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

Things we learned from the playoffs

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

  • #61
    Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

    What I learned from the playoffs...

    - Paul George is the man. He will be our best player in 2 years.

    - I thought Vogel deserved the job even if we didn't make the playoffs, but he proved that he is going to take this team far in years to come, if given the chance.

    - Maybe I expected too much, but Hansbrough didn't show up in this series offensively after game 1. We must upgrade at the PF position over the summer.

    - We need to find a dependable backup PG.

    - People are getting excited about the Pacers again

    - Vogel was right when he said it would be a special end to this season.

    - The season ended to early.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

      Granger finally decided to play like he should in the regular season.

      If Roy doesn't get stronger and tougher he isn't the answer. I'm not asking for Dale Davis tough, but just the ability to hold is own.

      George will defiantly be on the 1st team all-defense in his future.

      Price is clutch, has more potential to be a true PG than Collison, but isn't good enough to play Price ball and not getting others involved.

      Rush I don't get why people think we need to get rid of him after this series. When he was given time he played well. He wasn't perfect, but he didn't have a bad minute the whole series. I don't know what Vogel was thinking playing Dunleavy over him. I swear most of you guys just watch the ball and not the whole game.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

        To me, you structurally need a roster of 10 solid players. The final five can be whatever ... projects, rookies, expiring contracts or the Kool-Aid man. Whatever.

        You need two point guards, three impact wings, a fourth rotational wing, three impact bigs and a fourth rotational big.

        What do the Pacers have?

        PG -- Darren Collison: Pluses and minuses have been discussed. Could they do better? Sure. But I don't want to get into who the Pacers could get rather than what roles they need to fill.
        PG -- [NEED]
        WING -- Paul George: Obviously, a lot of talent and potential.
        WING -- Danny Granger: Where was this guy all season?
        WING -- [NEED]
        FOURTH WING -- Dahntay Jones: Under reasonable contract. Plays hard. Similar to Rush, but you don't need two glue guys like this in your rotation.
        BIG Roy Hibbert -- Kind of the same ground as Collison for me. Talent, but deficiencies. Is upgrade possible? Yeah. But you can at least call him one of three solid bigs.
        BIG Tyler Hansbrough -- I prefer him off the bench.
        BIG [NEED]
        FOURTH BIG Jeff Foster -- Not under contract. Wish he was. Perfect player for this role.

        And the leftovers ...

        Lance Stephenson: Who knows? Fine project on end of bench if he weren't, well, you know.
        A.J. Price: As project guy on end of bench, great ... otherwise, meh.
        Solomon Jones: Let him go.
        Mike Dunleavy: Let him go.
        Brandon Rush: Trade him. Not good enough offensively to be third wing. Not enough motor to supplant Dahntay Jones as situational wing.
        Josh McRoberts: Let him go, because he'll cost too much to re-sign. Not good enough to be an impact player down low. Never will be. Don't want to pay him remotely in that range. Would rather have Foster as a fourth contributor for all the intangibles he brings.
        T.J. Ford: Let him go, way obviously.
        James Posey: Might as well be the Kool-Aid man.

        What's available out there? Not worth the time and energy to analyze every scenario.

        What's needed?

        -- Another wing that can consistently put the ball in the bucket.
        -- Another big man that can score down low. Has to have some cajones and girth, unlike our 7-foot-2 center.
        -- Either an impact PG to supplant Collison, or a very credible backup.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

          Some seem ready to give up on Roy. I am not. For one the guy works hard. He will improve. This was only his third year in the league. Big men usually take a little longer to develop. Plus who are the Pacers going to get to replace him? I am not saying that Roy doesn't need to step up big time next season but when you consider his skills, talents, and who else the Pacers can get to play center Roy is one of the last guys I want to see traded.

          There is no doubt that the Pacers need another quality big man though. They need someone with size who is VERY physical.

          Paul George was one of the most impressive players in the series. His focus on defense was outstanding.

