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: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

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

  • #46
    Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    You still manage to deflect blame on Tinsley and throw it on to RC.
    So what?

    From what I've observed, Rick doesn't get enough blame and Tinsley gets too much.

    I'm not happy with either of them. I don't want Tinsley taking that many shots EVEN IF he's hitting them.

    But blaming Tinsley without even considering whehter or not he's playing the way his coach wants him to play is one-sided and ignorant, IMO. Especially when there is a lot of evidence that he IS just doing what he's been asked to do.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

      tinsley can be blamed because in the fourth he threw away team offense nd decided to loose us this game one on five. the only reason he only took 50 percent of our teams shots down the strech is the fact that some other plyers rebonded. And to the guy who said tinsley is forced to take bad shots, your full of it. last night Tinsley started chucking to close out the game he didn't even look to run the team offense.
      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      I'm with you in the sense that I think Rick's hand has been forced here. If he was working with a little bit more talented guard and JT made half of those shots and his FTs, Rick would be a genius right about know. Maybe you can argue that Rick shouldn't be trying to pull this with JT, but who else does he go to? Jack? Danny? Al? All of those guys have been wildly inconsistent.

      I also don't think we can blame Jamaal. He is just not that good. This is not his fault. This is why the Pacers aren't the Mavs. We don't have their talent. We either need to develop some consistent performances from everyone (see Detroit game) so that Jamaal doesn't have to do his best AI impression or we need to bring in a second option.

      Another note, I think Danny shows signs of being able to develop that second option ability as soon as next year, so don't give up on him yet...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

        Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
        But blaming Tinsley without even considering whehter or not he's playing the way his coach wants him to play is one-sided and ignorant, IMO. Especially when there is a lot of evidence that he IS just doing what he's been asked to do.
        What evidence is there?

        Again, do you have knowledge of the conversation between the two? Do you have the playbook?

        I know I don't, and without something tangible how can you make that conclusion? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, either way you don't know.

        I find it pretty amazing that someone who started a thread about not knowing the full story behind a player's effort, that you feel you can make a good enough judgement on exactly how Rick wants Tinsley to play.

        Rick must be a complete idiot if he wants Tinsley to shoot the ball just as much as JO, I do know that.

        EDIT: I still think Rick is going at this the right way though, by allowing Jamaal to do his thing. Rick has been hard on him in the past, and what came out of it? He felt "disrespected" and decided he didn't want to play. Jamaal can win you some games, more often than he's going to lose them, so letting him play is the best option.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

          What is Rick doing to stop it?

          Show me that evidence? Sure, what I'm working with is circumstantial, but I've shown you something and you haven't bothered to refute it. You don't get to say "what evidence" after I present some. I didn't say I had definitive proof, which is what you're asking for, I said there was evidence. Do something with it. I didn't say I could "prove" that was the gameplan, but the fact that Jamaal seems to be doing it more-and-more and Rick doesn't act like it bothers him is evidence.

          Along with the way Rick has developed other PGs and talked about PGs on other teams - we know with a high degree of certainty that Rick likes PGs that aggressively look for their shot on offense.

          Has Tinsley changed from the PG he was under Isiah to the PG he is under Rick? I think that answer is patently obvious. Why? Coaching? Player? Both?

          It shouldn't take long to pull some season-long stats on FGAs and Assists to notice the trend (but I don't have to do that right now.)
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

            I looked up the stats and Jammal is shooting about three times more per game vs his career stats. He's put up double figure shot attempts in 21 games and more than 15 in 10 games. His assists this year vs any of the previous Carlisle years are about average (6.2 this year to 5.8 w/ Carlisle). He averaged 8.6 shots per game with Zeke and 7.8 assists. There are less desirable options for him to pass to and his three point shot is much improved. Until Carlisle stops him from taking so many shots, one has to assume it's part of the plan. There are plenty of other players on the roster who can bring the ball up the court,initiate the offense, guard opposing point guards etc.... You can't say Runi should start in one thread then say there's no-one else he's stuck with this guy. If in fact, he was putting up shots against Carlisle's wishes he would've sat down in favor of any combination of Runi,DA,Daniels or Greene as all were dressed and ready to play against the Mavs.
            I'm in these bands
            The Humans
            Dr. Goldfoot
            The Bar Brawlers
            ME

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

              Actually, he's shot in double figures 19 times. You're right about him shooting at or above 15attmepts 10times though. He's averaging 12fga, so to even it out he's had 13games where he's under 10fga.

