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

Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

    I would go with Plan B. If there is any way we can move Ford for an asset or salary relief, we really should look at it. Ford tends to dominate the ball which is about the worst thing a PG can possibly do. PG's are supposed to make other players better. Dominating the ball actually makes them worse. It allows their defenders to rest and attack on offense. It's just a terrible trait for a PG.

    Jack is a tweener and tends to make crazy decisions with it, but I do think the ball moves a little better with him on the floor...even if once in awhile the referee gets a pass. Also, for some reason I think Jack has some potential to improve while with Ford, that's what you're going to get. Let's just hope Larry makes the right decision.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

      Originally posted by ABADays View Post
      Since I'm not the X and O guy most of you are I just have to have a brief observation.

      I'm for JJ simply from a leadership standpoint.

      I will take issue with one point. I don't think acceptance of mediocrity is valid nor do I think the expectations are lowered. What I think is the front office was in a tough spot. They didn't have a lot of talent or money to deal with. A decision had to be made. I think serviceable with high character was an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. The fan interest was sinking quicker than the Titanic. In my opinion, Bird did a superb job - beyond anything that could have been expected. At the same time, the message was loud and clear - there will be no tolerance with "police blotters".

      It may take a three-year plan to put the competitive team together we all want to see. But it had to be a one-year plan for the character issues. There are a lot of variables to consider with the increased attendance. All I will say is it did increase and I think, by large measure, it's because the players measured up to the character expectations. People could pull for this team.

      With that established, the team can now make the player adjustments to be a contender. I don't see how anyone would think this is the team Bird wants. But I bet he gets the team he wants.
      This.... This right here!

      I know that Larry Bird has a lot of detractors around here. Heck, I believe that I coined the phrase at a forum party, "Boomer for the adults", but at the end of the day Larry has done a fantastic job giving us something to work with and a little hope.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

        TJ's defense was the single biggest disappointment I had in terms of the two new PGs overall. T-bird, I know you've been on this thing about how Ford has been constrained by the defensive system and at one point I think you said he was forced to cover for Jack a lot when they were out there together.

        Perhaps there's some truth to that, but does being forced to think a lot within the defense really excuse so much getting beat like a punching bag by penetration in straight-up situations? Is it really valid explanation for the alleged fastest guy in the league to have such non-existent lateral movement and footwork? Might this signal something else? Like lack of effort or commitment?

        As far as ABA's leadership angle, I know there are ways to lead that might not be as observable in what we see and there's obviously a good deal we aren't privy to, but TJ doesn't display the same level of passion and observable qualities that Jack does IMO.

        Assuming that neither of these guys are the starting PG of a future, title-contending Pacers team, a guy like Jack who does have the versatility and the passion might make a good, veteran 3rd guard by the time we get to a point to challenge. Just a thought and only based on his willingness to relinquish a starting gig at any given time.

        Whatever the case, all this also would hinge on what would be coming back in return for either TJ or JJ. If you can get Speights and Evans, of course you pull the trigger for either of our guys. I don't know that I do that if I'm Philly. I suppose Miller is a financial issue for them, but I consider him better than either of our points. I don't know that TJ is that tradeable at all with his contract.

        And what about Trevor Ariza?
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

          Option B

          JJ has better leadership, better defender, can play the small 2 if needed and remember
          Diener is our back up. I do not want two small pg's on this team.
          So trade TJ for a better draft pick or trade for a PF.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

            Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
            To BillS, Cable, and Count: I think the scenario you envision, my scenario "B" of re-signing Jack to be the starter, and then trading Ford for a power player inside is the most conventional train of thought that I think most fans will choose at this point. In this case, I think the majority is mistaken.

            I fail to see why a team that struggles so much defensively should base one of its biggest decisions on offensive concerns however. Especially since I think Ford is a slightly better individual player offensively, and I don't agree that our offense from a team standpoint flows that much better with Jack playing instead. I think Jack's defense was this season a smidgen better defending the point of attack than Ford's, but neither was a stopper by any means.

            I guess I must view Jack as more of a "small 2" guard, a poor man's version of Ben Gordon, while you guys view him as starting point guard material for a really good team. He has intangibles in terms of attitude, toughness, leadership, etc etc that I like, but I think you plan a team with "purity in guards" at the point, and I think he is a mini shooting guard masquerading as a point guard.
            It may be simply a sign of my own lack of ability to interpret what I'm seeing on the floor. I know by the numbers that our largest flaw is at the defensive end, I also see that every game we seem to have one guy that comes from nowhere and kills us because we have to spend our team energy on the main go-to guys.

            I know that in my head.

            In my heart, though, I see that time after time when we DO manage a stop or force a turnover, we get to the offensive end and can't capitalize on it.

            I don't think Jack is some head-and-shoulders above TJ, certainly I think TJ has the ABILITY to create shots and do some amazing things on offense. It is TJ's head that bothers me, and I think Jack's willingness to work the floor as a whole is the deciding factor for me.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
              Perhaps there's some truth to that, but does being forced to think a lot within the defense really excuse so much getting beat like a punching bag by penetration in straight-up situations? Is it really valid explanation for the alleged fastest guy in the league to have such non-existent lateral movement and footwork?
              This is my biggest disappointment with TJ as well. I just don't understand it. I expected his defensive weakness to be getting posted up by bigger guards, not getting blown by out front.

              Jack is tough and a leader. TJ has shown some maturity in the way he has responded with the change at the end of the season.

