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

Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

    interesting article from hoopsworld

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=9892

    Most Improved: Pacers or Bucks?

    By: Jon Mladic Last Updated: 9/3/08 12:52 PM ET | 1719 times read



    Adjust font size:It was a busy summer for the Bucks and Pacers, as both teams looked to improve on teams that failed to make the playoffs - or even finish .500 - last year. Both organizations made moves that shook the core of their rosters. Milwaukee's top headline came from trading Yi Jianlian and Bobby Simmons to the Nets in exchange for Richard Jefferson. Indiana, meanwhile, made news by trading away Jermaine O'Neal for T.J. Ford and Rasho Nesterovic. HOOPSWORLD takes a look at these two improved teams and makes the case for why each is more improved than the other.


    The Bucks Improved More

    When John Hammond came to the Bucks from the Pistons, fans in Milwaukee hoped he would shake things up. They have to be pleased with the results. In addition to dealing for Jefferson, the Bucks added two solid draft picks, signed free agents that other teams wanted and added role players they think will contribute regularly. Things are different, but how improved does that make this team? Is it more than the Pacers?

    Milwaukee is more improved than the Pacers because they did more than change players. In one summer, the Bucks changed identities. They went from an organization with the loose principals of shooting, offensive-oriented team (but not necessarily the players to win with that philosophy) to a franchise that is based on controlling the game and playing defense, led by both a GM and Head
    Coach with NBA success in the area.

    They drafted two rookies (Joe Alexander and Luc Mbah a Moute) that fit this personality perfectly. They traded their scoring point guard, Mo Williams, and will replace him with players that turn the ball over less and focus on distributing the basketball (Ramon Sessions, Luke Ridnour and Tyronn Lue). They won't miss his points, though, because they also added Richard Jefferson, a move that also altered the team chemistry by moving Yi Jianlian and Bobby Simmons.

    The Bucks also made sure they had some quality depth (Francisco Elson backing up Andrew Bogut comes to mind), and that even the players that would not see much playing time were going to give complete efforts when they step on the floor - Malik Allen and Adrian Griffin were known quantities to Coach Skiles because they played for him in Chicago.

    While the Pacers took a chance on T.J. Ford being healthy, the Bucks eliminated as many questions as possible. They are clearly starting fresh, and know exactly what they have to work with in attempting to get back to the playoffs. They added talent AND leadership, and can depend on getting the most out of their roster.


    The Pacers' Side

    In terms of immediate success, the Milwaukee Bucks are probably going to see a bigger jump in wins this season, but the Indiana Pacers improved the long-term future of their organization this summer more than almost any other team in the entire NBA.

    The last couple of seasons in Indianapolis have been dismal, unfortunately thanks largely to the injuries of starting point guards and former franchise player Jermaine O'Neal. Despite the emergence of Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy, Jr., the Pacers have made absolutely zero noise in the playoffs, often finishing just poorly enough to miss the postseason or sneak into an eight seed, as well as just good enough to lose out on any real shot at a high lottery pick.

    Rebuilding has not been easy, but this summer Indy finally got the ball rolling by making a couple of smart raft picks and one tremendous trade.

    Finally bringing in a respectable franchise point guard in T.J. Ford allows the team to shop Jamaal Tinsley more aggressively, which they certainly have been doing. Not only that, but backup Jarret Jack (formerly of Portland) is another affable starter should Ford get hurt or need a spell during games.

    Mid first-round pick Roy Hibbert may end up a starter by year's end, and if he plays defense and grabs rebounds as well as he did in college, he'll be a nice step up from an aging Jeff Foster. Even Rasho Nesterovic, who came over in the J.O. trade, will add much-needed depth to the frontlines.

    Brandon Rush, clearly one of the most NBA-ready players in the 2008 draft, will add depth behind Dunleavy and Granger at either the two or the three, but Granger has done nothing but improve in his few years in the league, and some are suggesting he could be an All-Star talent as soon as this year.

    When you factor in the development of Indy's young players and their new draft picks, as well as subtract some of the injury and personality issues they've been having in years past, it's hard to ignore the team's improvement, not only this year but for seasons and seasons into the future.


    While the upcoming season, and perhaps even the next few years, will bear out which organization improved more, give both organizations credit for making moves to get better. Trades are not always easy to hammer out, and, when they involve players as closely associated with the organization as O'Neal had been and Yi was being marketed to become, the results of these days matter a great deal. In the end, these two organizations need this year to be different, and accepting the risk of these trades was the necessary cost for the hope of winning in the NBA.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

    Adjust font size:It was a busy summer for the Bucks and Pacers, as both teams looked to improve on teams that failed to make the playoffs - or even finish .500 - last year.
    Since you can make the playoffs without being .500 it should read "failed to finish .500 - or even make the playoffs - last year."

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

      Bird and Morway have put the Pacers to be better than the Bucks within the next 2 or 3 years. We have a lot of expiring contracts that will allow us to hit the FA market within a few seasons.

      In the long run, we're better off. This would have never happened if Bird and Morway didnt make some key trades this offseason
      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

        I think the Scott Skiles move does more for Milwaukee over the next 12-24 months than anything we've done.



