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

Nice article by Kravitz

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

  • #31
    Re: Nice article by Kravitz

    Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
    He is playing them because he was told too

    I dont believe Jim decided on his own to play Tyler or George

    Bird talked with him
    I won't say that Bird said to him "Jim you will play X player so many min. a game".

    But I will say that it is quite possible that after the N.Y. game (the game he should have been fired over, well one of many but really that would have been both the perfect time and reason) that in their daily phone call strategy to talk about the club that Bird may have said something along the lines of "Jimmy we want to start looking at what some of our other players can do, we need to be making some decisions and we need to see them in some game time to do it".

    Like I said we could not have been the only people who watched that game in stunned disbelief that James Posey played every single min. of the 4th quarter while both Josh & Tyler set on the bench.

    For me that is the turning point of the season right there. That was almost as bad as you can get from him coaching wise. I mean talk about absolute either hubris, stubborness or folishness (take your pick) to play that line up against a young athletic team for that extended length of time and then at the end when Jeff fouled out to replace him with Solomon Jones instead of Roy or Josh was just dumbfounding.

    No, I don't believe that anyone is telling Jim who to and not to play but I don't think that it's impossible that someone did tell him a different overall team stratagy.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Nice article by Kravitz

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I've often said that Roy is a lot like Rik Smits and I think your are correct he does need another big guy next to him just like Rik did. Once Dale got there I think that helped Rik as much as anything. Where we likely disagree I would rather Tyler or Jeff play alongside Roy than Josh. And we also obviously disagree in that I like going small from time to time (going small to me means moving Danny to the power forward) because I like having Danny, Mike and Brandon on the floor at the same time - in certain situations of course
      No believe it or not we don't disagree.

      I don't really care if it's Josh or Tyler. As you know I'm like you in I do not watch College ball and honestly don't care what goes on there so I have no preconcieved notion as to who should get what.

      I like Josh much more than Troy Murpy so that covers last year. This year I like both and think both should play and honestly I like it when they play together on the floor as I think they compliment each other quite well.

      Also while I am never going to obviously say "let's go small" I believe in using your options. Just like I was never offended that Josh was working on a three point shot (if he can hit it great it's just another weapon in his arsenal) I am not offended if a coach decides that this is a good option. I think that in the future the combination of Granger, Rush & George will be deadly.

      But my problem with Jim is that he tends to get into this mode of thinking and all other options be damned. That's like the nonsense of having a big on the inactive list when you have zero intention of ever playing Lance or A.J. one min. of time.

      BTW, let me state that I really like the player that Jeff has become since he has gotten older and less athletic.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Nice article by Kravitz

        Historically speaking, O'Brien does not favor "youth movements." O'Brien has always played the players whom he feels give his team the most competitive lineup. Allegedly, Danny Ainge wanted to have a youth movement in Boston. However, O'Brien rejected the plan because he wanted to "win now."

        There is no substance to any of the comments made regarding Bird's alleged, "chat" with O'Brien - they are speculative.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Nice article by Kravitz

          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
          He is playing them because he was told too

          I dont believe Jim decided on his own to play Tyler or George

          Bird talked with him
          I think a lot of what Jim's been doing lately has been Bird-fueled. I think that Bird has taken realization of what the fans want (young players playing, better behavior from Jim, Jim gone, etc.) and he's giving orders for Jim to follow. This way, the Pacers FO doesn't have to worry about having a new head coaching contract AND Jim's contract on their hands, despite it being only for the rest of the season.

          Bird can't afford to just get rid of O'Brien yet, and as long as he's following Bird's criteria, they don't have to waste money (which they're already doing), and/or bring in a bunch of press after we fire our coach. Last time I checked, the Pacers weren't in a great place to just throw money around.
          witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

          Originally posted by Day-V
          In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
          Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Nice article by Kravitz

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I'm constantly amazed how so often I see things completely different.

            I think Kravitz is full of it.

            Lets look at what is really going on here. Is Jim playing the young guys or is he going small? Many of you think like Kravitz that Jim is playing the young guys. I don't see it.

