of bad plays and took a lot of shots to get 11 points.

          BUT, he was active, he did work well with the ball in the half court, especially with Tinsley (per the norm IMO) and was productive without being the big scorer or without avoiding some mistakes. I'll take that from the #2 PG (just don't mistake it for a starters effort).


          Granger - still frustratingly novice. At one point he flat-out LEFT a man with the ball at the FT line to go find "his man". You can't make that mistake even if you see a pass fake or an up-fake. QB tried to blame it all on David, and Dave did also try to find his man (the guy actually near him at least) rather than stop the penetration. Both were wrong, but this is a mistake Danny has made before. He was the guy currently between the ball and the hoop. Even if someone else screwed up and put you there, once there you must stay and do the job.

          To me this is a great example of what is wrong with Danny's game right now. He's still having to THINK IT OUT as the play is going on. "oh, this isn't my man, I have to go find my guy". Doesn't make him lazy, doesn't say he doesn't care. It says he just doesn't see the game like a vet yet.

          Talent-wise you saw again why you keep Danny and help him learn the game. When given more instinctive moments he flashes incredible atheltic ability and even smart play for the moment. He drove the ball hard again (yes, this makes me very happy) and mixed in the 3 rather than camping the line. He busts his rear to chase down TO breaks even when he can't get there in time. He can get up for a shot block or rebound tip.

          At some point he's going to get the slow-down moment where it starts to come together, and at that point he's going to be better than Al I think.

          In the meantime it's tough because while he makes the on-the-ball highlights that casual fans love, he's also making some bonehead away-from-the-ball mistakes that make some of this teammates look bad. POR was a perfect example of the good and bad of young Granger.

          I think that also makes it tough to teach a 2nd player like Rawle, Powell or Greene because it's hard to deal with so many breakdowns at once. You need a Jack or Foster out there to help cover those a little.


          Armstrong - finally found a shot, still love the effort, but his age has shown through the last few weeks. He's a limited time guy and we probably need to accept that. He's not AJ just waiting for 35 mpg regularly. Right now the team has 2 serious PGs, and maybe Greene can develop his offensive game to cover 20-25 on some nights if needed.

          But I'm on the "keep DA around" camp if its reasonable. Love the attitude.


          Quis - oddly out of the rotation completely most of the night. Not sure what to make of that. I've yet to see him play really poorly to warrant that choice. Could just be the timing of situations and game flow, but RC usually isn't that dramatic about his playing time changes without injury or foul issues.


          Harrison - okay rusty I'm sure, but yikes. They tried to PnR him with DA and it was a disaster. However I've always said that only Saras can make that pass to him. And yet they tried that too and it didn't work. He made that stupid swat on the elbow foul just in case we forgot his defense is all about reaching rather than moving.

          I think he's gone if they don't see more than that out of him sometime soon. Certainly next summer they'd do something if this season continues at the rate it has for him.

          For now as I say I'll let him off on "rust", just like I let the team off on "road weary" with the chance to prove it in upcoming games. Prove to us that it was just rust David. Gotta have improvement now.



          PS - Zach's shot, so soft. Very impressive touch for a big. He put shots over Danny and Jeff for nothing but lacy net despite strong defense in his face.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Blazers post game thread

            Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
            and jo didn't play and we lost earlier in the season. go figure...
            Why bother guys, seriously. You think any of these *removed were running anti-JO smack when the Pacers saw a 20 point swing go against them and the game looked dangerously close to getting out of control?

            Of course they weren't.

            Maybe if Tinsley showed his 2nd half effort every game they'd look better with JO in. Maybe they lost that early lead because Baston went out and Harrison came in, rather than it being JO out and Baston in (ie, the bench was hurt by losing Baston to the starters).

            The team isn't JO or nothing, they are a team and have been winning like a team all year (and losing the same way). In fact JO's effort and output has been pretty consistantly strong (did these people SEE the Orlando game vs Dwight Howard), it's the rest of the team that's been up and down with the PGs doing the most dragging behind so far.


            And honestly several fans, including myself, already thought they were showing signs of better team play after the Foster-Granger switch. This is what "figuring it out" looks like. It's happening.

            If it was just a JO thing then Orlando would have killed them...oh, and I recall the Pacers winning AT Portland with JO playing too and Tinsley not showing the kind of effort we saw last night (0-5, 6 ast, 1 TO, and 23 minutes to Cabbages' 31)

            Jack is taking it to the hole hard now. That is exactly the way he should be playing. I
            He was a little better about it, but go back and check the shot charts from a month ago. He's been searching around the paint for scores all season. That's why his 3PAs were down from his normal level. Vs ORL he took 14 shots inside the arc vs 3 from deep.

            In fact just to show how skewed the anti-Jackson view can be, last night he actually CHUCKED a lot of 3s. He's only shot 5 or more 7 times including last night, and 3 of those were in the first 3 games of the season. Since then he's only gone over 5 3PAs twice (9 and 6).

            Meanwhile he's been averaging between 6 and 10 shots inside the arc all year (except for the @ DEN game with only 5 FGA total and the @ LAL game with only 7 total and 1-4 from 3). Many of those are in the paint.

            He saw better results vs Portland, but in terms of shot selection I thought it was somewhat on par with his entire season. He just hasn't made shots inside or out, including plenty of blown layups and fastbreaks.

            He's been putting the ball in the hoop better for the last week or so. I think it started in TOR which was still NOV, but look at his DEC vs NOV shooting numbers. FG% and 3P% are way up already (46% vs 37% and 31% vs 25%) and still have plenty of room to grow to meet his career average (at least from 3...46% FG the rest of the way would make his FG% just fine).

            Comment

            Working...
            X