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

Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

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

  • #91
    Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    I didn't really see our defense improving with Dunleavy's return. I just saw our offense have another option. We've still blown leads in the 4th, only in one case Dun made a smart play... on offense... to help make the mountain a little higher for the opposition.
    I agree that Dunleavy's return hasn't produced a significant impact on the defensive end....but I do not think that he severely negatively impacts the defense and ( at most ) the impact ( if there is any ) would be considered neglible.

    I would only add that I think that Marquis' return has had a far greater impact to the defense then anything. Again, to be fair, I'm going to hold judgement until I can see Marquis and Dunelavy does after a few more games on the defensive end and how it impacts the Team as a whole ( both has only been in the lineup together for 3 games only ). As most of us has noted....this defense is predicated on the Team as a whole understanding and properly implementing the defense....both of which are skills that Dunleavy and Marquis bring to the table.
    Last edited by CableKC; 01-28-2009, 03:08 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

      Originally posted by purdue101 View Post

      if we continue to give up 106.9 points per game, we'll set an eastern conference record for opponents PPG in a season. Quite a feat........except for the fact that we'd be breaking our own record, which we set last year at 105.4. Coincidentally the year JOB was hired.
      That right there about says it all for me.


      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

        let me rephrase.....the record was over the past 10 years......you get my point though.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

          Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
          It's not one game that people are overreacting to. It's the fact that we're 17-28 and our defense appears to be getting worse instead of better.

          The game was over before it started last night when we went small. Not that we ever really had a chance to beat Orlando anyway.


          The defense has been better lately - I see definite improvement since Jeff has been starting and since Dun has been back.

          Funny how everyone is blaming the small lineup for the loss - as soon as I saw the starting lineup I thought to myself - oh no if we lose by 1 point in triple OT many will blame the small lineup.

          In fact the pacers only trailed by 1 point when they made their first substitution last night - so it wasn't the starting lineup that killed us

          There are ten NBA teams that are worse defensively than the Pacers.
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-28-2009, 03:32 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            Has anyone got anything positive to say about the game?
            No, not really. I mean, the game was lost before getting midway in the 2Q. All my boyz could do from that point on is pray and hope they could keep the deficit near 20 points.
            Defense Defense Defense. Nothing frustrates me like bad basketball and 'no defense' is bad basketball. The coaching staff is putting these players in a position to fail by not addressing this. ....'No defense' and 'small ball' equally frustrate me (but then the two also go hand in hand usually).
            I didn't mind the small ball tactic because it made sense. You want to pull The Beast (Dwight Howard) out from the paint and force him to work at both ends of the court. Problem is when Murphy wasn't making his shots or driving inside and forcing Howard to adjust it negated that game plan. And we all know Foster's not an offensive threat and poor Hibbert just wasn't skilled enough to know how to handle him for what little time he did play against Howard. And frankly, I doubt Rasho would have faired better.

            Still, I share you frustrations in this one area: defending the Wings! (SCREAMING!!!! ) I could NOT believe the number of times Murphy, Quis, Graham and even Granger at times left Pietrus and Lewis open on the Wings!! There's just no way they should be cheating that much towards the paint knowing how good Orlando's shooters are. They were just asking to get burned last night. Frankly, there's just no excuse for that - NONE!!!!

            Dwight's going to get his; let him even if it means you defending him as solid as you could but he still beat you down. Dwight's like a slimmer version of Shaq in his youth. You're just NOT going to stop him. He's too strong! But the Pacers COULD have limited the Magic's perimeter shooting if they had just found the open man (which even my wife, who has just started to under the game of basketball at the NBA level, was able to spot long before the Magic's offense had fully developed on some plays. Heck, she even rewound a few plays and pointed some things out I missed!!!! She's becoming quite good at that. )

            Pacers' perimeter defense was absolutely terrible last night, and there's really no excuse for it whatsoever.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

              http://www.basketballreference.com/l...m?lg=N&yr=1986

              I was gonna say, it really wasn't that long ago that the league champion averaged 118 per game, and was considered a solid defensive team at 109 per game. You guys keep confusing slow pace with good defense, and its false.

              UB can also point out that in '86-87, the three best teams were the leaders in defense FG%: the Lakers were #6, Boston was #5, and the Pistons were #3.
              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


              • #97
                Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                I agree that Dunleavy's return hasn't produced a significant impact on the defensive end....but I do not think that he severely negatively impacts the defense and ( at most ) the impact ( if there is any ) would be considered neglible.

                I would only add that I think that Marquis' return has had a far greater impact to the defense then anything. Again, to be fair, I'm going to hold judgement until I can see Marquis and Dunelavy does after a few more games on the defensive end and how it impacts the Team as a whole ( both has only been in the lineup together for 3 games only ). As most of us has noted....this defense is predicated on the Team as a whole understanding and properly implementing the defense....both of which are skills that Dunleavy and Marquis bring to the table.
                I think the team defense has improved somewhat since both Dun and Quis have returned. The problem as I see it - and I agree w/Bball on this - is the Pacers cheat too much in trying to cover the paint to limit dribble penetration along the baseline. I say STOP THE MADNESS!

