Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Pacers-Blazers Post Game

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

  • Pacers-Blazers Post Game

    There's not one, so I'll start it.

    I really enjoyed watching this game last night. I don't know why. I'm sure it's a combination of lowered expectations, the Blazers being my second favorite team, and a more varied offense.

    I thought our offense looked better without Danny on the floor. There were far fewer early long-range jumpers. We fed Hibbert in the post far more often. There was a bit more ball and player movement. It was nice to watch. Portland is an excellent defensive team, and we managed to play some pretty fantastic offense for 2 quarters (2nd, 3rd).

    Here are my thoughts:

    Our starting lineup sucks. I'm not going to go back and do the research right now, but how many games in a row have we basically been run off the floor during the first 5 minutes of the game? It's seems like it happens pretty much every night. Then we bring in some bench guys, do a pretty good job of playing catch-up for 2 quarters, and then fade down the stretch.

    LaMarcus Aldridge is good. I know he scored 10 points in a row with Troy trying to guard him, but I think that says more about Aldridge than it does about Troy. He was hitting some very difficult shots. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Troy was playing good defense on him, but Murphy wasn't just giving up dunks or wide open jumpers. If Aldridge is going to hit turnaround jumpers like that, there are only 5-6 guys in the NBA who are going to be able to slow him down, and none of them are on our roster.

    Brandon Roy is good. I hope Danny watched the 4th quarter. That's how the best player on a team is supposed to play when the game's close.

    AJ Price deserves minutes. The 2-10 shooting was a bit of an anomaly. We all know the kid can shoot. His pass to Dunleavy was probably one of the best 3 passes we've seen from all season. I'd be 100% happy with a Watson-Price PG tandem for the rest of the year.

    I think Hibbert got hurt in the 3rd quarter. The TV showed him on the bench wincing and talking to some trainers. At least that's how I'm choosing to explain him not coming back in the game when he was playing pretty well.

    Rush played pretty well in the 2nd half yesterday. I'm hoping we'll see a turnaround while Danny's out. He got in to a nice little tete-a-tete with Brandon Roy for a couple possessions. He wasn't able to stop Roy (not many can) but he was able to score on him twice in a row.

    Why can't Foster and Hibbert play together? That makes more sense than Hansbrough-Murphy. It's not like Jeff is totally locked in to the center position.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  • #2
    Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

    Roy grabbed his shoulder right before he shot and missed both free throws and then came out of the game. He was being worked on for quite some time on the bench.

    I think Luther Head played nicely. He bring some instant offense that we desperately need.

    On the way home from the game listening to the radio I was completely surprised to hear A.J. went 2-10 and Tyler went 4-14. It didn't seem like it all while being at the game. A.J. actually looked like a point guard out there, so I probably chose to overlook his poor shooting. Tyler definitely forces his offense, but honestly someone has to for us.

    I know T.J. has hit some big shots for us down the stretch so I understand him playing, but he was playing pretty terribly last night.

    I re-read Larry's Bird Watching book this past weekend (trying to remember the better times) and I'm paraphrasing, but he mentioned how no matter what his rotation was if someone was hot or playing better he would ride that out. He gave the example that Mully got hot one game and he had to cut Jalen's minutes and that eventually Jalen understood because it was better for the team. I wish O'B would realize when we have a lineup that's working to stick with it and not by default go back to the vets. I know this horse has been beaten to death, but we lost that game last night when the starters (+Dunleavy, -Rush) came back in.

    If A.J. Price is outplaying Ford, you go with Price. It's that simple. If Tyler is outplaying Murph, you go with Tyler. I understand Tyler's minutes were limited last night, but do you think that was really the deciding factor? I just want the best basketball team on the floor and that is not necessarily the vets. Some nights maybe it is, but that doesn't mean it has to be that way every night. I could be terribly wrong, I just don't think O'Brien is willing to be flexible on a game by game basis when it comes to rotations. I know he changes the starting line-ups almost every game, but that's not what I'm talking about. IMO, everyone in the building last night knew which line-up got us back in that game last night except the one who needed to, the coach.
    Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

      I really enjoyed watching Foster work against Aldridge. He forced Aldridge into tough shots, when he took shots. Usually, Jeff was on him so tight that he had to pass the ball out. Imagine if everyone played D like that....

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

        When Bird went with the "hot hand," it generally meant he was choosing between a Chris Mullin and a Jalen Rose, or one of the Davises and a Rik Smits, or towards the end, a Mark Jackson and an experienced Travis Best.

        It's much easier to go with the hot hand, when the hot hand has a history of performing.

        As to Foster and Hibbert playing together, the core problem is that it brings yet another defender into the paint, and provides a natural option to send the double team at Roy.

        The two have not played together at all this season, but they saw 220 minutes of action together last year. It was helpful defensively, but damaging offensively. It was a very, very slight positive, about 0.23 pts per 100 on a net basis.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          As to Foster and Hibbert playing together, the core problem is that it brings yet another defender into the paint, and provides a natural option to send the double team at Roy.

