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

Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

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

  • #16
    Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

    I refuse to believe that Inferno ( just like McRoberts ) is so bad and detrimmental to the offensive end that they do not warrant any playing time. I understand that we are slowly ( yet surely ) getting back to a healthy lineup...but there has to be a way to balence the playing time out so that we aren't wearing out certain Players ( specifically ones that JO'B heavily leans on ) while not playing others enough that could help out.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

      so we go out and get a so-called defensive specialists to a long term deal just so that he can sit on the bench?

      had we not heard from O'Brien before that it was the defensive play of the players that would set their time? yet the recent comments about spacing the floor/etc have all been about offense...

      I haven't watched the Ps this year - just going by what ya'll are saying/etc...This is just me thinking out loud more than anything else

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Wow....I am really surprised by the responses here.....Inferno went from a great pickup during the start of the season...heck, even a leader at times on the floor...to someone that can't even crack the lineup cuz his offensive game doesn't fit the style of a Coach that many of us wouldn't mind seeing gone.

        I'm not saying that he's a savior or anything.....I'm just surprised that the opinion of Inferno has changed ( for some of you ) so much since the beginning of the season.
        I'm not.

        I've always been in favor of playing the best players at their relative positions, as well as playing guys to their strengths, not their weaknesses. I'm also mindful of acquiring players who fit the coach's style of play. Dahntay has become know for his defense, not his offense. Even my wife who has become a "student of the game" in recent years has stated to me that the reason Dahntay was so effective early in the season was because opposing teams didn't know he was capable of driving and scoring from the elbow down. However, they also recognized that he's not that good of a shooter from the field. So, they defend him tight, taking away his ability to shoot the ball and, thus forcing him to drive the lanes where it's become very clear he doesn't have very good ball control and he won't stop on a dime, ala, Quis, and take the mid-range jumper in traffic.

        So, no. I'd only use Dahntay sparingly but in particular in those instances where you need a defensive stop. He'd likely be a 3rd or 4th scoring option among the reserves and no higher than a 4th option among the starters if I were in JOB's shoes along the sideline.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          I refuse to believe that Inferno ( just like McRoberts ) is so bad and detrimmental to the offensive end that they do not warrant any playing time. I understand that we are slowly ( yet surely ) getting back to a healthy lineup...but there has to be a way to balence the playing time out so that we aren't wearing out certain Players ( specifically ones that JO'B heavily leans on ) while not playing others enough that could help out.
          The kicker in all this - who shoots the 3 better, McRoberts or Tyler? Who blocks more shots?

          So do you need spacing and defense or not?

          They aren't drawing fouls so JOB talks about Danny DRIVING THE BALL MORE...oops, DJ does that and it's a bad thing.


          Look, DJ has slumped a bit and I think he's discouraged by the direction of the team and the leadership. He's been expressing just that for some time now. A lot of us thought he was talking about TJ when he was upset about guys being lazy.

          So that might mean JOB can't play him as much just because his total output is down. But ultimately there is one very strong theme that continues to run through every JOB quote - SMALL is good, 3PT is good.

          The rest is completely lip service, and not even that since Josh hit a few and still got benched.

          Add to that Dun has finally hit some 3s but he's played quite a bit for a guy that teams could leave so far they'd need GPS to find him again and still count on him to miss the shot.

          Why the F did Larry spend money on DJ if he has to be able to shoot the outside shot in order to play? If DJ has been playing weaker defense lately (I think there's a case for that) then just say that instead. Say "DJ is slumping, his defense hasn't been sharp enough to offset the offense, and we'll play it by ear for awhile". We're grown ups, we can handle the truth.



          BTW, I loved the "adjust for defense by playing Troy at C instead of Roy". Yeah, that's what most teams think - "I need defense, someone get me Troy Murphy".

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            I refuse to believe that Inferno ( just like McRoberts ) is so bad and detrimmental to the offensive end that they do not warrant any playing time. I understand that we are slowly ( yet surely ) getting back to a healthy lineup...but there has to be a way to balence the playing time out so that we aren't wearing out certain Players ( specifically ones that JO'B heavily leans on ) while not playing others enough that could help out.
            Sure there is. You use players based on what they bring to the table.

            Example: Robert Horray in his later years wasn't a starter, but he was an effective catch-n-shot perimeter scorer. Same became true of Brent Barry as his career wound down.

            JOB just has to realize that Dahntay Jones was brought in not so much to score the ball, but rather to be a solid lockdown defender - something he hasn't done very well yet either since acquiring him, IMO.