            Is AJ Price playing at all? No

            Josh has gone from averaging over 20 minutes and starting every game to either not playing or in two cases not even being on the active roster.

            Lance hasn't seen anytime.

            Is Foster playing more than ever? Yes.

            Is Dunleavy playing as much or more than ever? Yes. Ford is still playing.

            So where is the change. Tyler is starting but he replaced a younger player so the net change there is basically none. George is getting some time -that is the only real change as far as going from vets to young players. But George hasn't averaged 15 minutes per game lately. Posey is getting fewer minutes.

            This one paragraph in particular got under my skin


            As I mentioned Foster is playing more than ever, Mike as much as ever and Posey is still getting some minutes. Plus one of the biggest reasons why the Pacers have played better in 3 or the past 4 games is precisely because of Jeff and Mike. So I say Kravy is full of it.

            So I think the statement "He's playing the young guys" is simply false.

            I think what happened is Jim decided Josh just wasn't getting it done. I think Tyler has been playing well in practice. I think George has been showing improvement, and Jim wants to spread the floor more, wants to go small - and one way to do that is play George some. Also with the offense struggling, one way to help the offense is to go small. Play Danny, Mike and Rush more together. (that has been the biggest change IMO)

            back to the point of going young. I will predict if you map out the minutes of young vs. old. Old I guess is Mike, Jeff, Posey and Ford - young is everyone else except Granger I would bet you the young are getting marginally more minutes now than they were 7 or 8 games ago. maybe an average of 2 or 3 minutes more per game. But no real change - I don't see a big youth movement.
            Right. I was feeling the same way when I read this earlier. Don't praise Jim for something he's hardly even doing. I wouldn't care at all if it was a forum member saying it, but this goes in front of a lot of ignorant eyeballs, and I don't like the idea that those folks will now think "Hey, O'Brien's finally doing the right thing," when, in fact, he's still not.

            Although, as much as I want to believe it could, I doubt any quantity of public negativity towards the coach will make him leave any faster, so I suppose I still shouldn't care.

            But Kravitz isn't paying attention. Again.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Nice article by Kravitz

              Originally posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post
              I still can't stand Basketball hating Kravitz. " The clowns", I assume ,he's talking about are the ones who were keeping the team playing competitively, and for the most part are now playing vital roles on better teams. I mean come on does he have to throw out Brandons drug thing every time he mentions him. Maybe it would be better if we didn't have a clown of a local media sports guy who poisons the air.
              I like Brandon, but to be honest he asked for it. With the recent history around here you don't just waltz in and fail 3 drug screens before you have even established yourself.
              "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                I agree with UB, Peck and Hicks

                Yes, he's playing George, and that's nice to see. And he's playing Tyler..but at the expense of Josh.

                My personal theory is that JOB won't allow the young guys to cover a position.
                He's playing Tyler now, so Josh doesn't play. He's playing Collison, so AJ doesn't play. There is a vet at every position.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                  Collison starts, AJ backs him up, TJ active in case of injury.

                  Rush/Danny start, George backs them up, Dunleavy plays as needed.

                  Tyler/Roy starts, Josh backs them up, Foster plays as needed.

                  Write a column patting Jim on the back when this is the norm.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I think that in the future the combination of Granger, Rush & George will be deadly.

                    BTW, let me state that I really like the player that Jeff has become since he has gotten older and less athletic.

                    Danny,Rush and George will be quite the trio especially if matched with a true PF.
                    I believe that is more Tyler than Josh. But Josh could be center with that bunch on
                    occasion. Jeff is still a very valuable player to have on your team with his hustle and
                    toughness. I will give Kravits some credit for pointing out we have players who are
                    commited to their craft.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                      Damm Paul get's some work in from 10 pm to mid night that is tight. I wish i could just go hoop at the fieldhouse whenever that would be the life.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                        I think Bird may have said to Jim something more along the lines of we need to get our last two first round picks some playing time going into next year.