          The two have not played together at all this season, but they saw 220 minutes of action together last year. It was helpful defensively, but damaging offensively. It was a very, very slight positive, about 0.23 pts per 100 on a net basis.
          Was it a net positive or negative when you compare to the Roy/Murphy stats from this year?

          Also, Foster and Hibbert are both very good passers. I would think that they'd be able to effectively deal with double teams in that manner at least some of the time. I also think that Hibbert is substantially better this year offensively than he was last year.

          I agree that it's not an ideal pairing. However, I like the idea of our best offensive post player and shot-blocker being able to be on the court with our best post defender and best rebounder. Also, I feel like Foster deserves his minutes (unquestionably so, IMO) and that Roy's just going to get screwed in this trade-off. You can phrase it that Roy is getting benched for Foster and make it more palatable, but in reality he's getting benched for Murphy - whom he's dramatically out preforming so far this season.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

            Originally posted by count55 View Post
            When Bird went with the "hot hand," it generally meant he was choosing between a Chris Mullin and a Jalen Rose, or one of the Davises and a Rik Smits, or towards the end, a Mark Jackson and an experienced Travis Best.

            It's much easier to go with the hot hand, when the hot hand has a history of performing.

            As to Foster and Hibbert playing together, the core problem is that it brings yet another defender into the paint, and provides a natural option to send the double team at Roy.

            The two have not played together at all this season, but they saw 220 minutes of action together last year. It was helpful defensively, but damaging offensively. It was a very, very slight positive, about 0.23 pts per 100 on a net basis.
            I completely understand what you're saying, but their history has to start somewhere. I probably used a bad analogy anyway because it wasn't necessarily a hot hand, it was just the younger guys flat out outplaying the vets against Portland. Like I said, I just want the best guys on the floor during that given game. I wish O'B wasn't so set in his ways with the vets, that's all.
            Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

              Originally posted by USF View Post
              Like I said, I just want the best guys on the floor during that given game. I wish O'B wasn't so set in his ways with the vets, that's all.
              The problem is that they are all bad in their own ways. That's why this argument goes on - for every "player A shoots better than player B" there's a "player B defends better than player A". About the only clear point of congruence here is that Murphy isn't living up to what his positive is supposed to be and is still subject to all his negatives. If it weren't for that nobody would be able to agree on where JOB is screwing up.
              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


              • #8
                Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                The problem is that they are all bad in their own ways. That's why this argument goes on - for every "player A shoots better than player B" there's a "player B defends better than player A". About the only clear point of congruence here is that Murphy isn't living up to what his positive is supposed to be and is still subject to all his negatives. If it weren't for that nobody would be able to agree on where JOB is screwing up.
                Yeah, I know what you mean. It's just frustrating watching T.J. and Murph (in this game/instance) go out there and lose the momentum that the second unit had accomplished. It's not the first time this has happened this season.
                Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

                  Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                  Was it a net positive or negative when you compare to the Roy/Murphy stats from this year?

                  Also, Foster and Hibbert are both very good passers. I would think that they'd be able to effectively deal with double teams in that manner at least some of the time. I also think that Hibbert is substantially better this year offensively than he was last year.

                  I agree that it's not an ideal pairing. However, I like the idea of our best offensive post player and shot-blocker being able to be on the court with our best post defender and best rebounder. Also, I feel like Foster deserves his minutes (unquestionably so, IMO) and that Roy's just going to get screwed in this trade-off. You can phrase it that Roy is getting benched for Foster and make it more palatable, but in reality he's getting benched for Murphy - whom he's dramatically out preforming so far this season.



                  Hyperbole at work.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

                    Originally posted by GuffeyRay View Post
                    [/B]


                    Hyperbole at work.
                    You clearly haven't watched a game all year.
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

                      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                      You clearly haven't watched a game all year.
                      I'd say Murphy is underperforming but I wouldn't say Roy is "dramatically" outperforming him.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

                        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                        You clearly haven't watched a game all year.
                        Not true! Troy is having a down year so far, however to say that Roy has outplayed him dramaticaly is hyperbole. I do watch the games, I just watch without the rose colored glasses some wear in their effort to build up Roy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          I'd say Murphy is underperforming but I wouldn't say Roy is "dramatically" outperforming him.
                          Every big on the team is dramatically outperforming Murphy. Even the ones in suits behind the bench.
                          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                          -Lance Stephenson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers-Blazers Post Game

                            Originally posted by GuffeyRay View Post
                            Not true! Troy is having a down year so far, however to say that Roy has outplayed him dramaticaly is hyperbole. I do watch the games, I just watch without the rose colored glasses some wear in their effort to build up Roy.
                            I'm far from trying to build up Roy. But he is dramatically outplaying Troy because we don't instantly get worse every time Roy steps on the floor. That is not the case with Troy.
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X