            You use players based on what they bring to the hardwood. Dahntay's specialty should be demonstrating his defensive capability, not attempting to showcase his offense. Still, I'm sure that eventually JOB will find playing time for Dahntay. I just hope Dahntay realizes his weakness as clearly articulated by the coaching staff and that he works on his game, as well as sharpening his defensive skills for which he was brought here for in order to be a better asset to the team.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

              Naptown,

              I couldn't have said it better myself.

              I'm a "tell it like it is (TILIS)" kinda guy. So, I agree with your statment, "DJ is slumping, his defense hasn't been sharp enough to offset the offense, and we'll play it by ear for awhile," comment 100%. I'd much rather JOB makes such an honest statement (because Dahntay's defense has been slipping of late and his offense leaves alot to be desired) than for him to try to qualify benching him because his shots aren't falling. Considering that he isn't known for his offense but rather his defense, such a statement behing such a move would make sense to any Pacers fan who pays close enough attention to this team and this player.

              Well said, my man!
              Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-12-2010, 05:10 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                Naptown and Nuffsaid I agree with you both but in DJ defense....... JOB had him guarding PF when Murph and Granger were hurt. Really a 6'6 210 lb SG guarding PF, he's setting him up for failure IMO. He had better options to guard them like Josh sitting there on the bench but he sticks DJ on them.
                I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                  Let's keep it real. JOB want players to shoot the 3...period. Plus, everyone is saying D. Jones' defense had fallen off, but he's being matched up against PFs at 6'6". When Granger and Murphy came back, I really thought that Head would be regulated to the bench, and D. Jones would be inserted at the starting SG (Rush plays better coming off the bench). I would have NEVER thought he would fall out of the rotation. That's some b.s. D. Jones is a better driver coming off the wings...not from the post. Did JOB see something in practice that suddenly made he think that D. Jones would be a better post defender/player? After the DNP-CD for Jones, I was convinced that JOB just doesn't know WTF he's doing. But he sure does love playing two PGs at the same time, and playing Murphy at the C who's our weakest post defender and offensive rebounder.
                  Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 01-12-2010, 05:17 PM.


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                    Understood, but my question to you (and others who've made this same observation) is were those PFs the opposing team's best players? If your answer is "YES", then Dahntay, supposingly being one of this team's better on-the-ball defenders, drew that assignment out of necessity.
                    Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-12-2010, 05:20 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                      Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
                      Naptown and Nuffsaid I agree with you both but in DJ defense....... JOB had him guarding PF when Murph and Granger were hurt. Really a 6'6 210 lb SG guarding PF, he's setting him up for failure IMO. He had better options to guard them like Josh sitting there on the bench but he sticks DJ on them.
                      Great minds think alike .


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                        Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                        Understood, but my question to you (and others who've made this same observation) is where those PFs the opposing team's best players? If you're answer is "YES", then Dahntay, supposingly being one of this team's better on-the-ball defenders, drew that assignment out of necessity.
                        I would have taken my chances with McRoberts and S. Jones...not a 6'6" perimeter defender. Perhaps we'll have Granger guard Tony Parker and Chris Paul in the future.


                        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                          Great minds think alike .
                          I wouldn't call my mind great, thanks. Lil dirty but not great.
                          I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                          Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                          Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                            Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                            Understood, but my question to you (and others who've made this same observation) is were those PFs the opposing team's best players? If your answer is "YES", then Dahntay, supposingly being one of this team's better on-the-ball defenders, drew that assignment out of necessity.
                            Ok one that I remember off hand was Memphis. DJ was guarding Randolph....... not Gay or Mayo..... Randolph.

                            EDIT: I also can remember Harrington backing him down several times.
                            Last edited by sportfireman; 01-12-2010, 05:39 PM.
                            I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                            Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                            Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                              Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
                              Ok one that I remember off hand was Memphis. DJ was guarding Randolph....... not Gay or Mayo..... Randolph.

                              EDIT: I also can remember Harrington backing him down several times.
                              Well, there you go...Dahntay at the 4 (PF) atleast for this defensive assignment was done out of necessity and rightly so. Zach Randolph ate us up last time these two teams played. I'd have to assume that JOB figured he'd do it again. Plus, you have to remember, Rudy Gay really didn't beat us from the floor. He "earned" 10 of his 31 pts from the line. Still, you're concerns here are understood and well received.

                              'Nuff Said.
                              Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-12-2010, 06:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Who would you bench or diminish his time to give D.Jones sometime???

                                Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                                Well, there you go...Dahntay at the 4 (PF) atleast for this defensive assignment was done out of necessity and rightly so. Zach Randolph ate us up last time these two teams played. I'd have to assume that JOB figured he'd do it again. Plus, you have to remember, Rudy Gay really didn't beat us from the floor. He "earned" 10 of his 31 pts from the line. Still, you're concerns here are understood and well received.

                                'Nuff Said.
                                I understand that but we had another available big man ready to step in.
                                I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                                Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                                Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X