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

Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

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

  • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    So again, we have a disconnect, because I can't see in my mind how, if you don't have your best team on the floor, you are trying to win.

    The guys on the FLOOR may be trying to win this particular game, but the team as a whole isn't trying to win this particular game.
    Once the playoffs were out of reach, trying to win should not have meant trying to win that night. It should have meant trying to win this year, and making the playoffs this year and into the future.

    My opinion is, it was selfish of the coach to sacrifice future growth for the sake of his own employment which was probably safe anyway, but that's for another thread probably.

    Originally posted by BillS
    And another place where we'll just have to disagree. The beginning of the season (including preseason and training camp), after a summer of working on issues, when you have a team you can be pretty sure will be around for lots of games, is exactly the time when you work with your players.

    Of course, another disagreement is that I think Josh is actually capable of more after his summer than he was last spring, but that's another argument
    Is Josh better this year after working his butt off all summer? I would hope so, otherwise he sure wasted a lot of time and effort. But do you not think he was capable of playing in games that were essentially garbage time at tip-off? Don't you think he would have been better prepared for the games this year that actually matter again?

    Comment


    • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      My opinion is, it was selfish of the coach to sacrifice future growth for the sake of his own employment which was probably safe anyway, but that's for another thread probably.
      I don't think that's the reason, since he already had the extension. I would be more inclined to believe that I'm not the only one who believes in the value of continuing trying to field the best team more than simply putting young players on the floor because they are young.

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      Is Josh better this year after working his butt off all summer? I would hope so, otherwise he sure wasted a lot of time and effort. But do you not think he was capable of playing in games that were essentially garbage time at tip-off? Don't you think he would have been better prepared for the games this year that actually matter again?
      First, I really do think Josh should have gotten more time last year.

      Second, I don't think it would have done any more than solidified what he was already doing. I think what he is showing me after the summer is something he wasn't going to develop through playing time, and that is a more complete and rounded game.

      Third, I don't think there's any such thing as a regular season game that is essentially garbage time at tip-off.
      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


      • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

        How can you say Josh should have gotten more minutes and then argue how JOb handled the situation was correct?

        That's talking about both sides of your mouth. He either deserved to play, or he didn't.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          That's where we completely disagree, then. I don't think the season ends just because you missed the playoffs. There are still reasons to try to win.
          WTF wat reason? i would rather lose at the end to get a better pick and delvope the young guys. But we are still playing 2 win with the young players.
          Last edited by pacer4ever; 10-15-2010, 04:07 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            How can you say Josh should have gotten more minutes and then argue how JOb handled the situation was correct?

            That's talking about both sides of your mouth. He either deserved to play, or he didn't.
            Where did I say how JOB handled the situation was "correct"? I said it wasn't a disaster.

            We're talking about gray areas as if they were absolutes. If Josh got 5 more minutes of time for more games, I'd have been OK with that. That isn't the same as, say, giving him 20 minutes per game.
            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


            • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

              Hey Bill can I get you avatar?
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                You're saying that younger players shouldn't get more playing time when they're out of the playoff race because they're losing by close margins, but you think McRoberts should have gotten more time?

                I'm sorry, but McRoberts didn't go from getting DNP-CD's to being the starting PF because of the work he did this offseason. He didn't suddenly morph into this starting caliber player.

                He didn't get any shot at playing, and therefore couldn't play his way into the rotation. And when he did play, and played well, it was deemed "irrelevant."

                Now, suddenly, he's your starting 4!? It doesn't make sense. I try to stick by the common sense rule, and this fails it.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  You're saying that younger players shouldn't get more playing time when they're out of the playoff race because they're losing by close margins, but you think McRoberts should have gotten more time?
                  No. I'm saying that you don't sacrifice winning in order to develop young players. If there is time available, of course you develop your young players. I believe that there were minutes where Josh could have played last year that did not hurt the chances of winning. I also think Josh was a better player than some of the players that JOB put on the court - which, if you look, is a situation I DISTINCTLY stated did not fall in the scope of this argument.

                  This thread is about winning vs. development, not about whether or not you do development at all.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  I'm sorry, but McRoberts didn't go from getting DNP-CD's to being the starting PF because of the work he did this offseason. He didn't suddenly morph into this starting caliber player.

                  He didn't get any shot at playing, and therefore couldn't play his way into the rotation. And when he did play, and played well, it was deemed "irrelevant."

                  Now, suddenly, he's your starting 4!? It doesn't make sense. I try to stick by the common sense rule, and this fails it.
                  OK, I really don't know how to answer this.

                  I believe there was time available for Josh last year that did not impact the question of WINNING vs. development. Therefore, he should have gotten fewer DNP-CDs or more minutes in other games. That doesn't contradict anything I've said here.

                  I think Josh is your starting 4 this year for 2 reasons. One is that he's the best of what we have left, not because he's "morphed" into a top 5 Power Forward. The second is essentially the reason why he's the best of what we have left - because he is a more well-rounded player than he was last year because of the time he spent focusing on his weaknesses over the summer.

                  Neither of those has anything to do with whether I think JOB was correct in calling Josh "irrelevant" (I don't). We also haven't been talking about whether the only way to get into the rotation is to be put into the rotation - that's a whole 'nother thread.