                They either need to stay in a 2-3 Zone OR stay in Man-D, the latter I'd go with. Granted, the Pacers don't have many 1-on-1 defenders (Granger & Quis are our best options here), but if you can put a hand in the shooter's face just as he catches the ball or force him to take a bad shot BECAUSE you were in the right defensive position to disrupt the shooting motion, well, you've done your job. I didn't see that happen until very late in the 4Q when the game was clearly well out of reach.

                Our Defensive Coordinator needs to take cheating towards the paint completely out of the equation. It's hurting this team rather than helping.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                  Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                  http://www.basketballreference.com/l...m?lg=N&yr=1986

                  I was gonna say, it really wasn't that long ago that the league champion averaged 118 per game, and was considered a solid defensive team at 109 per game. You guys keep confusing slow pace with good defense, and its false.

                  UB can also point out that in '86-87, the three best teams were the leaders in defense FG%: the Lakers were #6, Boston was #5, and the Pistons were #3.
                  Thank you. There are 10 NBA teams that are worse in defensive FG%. So pacers are 20th best defensive team in the NBA. Not as good as I would like, but not as bad as many seem to think
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-28-2009, 03:54 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                    Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                    Our Defensive Coordinator needs to take cheating towards the paint completely out of the equation. It's hurting this team rather than helping.
                    I wouldn't do that unless you are prepared to give up layup after layup. Pacers dont have a shot blocker, so they have to flood the lane or it will be a layup drill

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post



                      There are ten NBA teams that are worse defensively than the Pacers.


                      Which means almost 2/3 of the NBA teams are BETTER!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I wouldn't do that unless you are prepared to give up layup after layup. Pacers dont have a shot blocker, so they have to flood the lane or it will be a layup drill

                        Layups = 2 points
                        That's better than leaving 3 point shooters wide open.

                        -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


                        • Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Thank you. There are 10 NBA teams that are worse in defensive FG%. So pacers are 19th best defensive team in the NBA. Not as good as I would like, but not as bad as many seem to think

                          Wouldn't that make them the 20th best with 19 teams better than them?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            Layups = 2 points
                            That's better than leaving 3 point shooters wide open.

                            -Bball
                            Layups are made probably 75% of the time, three pointers are made at 37% . I'll take my chances


                            ESPN stats do list three point FG% given up,m but only in round numbers -Pacers give up 37%. 8 teams give up a higher % than the Pacers and 4 other teams give up 37%. Not too bad for a below .500 team. And pacers I think at in the top half in fewest pts in the paint.

                            The defense isnt as bad as many of you think
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-28-2009, 03:52 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              Wouldn't that make them the 20th best with 19 teams better than them?
                              oops, never was very good at math - especially this college level stuff. OK 20th it is

                              If you just read the comments about the pacers defense in this thread you would think the Pacers were dead last and way last. The defense really isn't that bad. Defensive rebounding I think was 6th best, so add that in as part of the overall defense and really the defense isn't that bad

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers at Magic Postgame thread

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                I brought this up in the Pacers/Magic Game thread. When I look at the Magic lineup.....I fail to see why they are one of the best Perimeter/3pt defending teams in the league ( they rank Top 3 at home and Top 10 on the road ). Is the difference primarily in the Coaching, defensive scheme or simply due to the fact that they have the most Athletic Big Man that can dominate the Paint on the offensive and Defensive end?

                                Although one cannot deny the importance and impact that Howard is to the Low-Post and penetration defense though his shotblocking......the rest of their lineup is made up of PGs/SGs/SFs that I wouldn't consider great overall defenders or even any better then our platoon of PGs/SGs/SFs. At best....they have Pietrus who is an athletic GF that is a solid perimeter Defender...but not the smartest one.

                                I don't want to continue to drag this ( or any other ) post towards the typical "It's the Coach" thread.....I'm guessing it's a combination of them all ( Coach, Talent, execution of Defensive scheme ). But assuming that we will be stuck with JO'B for yet another season ( which is entirely possible despite our record ), I'm beginning to wonder if the best thing to do is to simply address the need for a shot-blocker ( something that we lack ) either through the Draft or through FA in the offseason.

                                If you're suggesting that the Orlando Magic have the better coach, you would be right. It was the Pacers, afterall, who went after Stan Van Gundy before they went after JOB, so they probably think the Magic have the better coach as well.

                                And SVG is the guy who thought the Magic have the better roster than the Pacers. He's the guy who picked them after interviewing with Indy, Sac and Orlando. I'd say he made the right choice.

                                As far as getting a real shotblocker, there isn't a team that wouldn't want an in his prime Mutombo. A legit shotblocker who's skilled enough to play more than 20 mins. a game isn't easy to find.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X