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

Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

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

  • #16
    Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

    Roy may actually shine coming off the bench. And it takes the pressure off. Most of the players in the NBA, by definition, come off the bench.

    I would like to see more of Josh, but I don't think there any dispute that Foster deserves his minutes. On a per minute basis, his stats are similar to Roy's or better in the various descriptors, both tangible and intangible. Frankly, Jeff should start, and it would not do any harm to have McBob back him up along with Roy, as long as Foster can take the physical punishment and Roy can deal with the psychological ramifications of the demotion (please see TJ Ford for advice, Big Guy).

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

      The lineup the Pacers used when Roy was ill, think it was the clippers game was actually very enjoyable to watch. McBob and Hansbrough played well together and the team looked very fast up and down the court. Whether this was the result of poor clippers D or good Pacers basketball who knows.

      In terms of winning, its probably a better move to bring Hibbert off the bench, but if were trying to develop young players, then continue starting Hibbert.

      edit* Obrien is not likely to start Foster, if he was it would have happened in the Clipps game. its unusual McBob goes from CD-DNP to starting.. in preference of moving Foster into the starting lineup. Knowing Obriens stubborness, Foster is the big he likes to bring off the bench. With that in mind, highly doubt we will see Hibbs move to the second unit.. then again who knows what the hell obrien is going to do.
      Last edited by PacersPride; 01-27-2011, 02:16 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Sorry, I was only referencing the main suggestion that you had in regards to putting Hibbert into the 2nd unit. He's tried everything under the sun in regards to rotations but hasn't yet tried shifting Hibbert to the 2nd unit. Given his weak performance as of late....I really don't think that there would be too many here that would object to playing him 20 minutes a game against weaker lineups.

        Would AJ be a better Point Guard matchup with Roy?
        I think they fit better together. AJ's better at getting the ball into the post at the right time/angle. They had good chemistry last season. But I think the whole group from last season (AJ, Brandon, Roy, and Josh) had good chemistry.

        And as I said, DC needs someone to play PnR with, and that's just not Roy.

        But I also think that, under a better coach, we can come up with an offense that fits both DC and Roy. But as for right now, play the guys that prefer the motion offense with AJ, cause he runs it better than DC. And then play the more PnR offense with Hans, Foster, and have PG out there to run the break.

        It's much easier to switch the players around than to try and create a new offense midseason, with this particular coach.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

          Does the PnR work with Foster? I mean, there is practically no threat from the "R," but I have not taken a close look at it in action.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

            Originally posted by judicata View Post
            Does the PnR work with Foster? I mean, there is practically no threat from the "R," but I have not taken a close look at it in action.
            Sort of..essentially, it works better than with Roy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

              Originally posted by judicata View Post
              Does the PnR work with Foster? I mean, there is practically no threat from the "R," but I have not taken a close look at it in action.
              Foster rolls better than Hibbert.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                sookie, not sure about starting jeff, but i do like the idea of playing more motion offense with AJ. i think he really does an excellent job running it. there are enough guys that played it last year to use them. kind of strange running two different offenses for two different PG, but it is an idea worth looking at.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                  They'll work better together in a better system.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                    I would bring Hibbert off the bench from the strategic standpoint. Not because of " get it together! you are sucking right now! you dont deserve to be a starter" like some people on here. That's probably not helping his confidences as he probably reads this board too.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                      No he is our Starting Center. I dont know why their is so much love going around for Jeff Foster. He is terrible. Offensively and Defensively terrible. He's been a Pacers lifer, whoop dee doo. He Is terrible.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                        Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                        Roy was struggling long before the offense was put in Collison's hands.
                        I was thinking along those lines as well. I don't believe the problem to be a Collison - Hibbert dynamics problem. I just think Hibbert is in a slump, regardless of who is feeding him the ball and how it is fed.

                        I was not for starting George to start out the year because I honestly felt that it would exert to much pressure on him and that he should be brought along more slowly. If the time was ever right for him to eventually start over Dunleavy and Rush, the timing would ultimately reveal itself. And it did.

                        I feel the same way about Hibbert, only from the opposite perspective. Hibbert is the starter and I believe has a fragile ego. You yank him now and you don't have a clue whether his ego might be further damaged. And, as was mentioned already, he might very well fall off the face of the planet if he is demoted.

                        BUT - we can control his minutes and specifically the timing of his initial substitution. Let him start and plan to bring him out after 3 or 4 minutes. If he is playing well at that time, let him go an extra minute or 2 to see if it continues. Otherwise plan on giving him 4-6 minutes per quarter to get in his 18-20 minutes per game. Give him the opportunity to play through it while letting him know he is still the starter, but take some of the pressure off of him by playing him fewer minutes.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                          Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                          No he is our Starting Center. I dont know why their is so much love going around for Jeff Foster. He is terrible. Offensively and Defensively terrible. He's been a Pacers lifer, whoop dee doo. He Is terrible.
                          Jeff foster is a good backup and I don't really think anyone is saying he is better than Roy(at least not better than good Roy). The problem is neither Josh nor Foster are offensive threats. The only Post Presence the team has are Hibbert and Tyler. The best chance this team has to run a consistent effective traditional lineup is for Tyler to play with jeff and Hibbert to play with Josh. Currently we only have 1 PF in the rotation and utilize a lot of small ball. I think this roster shakeup is more about getting Josh on the floor at the backup 4 and getting away from small ball with Posey than it is Jeff vs. Roy. Of course then you have the issue of Danny playing more 3 and a reduction of minutes for the wings. The way things sound this might mean Rush falling out of the rotation, although I am sure a lot of posters would call for Dunleavy to hit the bench.
                          Last edited by spazzxb; 01-28-2011, 01:20 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                            Originally posted by LA_Confidential View Post
                            No he is our Starting Center. I dont know why their is so much love going around for Jeff Foster. He is terrible. Offensively and Defensively terrible. He's been a Pacers lifer, whoop dee doo. He Is terrible.
                            If you were on the Titanic, would you have hung around with the captain and gone down with the ship, or would you have contemplated alternatives? Roy has potential, there is no argument there. However, right now he is playing poorly, and Jeff is (albeit arguably) the best big we have. Show me the stats that on a per-minute basis, he is terrible defensively. And compare his stats with Roy. Then tell me that he is terrible defensively. Finally, maybe the guy does deserve some props as a Pacer Lifer. Not saying his jersey should be retired, but he has contributed in 700+ games, which says something for an NBA player.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                              Jeff foster is a good backup and I don't really think anyone is saying he is better than Roy(at least not better than good Roy). The problem is neither Josh nor Foster are offensive threats. The only Post Presence the team has are Hibbert and Tyler.
                              Right. I wasn't saying Jeff was physically more gifted or had more potential than Roy. And I wish that both Josh and Jeff could contribute more on offensive. However, I think this points out more of the shortcomings of the team or the coach. Remember the Pistons during their peak years? They had Rodman, who really wasn't an offensive threat himself, but a great rebounder that they relied on. They built a team that had the offense to support placing Rodman in the mix. Without the slump in shooting from Granger and Hibbert, we would have the offense to play Josh and Foster when needed.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Should we bring Hibbert off the bench?

                                Honestly, it probably is time to start Jeff and bring Roy in second. It's certainly a talent downgrade, but you can still give Roy a lot of minutes, only they'll come against lower-energy starters, or their backups.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X