          Danny Granger impressed me too. He showed up to play every game of the series. Overall Darren Collison impressed me with his play as well.

          This series highlighted the Pacers need for another scorer. Not much more to say on that.

          The two things that weight most on my mind have nothing to do with players.

          One is Frank Vogel should be back as head coach. He earned it. Halfway through the season I wasn't for sure. Looking at it though I think he deserves to be named head coach. Don't even bother interviewing someone else. Interviewing other coaches sends a message that you are not sold on Vogel and I guess I am. This series has given this team an identity to work with.

          The whole situation with Larry bothers me. I think he has earned the right to come back. I believe he has done an outstanding job with this team. The rumors worry me because it makes me wonder what has gone on behind the scenes. I just want to see some stability and believe that if Larry wants to come back he deserves to.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

            Originally posted by Young View Post
            Some seem ready to give up on Roy. I am not. For one the guy works hard. He will improve. This was only his third year in the league. Big men usually take a little longer to develop. Plus who are the Pacers going to get to replace him? I am not saying that Roy doesn't need to step up big time next season but when you consider his skills, talents, and who else the Pacers can get to play center Roy is one of the last guys I want to see traded.


            I think he'll be a center who, in the Playoffs can log 26-30 minutes per game and play very well, but he needs a lot of help at the backup center spot who can rebound and hit a high percentage of shots around the rim. A guy with a lot of mass. Someone like Marcin Gortat or Chuck Hayes.

            A modern day Shaq minus the injuries fits the bill perfectly as a 'polar opposite' to Roy.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

              Originally posted by KnicksRGarbage View Post
              "I'm not mad about it," McRoberts said. "He got a good hit on me. They caught me trying to hit him back.

              "It's part of the game. I'm not going to say it's dirty. That's Game 5 of a playoff series. You can't say it's dirty, it's part of basketball."


              Kind of a slap in the face to Danny if you ask me. I certainly wouldn't be happy if I stuck up for one of my teammates in a situation like this and they say something like Josh did.

              Anyway, I am way excited about the future of our team.
              I have no problem with what McBob said and don't see it as a slap in the face after Granger stood up for him. If anything, McBob is taking the high road here and is saying what everyone else is saying...that this is the Playoffs and this is expected.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                There is a lot to like with this team. Some of our players have a bright future, some have a very bright future (Paul George is going to be special). Some are what you see is what you get.

                Maybe I was overrating Danny the past few years, but I really feel like this series showed who I have been supporting all along. He elevated his level of play this series. Not even Reggie would have won us this series. The problem isn't Danny, it never was. Is his shot selection great? No, its much better on Vogel and this whole notion that he doesn't drive needs to be dispelled because it's simply not true. He will always be a guy who in transition, takes a quick three. The misses bother you a lot, but he hits them regularly and they are huge momentum shots too. Danny is a damn good player. Kerr kept saying he isn't a superstar, and he is right. But only a handful of players are superstars. And even those superstars can't do it alone. Not Kobe, not LeBron, not Dwight, not Wade. So it is really time that management gets Danny the help he needs so we can get it done.

                I get all tingly inside when I think of Paul George's future. He reminds me so much of Tracy McGrady (I'M NOT SAYING HE WILL BE TRACY OR AVERAGE 30PPG). I'm saying he has a similar flow to his offense. I think his ceiling is higher than Danny's and he has the work ethic to reach it. Year three will be his year. Next year is too soon though. I think his offense will come a long way, but its not time to ask him to be that second offensive option. Just keep up the great defense Paul. You will be an All NBA defender sooner than later.

                Right now we have a team full of third options to pair with Danny. At times each can be a second option, hell sometimes they can be the first option. But none are consistent enough to be the second option. This is Collison/Hansbrough/Hibbert. Darren is the most consistent and is a good young point guard. He has his faults. But I do think he can run the offense (can we give him a coach for more than a few months). His mid range jumper is deadly. He can knock down threes. He can attack the basket. He is a scoring PG. He's more Russell Westbrook than Steve Nash. Well his defense is more Nash than Westbrook but thats another story. But he can run the offense. He won't be feeding the post because he is too short. But he can create offense with his speed. He is young and deserves a full season under one coach who has been here since the off season before we say he can't be the answer. He had a great game one and half of game 2 before he went out.