                  THIS thread is about whether you focus on winning or whether you focus on development. I believe you can focus on winning and still play the young guys, but if push comes to shove you focus on winning. As part of that, though, I believe there are places where young guys can develop. I think JOB didn't use those opportunities last year.
                  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


                  • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                    Wow... First of all, my apologies to BillS. I left at about 11 AM to pick up my granddaughter in Chicago and just returned. I've kind of left you out there all alone today.

                    First of all... to make a point about Josh McRoberts. Those of you you are arguing to play the youngsters seem to be thinking "Golly Jeez. The coach is finally doing what he should have been doing all along, he's playing Josh to get additional experience for one of our younguns."

                    You guys couldn't be more wrong! He's playing McRoberts not because he added bulk, strength and worked his butt off over the summer. And he sure as hell isn't starting McRoberts because he wants to give more experience to his young player. He's playing him because, at this time, he believes McRoberts to be the best performing PF on the team! And, if you recall what the coach said weeks ago, he echoed those thoughts when he stated that if the season started tomorrow, McRoberts would be his starting PF.

                    So Since86, without Murphy on the team, with a lot of hard work, McRoberts DID suddenly become this starting caliber PF. I will admit that he would only be a backup on most NBA teams, but for us, at least right now, he is the best performing we have on the roster. Therefore, for us, one of the weaker teams, he IS a starting caliber PF.

                    Last season, Josh's play in a since was irrelevant... because he had Murphy playing in front of him... and he had a coach that had far more appreciation for what Murphy was bringing to the court than McRoberts.

                    As for playing to lose, I think it is ridiculous to read in any of our comments that any player on the court, whether a veteran or a youngster, is playing to lose. That's utter nonsense. Individuals do NOT play to lose. And, when they are on the court, the five players on the court, whether any synergy is present or not, are not playing to lose.

                    However franchises can control game situations and actually play games not necessarily to lose, but certainly without any regard for winning. They do this through the game lineups and strategies that are employed by the coach.

                    And I suppose that is where the crux of our disagreement lies. I believe it is possible to find minutes for all players that are dressed in your uniform. Not necessarily every game, but certainly averaged over several games. And, I believe that in a 48 minute game, especially in the first three quarters, it should be relatively easy to find some minutes for at least a couple of your non-starting younger players to enable you to evaluate their progress and talent and how it can best be leveraged to benefit your team.

                    But when the fourth quarter starts, that's when you go with those players or the lineup that has performed best for you over the course of the game... more often than not, that would be your best players... those that started the game.

                    It's funny really. I can remember that some of my biggest pet peaves in the past were scheduled substitutions to insert a lesser experienced player into the lineup. It used to happen to Reggie all the time at about the 8 minute mark of the first quarter. He could have been hitting everything he threw up and might have had 18 points already, but sure enough, his butt was going to the bench at the 8 minute mark, no matter how good his streak was. That always seemed counterproductive to building a bigger lead and even winning, if you ask me.

                    I may be a bit idealistic, but to me sports and its competition are something that should be "pure". As a player, you play with integrity. That means you play your hardest and you play to win. As a 5-man lineup, same thing... play hard and to win. As a 12-man team... again same thing. You play hard and you play to win.

                    But as a franchise, I think you must also have integrity. Your coach must determine his best lineups and best performing players/lineups during any particular game and play to win.

                    So many of us fought this same issue last year when it came to the Colts. Most of us not only had a problem with spoiling a perfect season, but also with the integrity issue. They didn't play to lose; but they didn't play as though they cared about whether they won those last few games. As I recall, there were a lot of whizzed-off fans who wanted a refund for the last few home games. I think the same would be true of fans attending Pacer games. You don't play your best players; you aren't doing everything you can to win. And that surely must lead to fan alienation.
                    Last edited by beast23; 10-15-2010, 09:58 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      THIS thread is about whether you focus on winning or whether you focus on development. I believe you can focus on winning and still play the young guys, but if push comes to shove you focus on winning. As part of that, though, I believe there are places where young guys can develop. I think JOB didn't use those opportunities last year.
                      I agree with the point you are trying to make. You try to win, and if that enables you to play younger players, that's great.

                      But, I believe we disagree over one point. To me, this thread is about a lot more than whether to focus on development or winning.

                      It is about INTEGRITY.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                        I think not playing to win and tanking the season sets a losing culture. We want a winning culture.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                          Originally posted by flox View Post
                          I think not playing to win and tanking the season sets a losing culture. We want a winning culture.
                          They haven't win anything in a long time, were is the winning culture you keep talking about?
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            They haven't win anything in a long time, were is the winning culture you keep talking about?
                            Exactly, if we don't try to win we'll get depressed players. I don't want to go 0-15 like in New Jersey or in Boston.

                            It seems to have hurt the development and confidence of their players.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                              Originally posted by flox View Post
                              Exactly, if we don't try to win we'll get depressed players. I don't want to go 0-15 like in New Jersey or in Boston.

                              It seems to have hurt the development and confidence of their players.
                              They been trying to win forever doing it the JOB way, do you really think that is going to change? they are depressed winning 5 games or 35 games either way they don't make it to the playoffs.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                                I think you can be positive about a Pacers season even if they don't make the playoffs. I never expected the amount of talent on our roster to make the playoffs to begin with.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X