Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

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

  • Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

    Ok obviously the Spurs are ahead of us in terms of being a good basketball team (yes I have a knack for understatement) and frankly I had always counted on losing this game anyway, I was just hoping that we would not embarrass ourselves and get blown out.


    Well for almost three solid quarters I can say . . . → Read More: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season

    More...
    *beeps*

  • #2
    Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

    Good write-up. I wish I had recorded the game so I could go back and pay closer attention to Granger's defense. I wanted to see a marked improvement and my initial feeling was that it wasn't there, but many other people seemed to think so. I will try to focus more on that when I watch the Charlotte game. His he could get back to playing the defense he did his first couple seasons, and play the same kind game offensively that he did last night, he would be a complete player, and on the verge of elite.

    Another thing I found interesting is how polarizing Josh McRoberts seems to be. Many posters (me included) thought Josh's play was certainly a positive overall. Like you, I noted that I did not think he played enough minutes. However, multiple posters have disagreed, one even saying that his minutes were too many and helped contribute to the loss. I'm curious what they saw that they we didn't.

    The free throw shooting was something I meant to mention and forgot. We are going to get killed this season on number of free throw attempts, (nothing new there) but we need to be able to convert a high percentage when we do get to the line. Those are free points that we turned into wasted possessions. No better than a turnover.

    Coaching, bad turnovers, and free throw shooting lost this game tonight. Too bad, could have been a fantastic way to start the season, but by no means was the game a "must win." The show will go on, and my cautious optimism, about this season, remains.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

      Great recap as always, Peck.

      I agree that there was a lot of good basketball to get excited about tonight.

      Good insight that we could have used a low post threat during the early fourth when we lost the game, i.e. Tyler. His DNP is somewhere between curious and exasperating.

      Jay pointed out that we outrebounded a great rebounding team. I'll give JOB some credit there. I don't think that happens without a coach emphasizing it.

      Another poster pointed out that Foster got no minutes. And his specialty is guarding Duncan, who went 9 for 10 at one point. Maybe he shoulda got some minutes? If he doesn't play in this situation, what's he doing taking up a uniform?

      JOB has a history of outhinking himself and being clueless about momentum. Pop called a timeout when Roy and Collison led us to a five point lead, to stop the momentum. JOB does Pop's work for him by pulling Roy and Collison. I don't care if either of them are tired (they get a breather at the timeout, anyway). Momentum and the hot hand trumps all that. If Roy bricks his next shot, then bench him. But let the dude get a heat check before solving San Antonio's problems for them.

      The 0-11 run that lost us the game I attribute to three things:

      - The Posey/Jones frontcourt should have been subbed about two or three minutes earlier than what happened. We were clearly starting to lose some momentum. I'm not busting on Jones. I applaud his great performance last night. He just can't handle too much of the world champions ramping things up in the fourth quarter.

      - T.J. Ford should not have played with Collison. Not for the reason your thinking. T.J. didn't personally do terrible during that stretch. It's just that we haven't seen that combination all preseason. Therefore, they looked a little confused on both ends of the floor. JOB is really unwise to tinker around during the most important part of the game.

      - Dunleavy. I like him. We put him on the floor despite his defensive liabilities because he makes good decisions, is a fundamental type player, and can shoot. He really let us down in this 0-11 stretch. He was the one starter out there and proceeds to miss both free throws, then a minute or two later makes an awful turnover. The very things we need him for, he failed in.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

        Note to Peck, Hicks, and admins. I wonder if this Front Page thing is working for Odd Thoughts. This thread has gotten a bunch of views and few responses.

        Peck's Odd thoughts used to get loads of responses. In fact, his Odd Thoughts are one of the defining features of this board.

        I honestly think responses are down because you have to make a second click to get to the article, then do a bunch of navigating to get back to the PD thread where you can make a comment. Human nature keeps people from taking the trouble.

        If nothing else, Peck, you should repaste the entire Odd Thoughts articles in the PD thread so folks don't have to go back and forth. JMO.
        Last edited by McKeyFan; 10-28-2010, 09:26 AM.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

          Hoping this will be the "sane" discussion thread:

          1) I wondered about leaving the end-of-the-3rd lineup in at the beginning of the 4th, but you can't really argue with leaving the players on the floor who did the lifting to get the team back in it. As sure as JOB would have gone back with the starters and perhaps still been knocked our of the game on the Spur's energy crank, someone would have been screaming that he should have stayed with the lineup that was successful.

          2) Roy's minutes - I suspect Roy was not in when we would have liked because he was being kept to around 30 minutes and JOB was trying to save him for what looked like would be a more critical time. This is the problem with such a drop-off between the starter and the backup at 5. As it was he had 33 minutes.

          3) Josh - His playing time in the first half made sense to me, he was pulled for a long rest while Posey was on and nothing bad was happening, and then was pulled when he got his 3rd foul in the second quarter. This is very normal. Note he was put back in as a strategic move on Parker's second free throw in case it was missed - a good move.

          He played most of the third, again, not something unusual to give him a rest toward the end of the third. He came in 3 minutes into the 4th, we were only down by 5 at that point. When he goes out we're down by 12.

          So, no, I don't think a lack of playing time by Josh was a contribution to the deficit.