        Of course, I agree that all of these moves were made for 2-3 seasons down the road and that next year's version of the Pacers won't even be as good (record-wise) as the last couple of years while they build for the future. And I'm okay with that.
        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

        • #5
          Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

          The Bucks strike me as your typical team that looks good on paper, but never puts it all together on the court. They've got some 'name' players that can put the ball in the hoop, but their defense looks as bad as any team in the league's. The Jefferson acquisition was a good win-now move, but they seemed to have neutralized it with the horrible Mo Williams for Luke Ridnour swap. Any offense picked up in the Jefferson trade was lost, and their backcourt somehow managed to get even worse defensively.

          Buck's Projected Starters
          • Luke Ridnour
            Michael Redd
            Richard Jefferson
            Charlie Villanueva
            Andrew Bogut


          You could make the argument that they have the worst defensive starters in the league at three positions (PG, SG, PF) and while Jefferson and Bogut aren't bad defenders, neither is especially great either. They also lack depth, especially up front. I've never been that impressed with Skiles as a coach either. I can't see how he could be considered the difference between the two teams.

          I think they'll win more games than last year, but I still see them as a sub-.500 team.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

            What a poorly written article. But the points are legit.

            I tend to agree with Kofi here, the Bucks essentially just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. Their principal flaws from the past few seasons still remain and their number one option is still Michael Redd. Ridnour is backup material and his offensive ability (decent but not dynamic) doesn't come close to compensating for his defensive issues. I don't like R-Jeff at all and consider him to be the Corey Maggette of the East...

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

              Originally posted by ajbry View Post
              What a poorly written article. But the points are legit.

              I tend to agree with Kofi here, the Bucks essentially just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. Their principal flaws from the past few seasons still remain and their number one option is still Michael Redd. Ridnour is backup material and his offensive ability (decent but not dynamic) doesn't come close to compensating for his defensive issues. I don't like R-Jeff at all and consider him to be the Corey Maggette of the East...
              ha, now i don't know about THAT. He's more than a pretty solid player offensively and defensively; capable of All-Star numbers.
              That being said I think our offseason moves helped us both present and future...I really have nothing to say. I'm just too ready for the season to start...

              Let's Go Pacers.
              Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

              Passion. Pride. Pacers.

              It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
              #31 & Only

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                Of course, I agree that all of these moves were made for 2-3 seasons down the road and that next year's version of the Pacers won't even be as good (record-wise) as the last couple of years while they build for the future. And I'm okay with that.
                I disagree. I think the team this season will be marginally better than last season - in record and competitiveness.

                It shouldn't be too difficult to improve on a record of 35-47 considering the Pacers have improved the PG and Center positions (I'm not counting JO as a Center because he missed half the season). Rasho, Hibbert, and Foster should be better than the Foster and Harrison rotation from last season.

                They could see some improvement as well from just having practices with players at full strength and a consistent rotation. It can't be easy to have any sort of continuity on the court when 2 of your most important players can't even practice from day-to-day.
                Last edited by naptownmenace; 09-05-2008, 01:41 PM.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

                  I happen to think last year's team really overachieved to get up to 35 wins, picking up a lot of wins late in the season against teams that were ready to "go fishing" as EJ, Jet, and Barkley would say.

                  I think this team is heading for 28-32 wins. Milwaukee is probably in the 30-34 win category. O'Brien seems to have a better grasp on "putting the young guys heavily into the rotation". Skiles will milk that team in Milwaukee for everything they've got.
                  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

                  • #10
                    Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    I happen to think last year's team really overachieved to get up to 35 wins, picking up a lot of wins late in the season against teams that were ready to "go fishing" as EJ, Jet, and Barkley would say.

                    I think this team is heading for 28-32 wins. Milwaukee is probably in the 30-34 win category. O'Brien seems to have a better grasp on "putting the young guys heavily into the rotation". Skiles will milk that team in Milwaukee for everything they've got.
                    Overachieved? I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've heard that word used to describe last year's team.

                    I can't help but remember the games against Denver and the Clippers where they choked away 20 point leads to lose early in the season. They lost at least 9 or 10 games last season that they lead with 6 minutes left in the fourth quarter. Two of those games were against Phoenix, which is understandable, but losing to teams like Charlotte, Minnesota, and Seattle in that fashion was the epitome of "underachievement".

                    I think they did a better job of closing out games to end the season because they established Granger as the go-to-guy. Danny learned how to drive and draw fouls which helped them protect leads and pull out some close games.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

                      I'm already on the record (at the forum party) as saying that the Bucks would make the playoffs and the Pacers wouldn't.

                      If it happens remember you heard it from me first.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

                        The Bucks paid Bogut close to 70 million.....enough said
                        "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Offseason review: Bucks vs Pacers

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          I happen to think last year's team really overachieved to get up to 35 wins, picking up a lot of wins late in the season against teams that were ready to "go fishing" as EJ, Jet, and Barkley would say.

                          I think this team is heading for 28-32 wins. Milwaukee is probably in the 30-34 win category. O'Brien seems to have a better grasp on "putting the young guys heavily into the rotation". Skiles will milk that team in Milwaukee for everything they've got.
                          They may have overachieved a bit...and no, this is not nearly the talent level we have grown accustomed to in Indy. However, the same scenario will play out this coming year when teams "go fishing". More important, several of the major shortcomings on the team have been addressed. With two real PG's in TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack, another year under the belt for Granger and Dunleavy, a fairly solid Center in Rasho (who unlike JO will actually suit up)...I suspect we will do at least as well as last year. If Hibbert or Rush add anything, it will be gravy.

                          Yes, if we crack .500 it will be surprise. If we lose 50-54 games as you say, it will be a bigger surprise. JMHO.

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X