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

Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

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

  • #76
    Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    Josh and Rush can play together, if our other three are playing well and scoring well.

    They haven't been, so Josh and Rush become a problem
    Exactly. They are fine. Tonight Rush did 2 things wrong - he bit on some jab steps by KMart and sometimes went under screens and got burned for it. Josh was great till near the very end when it was long since over.

    The problem is 100% that DC, Roy and Danny are HORRIBLE as your main scorers right now. Roy is just lost, DC makes bad choices and can't hit shots (or slow down any opposing PGs) and Danny is way, way off his game.

    Rush and Josh are your COMPLIMENTARY players. Blaming them is like blaming catsup for your s**** hamburger. The complimentary guys can make things better, but they aren't there to be the main guy.

    Who was the scoring machine next to Reggie at the 3? It WAS Person or Detlef and they were traded. Why? Because the old saying is there aren't enough balls to go around out there.

    Look at the scoring and shooting numbers coming from a WING and PF right now. Now go pull up the numbers on the scoring/FG% (and assists) from a WING (McKey) and PF (Dale) when you had Jax, Reggie and Rik starting.

    You didn't say you needed to upgrade Dale when Reggie was lighting it up or Rik was rolling.


    You can swap Rush for a big scorer, but then you'll need to trade Granger too. You can't have all 5 starters taking 16 FGAs, it's just not realistic.

    Freaking Josh went 6-11 and that wasn't enough offense for some of you? That's just plain dumb, that's NOT RATIONAL basketball thinking. Not when your all-star, Team USA scoring machine is going 4-13 right next to him.



    BTW, you guys jocking for Paul to start, he got SMOKED by Jason Terry the other night and got burned not just by Martin but by Lee too. And Lance...well I don't know if he understands why there are two goals on the court.

    I don't mind this from either of them at this point because they are developing, and Paul especially made several good plays as well. But how the F you see the games from them and say they need to start because then things will go well when things weren't going well with them out there for long stretches is beyond me.

    Grass is greener for some people I suppose.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Youth = Inconsistency

      Typically it's little mistakes that blow up into bad plays, especially sloppy offense or poor shot selection that becomes transition offense. Like Tyler getting stuffed to the floor tonight, goes the other way and Tyler commits the foul. Or Lance throwing that horrible pass right to the Rockets.

      And Roy could be a whole book on inconsistency himself.


      You don't get better for free. It's a long grind.
      Thanks for the sanity. Really.

      I think there are some changes that need to be made, but I understand why Vogel doesn't want to shift around starting lineups, and he wants to make sure all the young guys play..and loves Dahntay. But I think the rotation is too big.

      I also think that you have to find an inbetween with going easy on the guys and being a dictator.

      Maybe not start the "goons" ..but heck, if yet another game goes by where the starters get down early..why not start them to begin the second half. That's what just about every college coach would do. My point is, the young guys don't learn anything if you don't let them do anything, but they also don't learn anything if you enable them to do the wrong things repeatedly.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Exactly. They are fine. Tonight Rush did 2 things wrong - he bit on some jab steps by KMart and sometimes went under screens and got burned for it. Josh was great till near the very end when it was long since over.

        The problem is 100% that DC, Roy and Danny are HORRIBLE as your main scorers right now. Roy is just lost, DC makes bad choices and can't hit shots (or slow down any opposing PGs) and Danny is way, way off his game.

        Rush and Josh are your COMPLIMENTARY players. Blaming them is like blaming catsup for your s**** hamburger. The complimentary guys can make things better, but they aren't there to be the main guy.

        Who was the scoring machine next to Reggie at the 3? It WAS Person or Detlef and they were traded. Why? Because the old saying is there aren't enough balls to go around out there.

        Look at the scoring and shooting numbers coming from a WING and PF right now. Now go pull up the numbers on the scoring/FG% (and assists) from a WING (McKey) and PF (Dale) when you had Jax, Reggie and Rik starting.

        You didn't say you needed to upgrade Dale when Reggie was lighting it up or Rik was rolling.


        You can swap Rush for a big scorer, but then you'll need to trade Granger too. You can't have all 5 starters taking 16 FGAs, it's just not realistic.

        Freaking Josh went 6-11 and that wasn't enough offense for some of you? That's just plain dumb, that's NOT RATIONAL basketball thinking. Not when your all-star, Team USA scoring machine is going 4-13 right next to him.



        BTW, you guys jocking for Paul to start, he got SMOKED by Jason Terry the other night and got burned not just by Martin but by Lee too. And Lance...well I don't know if he understands why there are two goals on the court.

        I don't mind this from either of them at this point because they are developing, and Paul especially made several good plays as well. But how the F you see the games from them and say they need to start because then things will go well when things weren't going well with them out there for long stretches is beyond me.

        Grass is greener for some people I suppose.
        Rush and Josh are role players we need to upgrade the staring postions. We need guys who are good both ways and have more talent. Josh and Rush most likely wont be here going forward should be intersting to see what we do.
        Last edited by pacer4ever; 03-06-2011, 02:35 AM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

          Remember back when we had JOB and everyone would say losing wouldn't hurt so bad if we got to see the young players play and develop?

          Well welcome to the young players developing

          This is what we're going to get...they aren't going to be consistent, they are going to make a lots of mistake, it's all part of learning how to play in this league.