          I blame the size of the loss on:

          Turnovers - a bunch of which should be corrected during what is commonly called "gelling". The other thing I noticed was that there were lots of potential turnovers even off the Spurs - the difference was that the Spurs were coming up with the ball after we poked the ball away from them AND they poked the ball away from us. To me, if we'd gotten the ball a few times away from the Spurs (or taken advantage of the ones we DID get), we'd have been more even. The rest - well, TJ wouldn't be TJ if he didn't dribble the ball off his leg at least once.

          Free Throws - my God, how do we miss so many? It has to be realized that missing FTs in a row can turn a game around the same as making a bunch of FTs can. If driving and getting fouled isn't working because you're missing the FTs, you fall back on the ugly perimeter shooting which also tends not to work late in the game due to tired legs.
          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


          • #6
            Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            The Posey/Jones frontcourt should have been subbed about two or three minutes earlier than what happened. We were clearly starting to lose some momentum. I'm not busting on Jones. I applaud his great performance last night. He just can't handle too much of the world champions ramping things up in the fourth quarter.
            Posey/Jones/Dun was substituted out for Hibbert/Granger/Josh 3 minutes into the 4th. To sub it out 3 minutes earlier would have been to start the 4th with a different lineup than what ended the 3rd. Since the lineup that ended the 3rd was seemingly hot, why sub it?

            We need to also realize we were down by 5 at that point on two missed FTs and a 3 from Ginobili. At that point it doesn't yet look like a disaster.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              Posey/Jones/Dun was substituted out for Hibbert/Granger/Josh 3 minutes into the 4th. To sub it out 3 minutes earlier would have been to start the 4th with a different lineup than what ended the 3rd. Since the lineup that ended the 3rd was seemingly hot, why sub it?

              We need to also realize we were down by 5 at that point on two missed FTs and a 3 from Ginobili. At that point it doesn't yet look like a disaster.
              Because that lineup wasn't hot. The game started getting away from us late in the 3rd.

              So the rest of the discussion has been "insane?" Disagree. Read the other thread. It might have started out on the wrong foot, but it quickly got on track.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                Posey/Jones/Dun was substituted out for Hibbert/Granger/Josh 3 minutes into the 4th. To sub it out 3 minutes earlier would have been to start the 4th with a different lineup than what ended the 3rd. Since the lineup that ended the 3rd was seemingly hot, why sub it?

                We need to also realize we were down by 5 at that point on two missed FTs and a 3 from Ginobili. At that point it doesn't yet look like a disaster.
                The subs came in up five, thanks to Hibbert and Collison.

                Just before the end of the third, we were down five. We ended the third quarter down three.

                I don't view that as "seemingly hot." I view it as on the precipice of collapsing.
                Last edited by McKeyFan; 10-28-2010, 09:51 AM.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

                  Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                  Because that lineup wasn't hot. The game started getting away from us late in the 3rd.

                  So the rest of the discussion has been "insane?" Disagree. Read the other thread. It might have started out on the wrong foot, but it quickly got on track.
                  No, I meant this thread IS the sane one, and hoping it stays that way.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    The subs came in up five, thanks to Hibbert and Collison.

                    Just before the end of the fourth, we were down five. We ended the quarter down three.

                    I don't view that as "seemingly hot." I view it as on the precipice of collapsing.
                    I stand corrected, I was thinking we had been back-and-forth at the end of the third and didn't go back to check it.

                    ETA: I can understand that perhaps if we don't rest guys at that point of the 3rd we might not lose the lead. However, we have to rest them sometime, and when you are up by 5 seems the best case.

                    Given that, though, it might make sense to swap them back at the start of the 4th, however, the game is still somewhat in control if we don't miss those FTs.
                    Last edited by BillS; 10-28-2010, 09:54 AM.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

                      Originally posted by Peck
                      He didn’t rebound as strongly as I would have liked to see him do but he defiantly made it a point to be involved on the defense

                      If you're always going to misspell "definitely," I suggest that you misspell it "deffily" in honor of the way Dale Davis used to mispronounce it? That would be a cool way to keep Dale alive in our hearts. Plus, it would save some of us from having to wonder at whom Granger was being defiant.
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

                        Sorry, just before the end of the "third" we were down five. (Bill, you understood it correctly anyway. Thanks.)
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                          at whom Granger was being defiant.
                          Coach K, of course.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Given that, though, it might make sense to swap them back at the start of the 4th, however, the game is still somewhat in control if we don't miss those FTs.
                            Right. That's why I lay part of the 0-11 run on Dunleavy, and part on JOB.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Odd Thoughts about first game of 2010-11 season [The Front Page]

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              Right. That's why I lay part of the 0-11 run on Dunleavy, and part on JOB.
                              It's hard for me to be that specific. In hindsight that is the momentum change, but we'd seen swings before in the game. I think the missed FTs lay the foundation, but the 6-0 run where we didn't make a stop and yet couldn't score (and in fact turned over the ball) at the other end was the nail in the coffin.

                              I'd say perhaps that a better coach could perhaps have interrupted the momentum, but what was done wasn't "bad coaching", per se. Sin of omission, at best.

                              Dunleavy, I don't know. I don't see the major defensive flaws that some do, but then again I'm not very good at watching how defense unfolds off the ball. I usually don't blame a big deficit on a single missed shot - I'm more thinking TJ's missed FTs were more important than Dun's, but that is timing related, really.
                              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