              I don't like Jack at the 2 guard, at all. I just did not like TJ/Jack on the floor like that.

              While PG is not our strongest position, I do think that the Jack/TJ combination is a valid one on a contender as long as you have two good wings, which we appear to have in Danny and Brandon. The missing piece, IMO, is a true power forward. I'm not trying bash Troy on that - he's had a great season, but I feel we need a bit more 'power' at the 4.
              You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
              All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

              - Jimmy Buffett

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                Im liking option B. We should try to resign Jack right away and move Ford and Foster (possibly) for a big man
                "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                  Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                  Since I'm not the X and O guy most of you are I just have to have a brief observation.

                  I'm for JJ simply from a leadership standpoint.

                  I will take issue with one point. I don't think acceptance of mediocrity is valid nor do I think the expectations are lowered. What I think is the front office was in a tough spot. They didn't have a lot of talent or money to deal with. A decision had to be made. I think serviceable with high character was an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. The fan interest was sinking quicker than the Titanic. In my opinion, Bird did a superb job - beyond anything that could have been expected. At the same time, the message was loud and clear - there will be no tolerance with "police blotters".

                  It may take a three-year plan to put the competitive team together we all want to see. But it had to be a one-year plan for the character issues. There are a lot of variables to consider with the increased attendance. All I will say is it did increase and I think, by large measure, it's because the players measured up to the character expectations. People could pull for this team.

                  With that established, the team can now make the player adjustments to be a contender. I don't see how anyone would think this is the team Bird wants. But I bet he gets the team he wants.
                  Absolutely, 100% agree with all aspects of this post. JJ is definitely a leader on the floor which we haven't had in years.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                    I also think health issues are a factor to consider. Jack is much more reliable in that department. Add that to his better leadership, chemistry and defensive qualities and I think there's the answer.

                    In any case both are very descent point guards and I wouldn't be overly disappointed if Bird picks Ford over Jack

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                      Not to mention Jack has a nice shoe collection and every time I shoot free throws on 2k9 I have to hear about it from my roommate! That alone is enough to keep him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                        I like Jack as our PG over TJ

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                          I think the concern that we cannot deal TJ because we don't have Jack locked into a contract is a small concern. The reason why that is a small concern is that none of our PG's are all that good.

                          In fact, we have less talent at the PG position than we have had since the early 1990's. Both Tinsley and Jackson were far better. Anthony Johnson may have been better, considering his very solid defense. Travis Best was pretty similar...and also had very good D. We have to all take a breath and realize that those PG's all played on much, much better teams and the expectations were simply much higher. So the bottom line is that losing either or both of them is not the end of the world. This team will never be a contender with either of those PG's at the helm. In the meantime, it will not be terribly difficult to acquire another mediocre PG if we lose one of them. We may take a step down, but it will be a small one, particularly with Diener on the team. Life has its risks. This one is minor...and not worth stopping a deal that will move TJ.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                            I don't care who they keep or who they start just so long as we do not have Jarret Jack playing anything other than spot min. at the two (more would be ok due to injury). But we just can not have another year of Jack-Ford on the floor for large min. every game.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                              I guess I wouldn't be too upset - strictly from a talent standpoint - if we lost either of our PGs. But one thing that they both brought was professionalism. And in Jack's case it was the intangibles he brought as well - leadership, toughness, etc.
                              I know Artest's antics were hard to swallow, but we really haven't had a player as defensively gifted who played his heart out like Ron since. And I think that Ron gave the team an identity, one of toughness...and Jack reminds me of him in that way, minus the drama. I remember shortly after Ron left, Danny Granger said Ron's advice to him was "Don't take possessions off"...certainly with the huge wins we had this year over top flight teams, then losses to sub .500 clubs the next day, tells me collectively this team took way too many possessions (and games) off.
                              For that reason, provided we can get him reasonably, I like Jack. No, I don't think he's the saviour at PG, but he brings what Foster does every night.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                                Great Post T-Bird. Your concerns with JJ are somewhat close to my own. I also agree JJ will want a starting spot. IMO He deserves it. This is where my thoughts begin differ from yours. TJ lost his starting job. More importantly, he could not win it back. Some will tend to look past this as inconsequential. I however looked at this chain of events as not so much what JJ did but what TJ didn't.
                                To TJ's credit he never quit. He came in with the second unit and continued to work hard. To me his problem is not so much a mental thing but a physical thing. His motor is always in warp speed. You may think that this is a good thing, but when the forth quarter rolls around he simply does not have the legs to do the things he did in the first three quarters. This is where I see his biggest problems occur.
                                A good player will play within his limits and refine the things he can control throughout the whole game. This to me is where to me Jarrett shines. I am not saying Jarrett is the second coming he just seems to keep his abilities in check and doesn't overcompensate to much.
                                IMO The best thing that can happen to TJ believe or not is AGE. I always thought and will continue to think that if he could just pull back the thrusters a half a notch, he may actually be able to sustain that level through out the whole game. I really think Larry and JOB see a future with TJ. I am just not sure they see TJ starting.
                                On the flip side, Larry and JOB could be just showcasing JJ as a starter hoping teams will take notice and want to talk this off season. I think this theory is less likely to be what is actually going on. I will end my thoughts on this by saying "I believe we are a better team with Jarrett Jack starting, not because of what he does but what TJ doesn't ". This is why I say look for takers for TJ and hope his trade value is high enough to land us a some help in the front court.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X