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

Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

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

  • #16
    Re: Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
    The thing that has baffled me is that he surged when he was basically the only option at the 2. We now have Dahntay that is complimenting Danny and Rush sees that. I would assume he'd rather have Jones shoot because he is efficient and effective right now. Maybe he needs to be put in a position similar to last spring (Heaven forbid that happens) in order for him to succeed offensively.

    Maybe.
    I suspect early on he thought he was making the best decision for the team by deferring. Now he's being told to be more aggressive and so he's forcing more shoots but missing. I do see him driving to the basket at times and actually making a few good passes from the paint. But most of the time he seems to miss the layup/dunk and he bobbles his dribble a fair amount so maybe he doesn't drive more because he is trying to avoid losing the ball - figures it is safer to shoot from the outside, safer to defer to DJones. It's clear he's not a bad kid - from all accounts he worked hard over the summer and as has been noted, he's an excellent defender at such a young age. For whatever reason his offensive confidence is badly shaken. I really don't know why, though I suspect he's over thinking things.

    I know a lot of you say it's because he's inherently passive. That made some sense to me until I started watching him closely on defense and realized not only how good he was, but how aggressive he was on that end. So clearly somewhere in there he has a drive for engagement and aggression. Why does it only come out on the defensive end? How can it be channeled toward the offensive end? Would we trade a bit of a drop off in his defense and rebounding for 10-12 efficient points per night?

    I don't know the answers to any of those questions. I've defended Rush in the past couple of weeks mostly because I think it is silly to look at a kid who has the potential to become one of the best defensive 2 guards in the league and say he's garbage or a total bust. Elite defenders at his position don't grow on trees you know, certainly not at the prolific rate that good scorers do at that position.
    Last edited by gummy; 11-19-2009, 01:44 PM.
    "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

    "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

    "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

      One thing that is different than last year is that JOB plays the 'utes more. If this continues past December though, you have to understand if Rush get less and less PT.

      He is not garbage, but he is not playing like a starter. We need him to shoot more effectively. We have not even played 10 games.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

        BRush is stuck between trying too hard and not knowing what to do.

        His teammates are picking up on his problems, they almost won't pass it to him, unless it's early in the shot clock or he's wide open for 3.

        Watch next game how many possessions go by without him even touching it.

        Honestly, I understand it, I'm not saying his teammates are wrong, it's just not something thats NOT conducive to moving forward as a team or for Brandon.

        This is where Obie may need to step in and either really work on Brandon's psyche or maybe just sit him for a few games then ease him back in via super easy match ups. Brandon needs to get his feet under him and feel like he can be sucessful.

        I guess the flip side of it is what Obie has been doing and giving him tons of minutes and try to let him bulldoze through this.

        I wish there was a way to simplify his role and say look. Don't stress play defense, set some good picks, don't over think it. Easy to say, tough to do.

        Part of me wonders, if he's ever had some tough love. It may break him completely or it may give him some mental toughness. Who knows? Something has to give soon cuz I think he's actually regressing.

        Anyone know what got him going the end of last year??
        Last edited by Speed; 11-19-2009, 02:49 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

          Originally posted by gummy View Post
          I suspect early on he thought he was making the best decision for the team by deferring. Now he's being told to be more aggressive and so he's forcing more shoots but missing. I do see him driving to the basket at times and actually making a few good passes from the paint. But most of the time he seems to miss the layup/dunk and he bobbles his dribble a fair amount so maybe he doesn't drive more because he is trying to avoid losing the ball - figures it is safer to shoot from the outside, safer to defer to DJones. It's clear he's not a bad kid - from all accounts he worked hard over the summer and as has been noted, he's an excellent defender at such a young age. For whatever reason his offensive confidence is badly shaken. I really don't know why, though I suspect he's over thinking things.
          That's the one thing about Rush's game from last night that has been largely ignored. He had 4 assists and 0 turnovers. I remember seeing Rush drive into the lane twice and set Hansbrough up for wide open jumpers. It was one of the more effective things I've seen him do off the dribble.

          I still don't think that Rush is being used correctly by the coaching staff. My gut tells me that he'd be more effective offensively as a catch and shoot player like Rip Hamilton or Ray Allen.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

            He has a simplified role. DJones has the role he left late last year. Its not like we asking him to put up 15 fga. I simply want him to be effecient at his 6-10 fga.

            It is very simple. Hit at least 35% from downtown. These 1-9 games are killing us when he plays 30 mpg +.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              UB, you seem to be one of the most long suffering posters on the board. Always slow to criticize coach and players . . .