                Hansbrough should be starting. I don't care what the numbers are between him and McRoberts. When I see him on the court, he gives us a reliable scoring option that the starters need. You need to improve your starting line up before you improve the bench. I would have liked to see more post ups with him in the post season. I feel like he was just given jumpers when he clearly wasn't hitting them. But credit Chicago because they are a great defensive team and I think they bothered him. With Hansbrough in the starting line up, we have a better chance at winning when Roy is useless than we do with McRoberts. Is Hans the answer at PF? Probably not. He is better suited being the first big off the bench, but thats not behind McRoberts.

                And this leads us to Hibbert. I love Roy. I see so much potential in his game. He is very skilled. But man, he needs to hit the gym hard this summer. He did great at losing weight. And he is better for it. He needed to lose that fat. But now he needs to put on muscle. He needs it everywhere honestly, but especially in his legs and his core. He can't be pushed off the block anymore. He has to be able to finish at the rim. He has the skill to do so, but he lacks the strength right now. With his old weight he was more comfortable down there, but losing it threw him off his game. As the season went on and he just kept losing weight (what was he, in the 250lbs area in this series?) and thats why his first month was so good. He was at his strongest then. So hit the weights this off season big fella.

                I feel like the rest of the roster is what you see what you get. Will AJ ever be a point guard again? He seemed to get worse as the season went on. I hope he can get back to playing point guard, but to me, he is a third string PG. It doesn't help that the second unit isn't really a scoring threat, but he didn't even attempt to run the offense. Dunleavy, I mean we could do worse, but at best he is a back up SF. Check the market and see whats out there before resigning him to a reasonable contract. Bring Foster back if he doesn't retire. He is a great person to have on your roster. Rush is well, we saw he barely played when it mattered. There is a reason for that. DJ is DJ too. Someone to keep because he plays great defense and can be a spark off the bench.

                I know some will hate me for this, but McRoberts is pretty much the player that he will be. He doesn't have post skills. He isn't a good defender. He isn't a rebounder. He's Mike Dunleavy at the PF position. He does some good stuff, but ultimately you want more from your PF, starter or back up. I wouldn't be upset if we didn't resign him. At least Foster will rebound and defend to make up his offensive liability. McRoberts is good for ball movement. He is a big at the end of the bench you go too when the rest are in foul trouble.

                Ultimately we need a consistent second option. Thats why I want to see someone like Jamal Crawford brought in to play off the bench. Someone who can give us 25 mins in a rotation with Paul George and Danny Granger. We need another guy to take pressure of Roy and Collison. We need another veteran too. Also we need a PF. But I don't know if one is out there. Randolph is staying in Memphis and West probably wont be an FA with his knee injury. Not sure who we could get in a trade to solve the problems either, but they need to be a defender and a rebounder. That way we have him paired with Roy who isn't a defender/rebounder guy and we have Hans, a scorer, paired with Foster.

                There is a lot to like about this team. They certainly have the heart and character. That goes a long way. I think we have a coach too. Keep Frank here. The team likes and respects him and he coaches with common sense. I don't always agree with him 100%, but there isn't a coach that exists out there that I do. So lock him up for a few years Larry and get to work on a starting PF and back up SG who can score.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Things we learned from the playoffs

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  Rush is cut from the same bolt of cloth as his brothers. It well could be Brandon will be spoken about in the near future as Kareem in "where are they now?"

                  I truly regret the Pacers lost out on the Bobcats trade for Augustin, Henderson, and Nazr for Ford and Rush.
                  Any trade for Rush would have been good but it's too late now to get value.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X