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

I have to ask

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

  • #16
    Re: I have to ask

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    No not the same debate, we haven't discussed this too often this season.

    I might surprise you as I'm sure I'm in the hell or high water camp

    Shot selection is largely a function of coaching. So if you think the Pacers are taking bad shots, blaming the coach is a reasonable response. A coach can put an end to it to a degree. If a player is taking bad shots, the coach can take that player out, and sit him on the bench.

    Of course this opens up several different discusions about what is bad shot selection, I won't get into that here. You also have to consider whether the team has enough talent to get good shots to begin with. If 5 of us were to play a game against an NBA team, we would take horrible shots because we aren't capable of getting good shots. Obviously this is an extreme point that I'm using to make my point.

    But if you believe the pacers take bad shots and therefore want to blame the coach, that is reasonable, one of the more reasonable approaches in this forum in awhile in egards to Jim O'Brien
    When I see Roy denied at the rim many times or see the team run 4-5+ pass AND cuts plays and just flounder for anything close to a make-able shot, then I'll understand why they pull up quick all the time.

    That hasn't even come close to happening. I wouldn't force Solo into 10 post ups a game, but I wouldn't run and hide from Roy because he muffed 2 shots at the post or got one blocked.

    Rush annoys JOB because he insists on passing up shots he thinks aren't very good. He seems to dislike shooting out of rhythm or when there's still a chance to grind it even closer to the rim. So Rush is labeled as a "flake" (paraphrase), or even more laughable called a poor defender as an excuse to bench him last year.




    Look, forget me. Let's talk other ticket buyers instead. The last couple of weeks you know what I hear from the stands? "Inside Out", "Stop Chucking" or a variety of sarcastic variations of "shoot it, your open" as they cross midcourt.

    This is lower level and can be heard at the court. I'm opposite corner of Bird, but I assume that similar comments are being yelled out toward his end too.

    The fanbase isn't complaining about gangsters or bad players or even losing per se. What they are sick of is the type of ball.

    You can ignore my rants here or dismiss them (and Peck, et al), but paying customers at the event are heckling the issue. That's a very bad sign.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I have to ask

      And Buck, it's not just my eyes that say the Pacers play a different form of offense. The stats back it too, along with the announces of other teams and various non-Indy based basketball analysts.

      Is there anyone out there nationally defending the style of play by JOB? Let's say JOB is fired tomorrow, who's shocked? Does Mark Stein write an article about how other teams are beating down the door to hire him? Is Mark Cuban blogging about how he can't believe the Pacers made such a dumb mistake? Is Bill Simmons wondering about the latest Bird blunder for letting a treasure like JOB go?



      Meanwhile I have to watch Dirk's career reborn and Dallas rolling to one of their best seasons yet. You know, because Rick's overrated.

      F'n patience. That's all it would have taken. Does anyone really want to make the case that Rick would have had the team playing the exact same style as JOB is right now? Please. Even Rick detractors won't suggest that.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I have to ask

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        And Buck, it's not just my eyes that say the Pacers play a different form of offense. The stats back it too, along with the announces of other teams and various non-Indy based basketball analysts.

        Is there anyone out there nationally defending the style of play by JOB? Let's say JOB is fired tomorrow, who's shocked? Does Mark Stein write an article about how other teams are beating down the door to hire him? Is Mark Cuban blogging about how he can't believe the Pacers made such a dumb mistake? Is Bill Simmons wondering about the latest Bird blunder for letting a treasure like JOB go?



        Meanwhile I have to watch Dirk's career reborn and Dallas rolling to one of their best seasons yet. You know, because Rick's overrated.

        F'n patience. That's all it would have taken. Does anyone really want to make the case that Rick would have had the team playing the exact same style as JOB is right now? Please. Even Rick detractors won't suggest that.
        so what are you saying.....wait it out and we will win more games.....or wait it out till job is fired?
        I CANT SPELL!

        THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I have to ask

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

          Does anyone really want to make the case that Rick would have had the team playing the exact same style as JOB is right now? Please. Even Rick detractors won't suggest that.
          That's just a funny thought...of course. Obviously Rick would play a "more precise" style of play...and a slower, more controlled pace.

          If RC were in charge, Watson would have been the starter, possibly at the beginning of the year....certainly sooner than 2010. Also, he would not have been able to stomach T-Roy's inability to defend the paint...so Solo and McBob would play a larger part. This would probably reduce Troy's role on the team as a whole. Honestly, I'm not sure how Rick would use Troy, but I'm sure he'd find a way.

          In addition, TJ would be coming off the bench rather than AJ Price. Perhaps that's where JOb deserves some credit....yet TJ should still be used. Goodness, he is not a terrible player...and under the right circumstances can be an asset.

          Hibbert would be getting fed more often. Obviously he is no JO...but I think Carlisle would attempt to use him more in the post. I wouldn't be surprised if the offense revolved around Roy passing out of the post.

          D Jones and Rush would probably be Rick's favorites...and I'm almost certain Rick would do a better job using Brandon.

          Finally, I don't think our record would be nearly as bad because defense would actually be the #1 priority. I'd say we would be talking more about making the playoffs at the present time than the draft.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I have to ask

            Who amongst the Pacers would play consistently if they were benched for taking bad shots? Roy, because he doesn't get the ball often enough to be expected to shoot covered and/or rushed jumpshots early in the clock prior to our "rebounder" being in position? I have been trying to think of another player who is not injured who would fit that description and cannot think of a single one.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I have to ask

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I want to expand this conversation beyond the pacers to the whole NBA. What you were taught is generally not what is taught in the NBA. Most teams want their best shooters taking transition threes as those are often the easiest threes their best players are going to get. With the 24 second shot clock and the great defenses in the NBA taking transition shots is a way of life
              UB I understand what you are saying here. It's not just in the NBA it is becoming more and more popular on all levels of basketball.

              To bring it back to the Pacers though I see two problems with taking quick threes or a lot of threes in general. Number one is that it really is not playing to a lot of player's strengths. Number two is it is not resulting in winning.

              If you look at the Pacer's roster there are not a lot of players that you would mark 3 point shooting as a strength.

              Granger can hit it but since he is the best scorer I would think you would want taking less than 43% of his shots from beyond the arc.

              Murphy can defiantly stand out there and hit it.

              Rush can as well. I think he is better though in the half court, inside-out with his feet set more then he is taking a quick three.

              Dunleavy can hit it from there but to me he is so versatile and can do a lot of things well on offense you really don't want to use him as a 3 point shooter a lot.

              Head can hit it from 3 but he hasn't shot the ball well from there. Price has shot a decent % but that's not really what he does best.

              Watson has shot well from 3 before but has been inconsistent over the year. Not a guy you bring in to shoot 3s.

              D. Jones and Ford should never shoot 3s.

              Obviously Foster and S. Jones shouldn't shoot any either. Nor should Tyler, Roy, or Josh although those 3 have shot a few this year.

              I understand why teams have that strategy when it plays to the stregnths of their players. I don't understand why the Pacers use that strategy when it doesn't play to the strengths of their players.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: I have to ask

                I've been wondering about this since the Tinsley vs. Phoenix debacle a few years ago.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I have to ask

                  Like BBall, says, watch what JOB does, not what he says.

                  I'm guessing the players think the same way. "I'll forget about all that talk from coach about taking good shots, and I'll just watch and see if he benches anyone for it."
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I have to ask

                    I have never thought JOB would win this team a Championship. I give him credit 4 accepting a difficult job that few wanted. He is doing a great job as a coach 4 a struggling, inexperienced team.

                    The shot selection is not what I want @ all from this team. I believe the Pacers should start Roy and give him the ball in the low post early in the game much like Smits. Injuries have plauged the Pacers more than shot selection this season.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I have to ask

                      Imagine what a JOB run game of team knockout would be. Nobody can go inside the three point arc unless to rebound the ball, but must bring it back out to shoot every time. Only three's!
                      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I have to ask

                        I didn't want him hired as coach and haven't bought a ticket since he was hired (gone on plenty of freebies tho).
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I have to ask

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          When I see Roy denied at the rim many times or see the team run 4-5+ pass AND cuts plays and just flounder for anything close to a make-able shot, then I'll understand why they pull up quick all the time.