              My looking at his season log, you can't tell what he's doing. There's no consistancy to it at all. He'll have 8 out of 10 games where he doesn't shoot in double figures, then he'll go 7 out of 10 where he puts up more than 12 a game.

              There's just as much evidence for both sides.
              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas.../game_log.html
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

                I'm sorry, but what's the "other" side and what is the evidence?

                Presumably, the other side is that he's breaking the gameplan because he's a selfish ballhog, right?

                I don't know how you get that from FGA/ game stats. You get that from his coach pulling him aside, or sitting him on the bench, or calling him out publicly about it, or other players complaining about his FGAs.

                Is there any evidence of any of that? I don't even recall Rick calling Tinsley over to the sidelines to chat during the 4Q, and if he did it certainly didn't result in Tinsley playing any differently. Believe me, I would have loved to see his coach tell him to stop shooting so much and to think pass-first.

                I think Tinsley can be an excellent PG if healthy and used the right way. But those are big "if's".
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

                  Have you saw Rick pull Tinsley off to the side during the games where he isn't shooting as much and tell him to shoot? I doubt it. So why ask me if there has been an instance where the opposite is true?

                  From the information available to us, they go from one case (him not shooting so much), to the other (him shooting more than his fair share).
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Am I the only one who isn't buying the garbage about Rick trying to turn Jamaal into a shoot first point guard. That seems absurd to me. Rick doesn't want him to shoot that much, but Rick has no other choice at point guard - we all know that - TPTB traded AJ so Rick had to play JT. Rick hjas to play Jamaal his bosses have forced his hand. This was obvious over the summer - why isn't it obvious now.
                    I don't think Rick is trying to turn Tins into Billups like some are saying, but I don't think its unreasonable to think Rick may want Tins to shoot more. 18 times a game though is probably not what Rick had in mind.


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

                      Here's what we've got, in seven of his last eleven games, (basically coinciding with the shortened rotations), he's taken 16 or more shots.

                      If you rank his minutes from low to high...

                      the four games with 12 or less shots over that 11-game stretch are four of the six lowest in terms of minutes. The other two are the notoriously bad shooting games last night and against Utah (and he also fouled out of each of those which contributed to fewer minutes played in those games, as well.)

                      So over the past 11 games, he's averaged 14.5 shots per game and he's plays the fewest minutes if he's not shooting "enough" or his minutes are somewhat reduced if he's "ice cold" AND in foul trouble.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Post Game Thread: Its official JO and Foster are the only ones who care

                        Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                        Out of the starters they are the only ones that give consistent effort. JO's line tonight was incredible as usual. 20 pts, 16 boards, 5 assists, and 5 blocks. Foster with 10 and 12. Al's box score looks incredible but he got destroyed by Devean George. Oh and I am officially done with our backcourt. How disgusting were they tonight.
                        The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Is it me, or does it just seem like there's a bit of overreaction to breaking down in the 4th quarter against one, if not the best team in the NBA?

                        Many folks on here are so fairweather about a given player's nightly performances. Some of the same people pumped up that Tinsley is "turning the corner" this year, are writing him off forever after an off game.

                        I watched the whole game, and I saw a lot of heart and a lot of energy out there last night, combined with some poor decision making, and then a breakdown of will towards the end of the game.

                        I'd consider it a fair argument if you all were giving up on O'Neal because he wasn't getting it done, but when it comes to Jackson and Tinsley, you're talking about two backcourt players who are middle of the roaders, with middle of the road compensation, and a long history of mediocrity.

                        It's like being pissed at McDonald's for not making a Big Mac taste like a strip from St. Elmo's.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X