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

ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

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

  • #16
    Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post

    I'm not commenting one way or the other on Murphy, just pointing out that the connection between blocking out and rebounding is iffy and the comments above seem petty. Besides, there are a number of players that do a great job of blocking out but rarely get the rebound (but most importantly, the guy they are assigned to never gets the rebound unless it is long/ overhead.)

    This was my point exactly.


    And I'm far from a Murphy hater.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

      So many of you need to put down your pom poms and actually watch the games. Murphy never blocks out. Everything that BRushWithDeath said is true. He relies on his teammates and then goes and freelances to get the ball.

      Watch the games, not the box scores.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

        My observation is that Murphy gets a lot of weakside rebounds and isn't a great rebounder in traffic. That doesn't detract from any of the rebounds that he gets.

        But if you need a physical presence in the paint to force a missed shot and grab a tough rebound, Murphy is not your guy. If you need that other guy to be able to hit his FTs when he gets hacked after grabbing the gritty rebound, then you begin to realize that a hybrid of Murphy's fundamental skills and Dale Davis's toughness is really what you need, after all.
        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


        • #19
          Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

          Originally posted by WetBob View Post
          So many of you need to put down your pom poms and actually watch the games. Murphy never blocks out. Everything that BRushWithDeath said is true. He relies on his teammates and then goes and freelances to get the ball.

          Watch the games, not the box scores.

          x2
          "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

          Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

            Ironically (since in the other thread it talked about him not being a good rebounder) Hibbert is pretty decent at blocking out. I don't know how consistent he is about it, but several times I've seen him hold off two guys so somebody else can get the rebound.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
              Foster never blocks out.
              I don't think never means what you think it means.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                Originally posted by WetBob View Post
                So many of you need to put down your pom poms and actually watch the games. Murphy never blocks out. Everything that BRushWithDeath said is true. He relies on his teammates and then goes and freelances to get the ball.

                Watch the games, not the box scores.
                I watch the games. Every game, every night, since 1992. My son and I watched our first Pacers game together in the hospital when he was 6 hours old. Don't tell me to put down pom pom's and watch, because I do watch. Murphy can and does block out to get some of his rebounds. I'm didn't say that's how he gets them all. I'm just saying it is absolutely false to say that he NEVER blocks out, or that the next time he does will be the first.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                  Originally posted by maragin View Post
                  I don't think never means what you think it means.
                  Can we agree on "rarely"?
                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                    It's true guys block out for Murphy, but that's because he has great instincts(like most great rebounders)and will fly to the ball. He gets at least 2 rebounds a game covering at least 15 feet while soaring over another player the get the rebound. That is athleticism and instinct at work there. The best rebounder on any team gets help from his teammates blocking out, so until we get someone better at this aspect of the game Murphy will be our guy. Teammates blocking out for their best rebounder is good coaching. Murphy is really a 10.5 a game type guy, our tempo has something to do with his success I must admit.

                    I must say you guys who have made this claim that Murphy's rebounding success is from the work of others are wrong and you build your argument off of a false premise, and you should know what that means. I'm beginning to believe it's because he's white, lol.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      Can we agree on "rarely"?
                      I think we can agree that rarely is more accurate than never.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        He gets most of his rebounds from his teammates boxing out and then he freelances to grab the loose rebound.
                        I agree.

                        A majority of Troy's boards are the flying-in leaping type. That's fine, often he's taken these away from opponents this way. But to suggest that he rebounds in a style similar to Foster is nuts. He is not a block out, hustle it down type of boarder, he just isn't. Sorry Jay, I do see Foster lock up guys to get boards much more than I see him come running into a flying rebound.

                        And is it a suprise that this is is his style (Troy I mean)? He plays offense on the arc and because he's not quick he's often on the butt end of the high PnR. He's not locked up in the low post all that often, not nearly as much as Jeff and Roy seem to be.

                        He also does pick up 2-3 a night from his own teammates, which again I'm fine with as long as we all realize this is happening. He's been a decent rebounder this year and has been getting a few tough ones per game, he's better on the boards than Roy without a doubt. But not nearly as much as the numbers suggest and not nearly enough to totally ignore the low post defense advantage Roy brings to the table.

                        12 rebounds is 12 rebounds regardless if a guy hustled his body to the core or just simply made sure he put himself in the right spot.
                        If by "right spot" you mean "recognizing" that Roy will lock up two guys down low giving you a free lane to the ball, then sure. But then viewing that way ruins what the stat of "rebound" means. It means the better stat would be the one that showed who got the TEAM in position for ANY teammate to get the rebound.