                          That hasn't even come close to happening. I wouldn't force Solo into 10 post ups a game, but I wouldn't run and hide from Roy because he muffed 2 shots at the post or got one blocked.

                          Rush annoys JOB because he insists on passing up shots he thinks aren't very good. He seems to dislike shooting out of rhythm or when there's still a chance to grind it even closer to the rim. So Rush is labeled as a "flake" (paraphrase), or even more laughable called a poor defender as an excuse to bench him last year.




                          Look, forget me. Let's talk other ticket buyers instead. The last couple of weeks you know what I hear from the stands? "Inside Out", "Stop Chucking" or a variety of sarcastic variations of "shoot it, your open" as they cross midcourt.

                          This is lower level and can be heard at the court. I'm opposite corner of Bird, but I assume that similar comments are being yelled out toward his end too.

                          The fanbase isn't complaining about gangsters or bad players or even losing per se. What they are sick of is the type of ball.

                          You can ignore my rants here or dismiss them (and Peck, et al), but paying customers at the event are heckling the issue. That's a very bad sign.

                          Not sure any of that was directed at me or not - didn't really address anything I posted. But you did quote me, so I suppose I'll respond. I pretty much said if you want to blame the coach for the shot selection (whether you think it is good or bad and I didn't comment either way on that part of the issue) yes blame the coach I think the coach has a very direct relationship and imapct on shot selection. (Not sure what some season ticket holder yelling stuff from the stands has to do with any of my comments.

                          I hardly think I ignore your post. I might dismiss them but I explain why I do.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I have to ask

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            And Buck, it's not just my eyes that say the Pacers play a different form of offense. The stats back it too, along with the announces of other teams and various non-Indy based basketball analysts.

                            Is there anyone out there nationally defending the style of play by JOB? Let's say JOB is fired tomorrow, who's shocked? Does Mark Stein write an article about how other teams are beating down the door to hire him? Is Mark Cuban blogging about how he can't believe the Pacers made such a dumb mistake? Is Bill Simmons wondering about the latest Bird blunder for letting a treasure like JOB go?



                            Meanwhile I have to watch Dirk's career reborn and Dallas rolling to one of their best seasons yet. You know, because Rick's overrated.

                            F'n patience. That's all it would have taken. Does anyone really want to make the case that Rick would have had the team playing the exact same style as JOB is right now? Please. Even Rick detractors won't suggest that.

                            Wow. Not sure why all this is directed at me. All I said in this thread is that if you want to blame the coach for the shot selection I think that is fair. I was one of if not the biggest Rick Carlisle supporters there were, so what are you talking about - implying I assume that I didn't like or respect Rick's coaching. I'll give you a $1,000 if you find where I said or even implied that Rick Carlisle is overrated.
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-25-2010, 09:23 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I have to ask

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Wow. Not sure why asll this is directed at me. All I said in this thread is that if you want to blame the coach for the shot selection I think that is fair. I was one of if not the biggest Rick carlisle supporters there were, so what are you talking about - implying I assume that I didn't like or response Rick's coaching. I'll give you a $1,000 if you find where I said or even implied that

                              Rick carlisle is overrated.
                              Last edited by Will Galen; 01-25-2010, 09:15 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: I have to ask

                                What I blame the coach for is that there are not enough standard plays to allow us to force the ball into the mid-range and the paint. That makes it very easy for defenses to make it difficult enough for us to attack the rim that we choose not to do so.

                                I blame the players for missing the kinds of wide-open shots any coach wants them to take. I saw TONS of these on Saturday night, some coming after picks set, some on ball screens, some in transition - didn't matter, we missed them. The mix of opportunities told me they aren't just being told to shoot right away. They were very good looks, and they almost all banged off the front of the rim.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X