              . . . but something happened on the way to the forum, and you apparently turned on Brandon a few games back and have little patience with him any more.

              Not that there's anything wrong with that. I would be interested in hearing more about it, though.

              In regards to your comments, I think this lineup down the stretch may have helped our offensively challenged team:

              Watson
              Head
              Jones
              Granger
              Hibbert
              There hasn't been much talk about Luther Head. I question some of his shots, but he's a decent defend from around the arc.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

                Don't know if it's been mentioned. The Backcourt shot 3-25, last night.

                That's 3-25 for Ford, Rush, Watson, Head.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Odd thoughts about still being above .500 even after losing to the Knicks

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post
                  BRush is stuck between trying too hard and not knowing what to do.

                  Anyone know what got him going the end of last year??
                  Your first sentence is the at the root of what I believe is the answer to your question.

                  I think that last year Brandon finally got going when he was given minutes without the threat of being benched due to making mistakes or missing some shots. The difference this year is that we have other more viable options than we had at nearly any point last year.

                  That threat has increased significantly this season with the arrival of Dahntay and the impending return of Dunleavy. Couple that with O'B coming right out and stating that he benched him in favor of Watson down the stretch against the Knicks where Brandon's defense could easily have made some difference due to his ability to cover more space on the floor defensively than Watson can and Brandon is likely to continue his regression in my opinion.

                  Brandon is, I believe, an extremely motivated individual who takes everything to heart and actually tries to do his best most of the time. When he tries too hard his shots don't fall because he loses his touch and rhythm. O'B (and most other coaches would as well) tries to push Brandon to shoot the ball to get through his slump. Then, when his shots from the perimeter (generally catch and shoot threes) aren't falling, Brandon is supposed to dribble penetrate and score that way. Other teams know this and are waiting for it and stop his drives, causing him to be a poor finisher. Brandon then reads both himself and the defense on the floor pretty well due to his instincts and becomes passive due to recognition that there are other better scoring options on the floor than he is and defers to others. This infuriates O'B and causes our pg's to not wat to include Brandon in the flow of the offense. Then, he is either taken out of the game entirely or the guards pass to whoever else (this year Dahntay) would ordinarily be asked to do the same thing because they are correctly looking for the best option to pass to.

                  Now, Brandon also sees poor decision making being rewarded pretty consistently by O'B, where Dahntay receives the ball and bulls into the lane hoping to draw fouls but at times making shots that he probably will be less and less effective at finishing as the season progresses and opponents decide to shut that down, while Brandon tries to show at least some patience and not force things when he doesn't feel like his shot is falling. Also, taking chances on defense and going for stops and being a ball hawking defender, which is what Dahntay pretty much does most of the time, got Brandon benched last year for being a poor team defender instead of being hailed as a defensive savior of some kind. This has to truly confuse Brandon, because last year Brandon was benched for similar play, at least in his mind, early in the year before O'Brien had no alternative but to play him when Dunleavy, Marquis, and Danny were not available for a long stretch.

                  I believe that O'Brien benching Brandon early and often last year has led him to more of a mistake avoidance mindset, which is about the worst possible thing that can happen to a shooting guard who is expected to score as his primary function on our offensively oriented team. Brandon has to be feeling more pressure and confusion at this point in his young career than he ever did last year due to the competition from Dahntay and now the likely insertion of Dunleavy into the rotation which should basically wipe out whatever minutes Brandon would have gotten. This pressure basically has re-frozen Brandon this season, and it is hurting the overall performance of both Brandon and the Pacers.

                  What should be done at this point to sort things out? I really doubt that anything short of a mind reset by either a sports psychistrist or a trade would change the cycle and behavioral pattern of Brandon in his current situation. For the good of the team, I can see why Brandon taking on the role that quite a few thought Dahntay would have is the best decision for the franchise in the near term -- Brandon being a defensive specialist who shuts down the opponents best scorers (though that is plainly not what O'B thinks) without worrying about scoring himself.

                  All in all, I can see a tiny amount of value in benching him at this point, even though it will only serve to reinforce all that is currently wrong with him in my opinion. The team will likely adjust and flow better due to having a more balanced scoring attack despite being less effective defensively, especially once Dunleavy returns. In the meantime, double point guard lineups will be utilized with an alarming frequency as we have seen before, with TJ being utilized as a dribble penetrating 2 on offense and a point on defense, and Watson being the point on offense and a woefully undersized 2 on defense.

                  And so, the rollercoaster ride continues. Whee.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X