                        The point being that if Diener could get the same rebound due to the work of others, but that due to strategy they want Troy to be closest to the baseline on possession change so that he can trail for the 3 while the guards breakout ahead of the pack to pressure the defense, then 12 rebounds IS NOT 12 rebounds.

                        We've had this battle before with JO and Foster vs Dale. Peck and I have fought over it in person in fact. But I've always been willing to concede that not all rebounds are created equal.

                        Who's more likely to scramble with another player to get possession as the ball bounces to the corner, Jeff or Troy? Who's more likely to be getting a defended offensive rebound?

                        The reason Jeff's missed putbacks frustrate us is because he gets those kinds of boards in the first place.


                        Now here's my huge anti-Troy rant, based in large part due to Troy having value for 2 reasons - 3pt shots, rebounding.

                        Of the NBA's Top 40 rebounders Troy is the 5th WORST when it comes to OFF/DEF ratio. Not only that, but his ratio is twice as bad as 30 of the top 40 rebounders.

                        Troy's getting 1 OFF board for every 5.29 DEF boards. Compare to other rebounding aces - Lee (2.6), Foster (1.30), Oden (1.44), Perkins (1.94), Collison (1.77), Big Ben (1.66), Millsap (1.47), Varejao (2.59), and Biedrins (1.95).

                        The other guys in his 5+ DEF to OFF range - Sheed (8.42), Dirk (6.83), KG (5.39), Durant (5.30). Lebron is in there at 4.28. West (3.23), Camby (3.12), and Odom (3.07) follow that. No one else is over 3, and about 15 of these guys are sub 2.00.

                        Sheed (27th in RPG) is another 3 pt specialist type, but his defense is dramatically better than Troy's. Dirk (19th in RPG) is considered a soft rebounder himself and not exactly a top defender, but he's an elite scoring threat that does far more than just camp the arc waiting for someone else to get him a shot. Durant (40th in RPG) isn't even a rebounder, he's a scorer who happens to grab some boards. And KG (14th in RPG) does damn near everything so he can be excused if he fattens up on DEF boards himself. These guys are all higher on other lists than they are on the rebounding list (ie, blocks, scoring).

                        If Troy was doing lots of other stuff then okay, but his value is based in large part on his boards, just like Jeff. Unlike Jeff he's cleaning up much more on the "soft" end of the rebounding court, way more than any other elite rebounding specialists.

                        Bottom line - Troy's rebounding is okay, but not as good as his ranking would suggest. Troy's defense is better than last year, but he still struggles. Troy is a 3pt specialist, period.

                        Roy is a far more complete big man, even if his rebounding seems far weaker than Troy's. The gap isn't nearly that wide.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                          Originally posted by sloopjohnb View Post
                          I thought this thread was about Hibbert... Love the comparison to Smits! But there's a long way to go and I think he can contribute as a starter. As far as being dominant, that remains to be seen.
                          Here's why the Smits comparison is striking so many people I think

                          1) Slowish, rather awkward stick man movement.

                          2) Height, but not big hops

                          3) Ability to be a nearly undefendable scorer with just a few go-to offensive moves

                          4) Not an ace on the boards

                          The divergence is that Roy is already a better defender than Rik was, and Rik scored with mid-range shooting while Roy appears targeted to be a low post scorer.

                          We've now seen several outings this year where Roy has shown a couple of different scoring moves in the block. As he hones those it would appear that he could end up being a 14ppg guy that only gets 5-6 rpg. That will feel very Rik like.

                          Add in Roy's defense and the fact that Rik was a #2 pick while Roy went at #17 and Roy also looks like a bargain in this comparison.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                            Two things:

                            Originally posted by maragin View Post
                            I don't think never means what you think it means.
                            First, this post would have been better if you had said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


                            The other thing is, when I read threads like this one, it becomes evident that at least half of you are pretty poor at observing and describing what you see.
                            And I won't be here to see the day
                            It all dries up and blows away
                            I'd hang around just to see
                            But they never had much use for me
                            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                              Why the delete count, I was getting ready to say that I agree wholeheartedly or "word".

                              Side note: I'm thinking about trying to bring the word "word" back, not to try to be cool, but for concise functionality.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: ESPN Thorpe Chat- Hibbert mentioned.

                                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                                Why the delete count, I was getting ready to say that I agree wholeheartedly or "word".

                                Side note: I'm thinking about trying to bring the word "word" back, not to try to be cool, but for concise functionality.
                                Word x 2

                                count - you were spot on - now I wish I quoted you.....
                                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X