          We played 3 teams better than us on the road. Is losing 3 in a row that surprising to anyone? Sure it would have been nice to steal 1, but it didn't happen. It's not the end of the world.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

            Originally posted by thefeistyone View Post
            Remember back when we had JOB and everyone would say losing wouldn't hurt so bad if we got to see the young players play and develop?

            Well welcome to the young players developing

            This is what we're going to get...they aren't going to be consistent, they are going to make a lots of mistake, it's all part of learning how to play in this league.

            We played 3 teams better than us on the road. Is losing 3 in a row that surprising to anyone? Sure it would have been nice to steal 1, but it didn't happen. It's not the end of the world.
            I'm not mad we lost 3 in a row. Im mad at the effort or lack of effort in 2 of the 3 games.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              wow

              what happened to the team that almost beat Miami on the road?
              What happened to that team that BEAT Miami on the road??

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                I understand Speakout suggesting that you can't always have the same guy leading your scoring, but to suggest that on any given night you can't count on at least 1 of what is supposed to be your 3 main offensive weapons to the point that Josh "only" going 6-11 costs you a game is just dumb.

                3 main scorers means that on any given night at least one of those guys will have it going.

                What, now it's normal for Lebron, Wade and Bosh to all go 4-14 and 5-18, and the Heat need to upgrade Chalmers to cover for the common nights when that happens? Bull****

                Teams are getting "big 3s". No, Roy is not Bosh, but Roy IS one of the main offensive weapons you want your offense to work off of and lately he's not playing well.

                Cripes, Danny was getting torched by Chase Budinger, and while I'm a big Chase fan it's not because I thought he would be better than Granger by year 2.


                Look at the MONEY DISTRIBUTION, you aren't paying Rush and Josh as though they are big scorers. You are paying Dun, TJ and Danny like they are main scorers. You say "if Rush can slow Martin so Danny can outscore him and if Josh can slow Scola and maybe chip in some passes and/or points enough that Roy outscores Scola, then we can probably win".
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-06-2011, 02:45 AM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                  But Miami does think they need better role players than Chamlers and company. It is a team. It isnt just your main 3 guys struggle so the whole team will struggle. We need better players 1-12 option wise. In time im sure Paul, Lance, AJ , and others can get better but it wont be eoght we need to add talent. Just like damm near every other team in the league is looking to add talent

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                    I don't know what many of you are complaining about....you wanted the young Players to play..this is the realistic result.......we are losing games that we are expected to lose against Teams that are way better then us.

                    Our future core of Players not only are playing key minutes in the rotation....heck, Dunleavy is even out of the lineup....what else do you want?

                    If there hasn't been a greater example of "be careful what you wish for" based off of what we are seeing with our young core struggle ( which should be expected now that we are out of our "easy" part of the schedule....specifically after the 23rd when we played the Jazz ), then I don't know what is.

                    Expect more losing....get used to it....cuz we're a very young Team with several holes in the lineup.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                      We'll be alright.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                        Painful. But nice to see PD guys on TV. The board seems to be getting plenty of good attention. Deservedly so and thanks to you guys who make it possible.

                        The player development element is the only solace here. Seeing Roy get into it a little with Chuckwagon showed an effort to maintain a bit of dignity.

                        2 things making me crazy. The ball stopping at the 3pt line on offense and letting the opposing d set up, and Jones not passing the ball. DJ semi-rightly feels like he has to create a shot. And DC may be stuck in PnR mode. Is it me or does the offense look like a confusion between the previous motion offense and botched PnR? Seems like our best chance, outside of running a break, is using Roy as a post/pass hub. But this requires motion. I will be very happy to see Mike back in the lineup, and think he, or someone with his qualities is essential for the time being.

                        Or put another way - in an obviously false dichotomy but none the less amusing - which is worse: Mike's defense or DJ's offensive?
                        ! Free Rick Sanchez !

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                          I'm not usually one to look at +/- and give it much time, but I did notice something odd. While everyone else was at 0 or in the negatives Price had a +13. Either that is a typo or Price should have received more minutes. I don't like using +/- to judge how well a player is playing, but in this case the abnormality is too strong to ignore.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                            I think it was the garbage minutes for Price that elevated his +/-

                            For some reason our best PG has become the third string PG. Just what the hell is Frank and TPTB thinking? They need to be starting AJ now if they want to have a shot at the playoffs. I am all for Lance showing us what he can do, but not at the cost of a playoff berth...

                            The same goes for DC and his entitlement issue with starting. Screw that.

                            Lance should be the one getting the 3rd string minutes... actually no DC should get the 3rd string minutes, he needs to earn his spot back with good play. Let Lance back up AJ.

                            At any rate AJ should be playing the most minutes at PG right now. That or bring TJ back, anything but the horrible crap we have been seeing with DC.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                              Originally posted by DGPR View Post
                              Needs less DJ, and dare I say teams have now scouted Tyler and he's becoming quite ineffective.
                              Hansbrough went toe-to-toe with Luis Scola, dropping 17 & 10 in 25 minutes. Ineffective would be Brandon Rush doing next-to-nothing while getting lit up like a Christmas tree by Kevin Martin.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Post game 3/5/11 vs Rockets

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                                AJ, Tyler, Jeff, and Dahntay are the four most mentally tough guys on the team. That's a major reason why they are successful. The starters need an injection of that.
                                Good point. Mental toughness/Leadership are killing us right now.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X