                        I also think that our offense was much different last night than it was a week or so ago. Last night, it seemed like the high post offense took a back seat to the pick and roll and the low post entry pass. We initiated our offense several times through the high post, but the big difference for me was that it was Hansborough and Foster doing it with Hibbert down low. I think the adjustments that may have been made were to keep the big fella down low more than before. I think his confidence was shaken because he is not capable of being the only big, especially when he is up top.

                        I think more of the adjustments that are being made on a personnel basis have to do with the sets being run while they are in the game. I think we are seeing mroe adjustments to game plan than we are to personnel. I like seeing George and Hansborough get minutes. I love that Ford has been relegated to 10-15 minutes per game. Posey is getting DNPs, but I think Posey will play a big role if we make the playoffs in his 10 minutes off the bench. We don't need more than that from him. He bangs down a couple of threes at the end of the second and beginning of the fourth and thats all we need from him. Foster is great to have out there. His hustle plays are contagious. He tips the ball out when he can't grab it. He fights through screens and between other guys for rebounds. I love the veteran presence on our team, it was just that there was a disproportionate emphasis on the things they do well in the game plan. I think the game plan has become much less reliant on the high post and it has caused us to be more difficult to guard. We make teams adjust to us if we go to the low post. If we go to the high post, the other PF has to guard us to 15+ feet or else we will hit that shot. We have utilized the pick and roll from the high post set more, which allows the read and react to be more effective. We have also allowed Darren to be more versatile by using the pick and roll more, which has enticed more ball movement. Foster and Hansorough have been great the last couple of games. I would like to see McRoberts at least active. Same with Price.

                        The long and short seems to me that the versatility we are using in our offense has more to do with our success than anything. Yes we are hitting our jump shots, which makes a huge difference, but those jump shots were much more open and came from many different sets (at least last night for sure).
                        "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


                        • #42
                          Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                          you can't say that JOB is playing young guys if Lance and AJ aren't playing.
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                            With Jim no young player is ever safe as long as there is a vet in the building. If someone would have told us a month ago McRoberts would never get off the bench (he's even in street clothes now) who would have believed it?

                            Don't think Tyler's got anything sewn up here either. He really had it going in the 3rd quarter last night and even though he needed a rest who would have thought he would never get back in the game? He had 17 game minutes. I am not complaining but just saying don't think things are now settled into a safe consistent pattern.

                            If Tyler has just one bad game he is probably back on the pine (my opinion). What gets me is that Granger or Dunleavy or Posey, anyone as long as he is a vet, can stink the gym up and yet it doesn't matter. His playing time will not be in jeopardy. Seems like a double standard to me. With the young guys every shot, every pass, every defensive stand is a matter of life or death and of whether or not the world will stand.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                              I agree with most here. As long as Foster is getting 23 minutes, Ford is gettin 18, posey is getting 11, and S.Jones is getting 8 minutes while McRoberts, AJ Price and Lance get 0 minutes than it is not a youth movement.

                              I am glad we won and played well, but don't try to make it out to be something it wasn't. Kravitz should have just written about how well PG came in and played if he was trying to find something about the pacers to write about.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Nice article by Kravitz

                                I say "Amen" to Hicks:

                                "Collison starts, AJ backs him up, TJ active in case of injury.

                                Rush/Danny start, George backs them up, Dunleavy plays as needed.

                                Tyler/Roy starts, Josh backs them up, Foster plays as needed.

                                Write a column patting Jim on the back when this is the norm."

                                That's good enough for me. My only difference is that I would not leave Ford active in all games, only select ones. With a ten-man rotation otherwise as Hicks suggests, D. Jones. S. Jones, Stephenson, Ford, and Posey could share the eleventh and twelfth spots on the active list, being activated according to injury and strategic needs within the ten-man rotation. I think that there are situations calling for D. Jones, that S. Jones has shown potential in some games, and we need to observe Stephenson when it makes sense. We know exactly what we have in Ford at PG and Posey at SF, and they should be active only when their particular skills are not being handled by two better people ahead of them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X