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

Pacers seek the chemistry that can bring them a title- Montieth

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

  • Pacers seek the chemistry that can bring them a title- Montieth

    "Clear signs of good times
    Pacers seek the chemistry that can bring them a title


    He's on board: Austin Croshere creates a dunking pose for a poster. Croshere, a veteran forward, has accepted his role with the Pacers. -- Matt Detrich / The Star

    Related content

    Pacers season preview



    How the Pacers match up with the Eastern Conference contenders

    Pacers vs. Detroit

    SMALL FORWARD

    Ron Artest vs. Tayshaun Prince: Artest is better player; Prince made more winning plays in postseason.

    POWER FORWARD

    Jermaine O'Neal vs. Rasheed Wallace: O'Neal has surpassed his former mentor in Portland, but must stay healthy.

    CENTER

    Jeff Foster vs. Ben Wallace: Foster can narrow Wallace's advantage if he's allowed to score more.

    POINT GUARD

    Jamaal Tinsley vs. Chauncey Billups: Billups is a more complete player, but Tinsley doesn't need to score as much.

    SHOOTING GUARD

    Reggie Miller vs. Richard Hamilton: Hamilton has learned well from the master, dominated matchup in conference finals.

    BENCH

    Addition of Stephen Jackson should tip depth advantage to the Pacers.

    INTANGIBLES

    Pacers should be hungrier, but Pistons could be more confident.



    Pacers vs. Miami

    SMALL FORWARD

    Ron Artest vs. Rasual Butler: Artest can dominate at both ends against former second-round pick.

    POWER FORWARD

    Jermaine O'Neal vs. Udonis Haslem: Another clear advantage for Pacers against one-dimensional player.

    CENTER

    Jeff Foster vs. Shaquille O'Neal: O'Neal will have to average 30 points and 15 rebounds to overcome the Pacers' other advantages.

    POINT GUARD

    Jamaal Tinsley vs. Dwyane Wade: Wade dominated against Pacers in conference semifinals and gives Heat their only other clear edge.

    SHOOTING GUARD

    Reggie Miller vs. Eddie Jones: Jones is younger and quicker, but Miller is more reliable when postseason pressure builds.

    BENCH

    Miami had to gut its roster to get O'Neal, sacrificing depth and leaving itself vulnerable when injuries mount.

    INTANGIBLES

    O'Neal brings hope and swagger to Heat, but he doesn't have enough help. If his health fails, forget about it.



    By Mark Montieth
    mark.montieth@indystar.com
    October 31, 2004


    They'll be reminded everywhere they turn in Conseco Fieldhouse this season, by words painted in big, block, blue letters with gold trim.

    The messages are on the walls in the locker room, the weight room and the practice court. The one over the doorway leading from the locker room to the playing court summarizes the theme for a campaign in which the mission is to nudge themselves a little further after one of the most successful seasons in the franchise's NBA history.

    "Be a Great Teammate."

    That concept is open to interpretation, of course, and different players will have a different idea of how to go about it. But team president Larry Bird and coach Rick Carlisle know exactly what it means to them, having played on championship teams in Boston.

    It's about sacrifice. Of a role, of playing time, of shots . . . anything, if it contributes to the greater good.

    Even beer.

    The players on the Celtics team that won the NBA championship in 1986 agreed in January of that season to stop drinking until the final playoff game as a unified show of dedication and discipline. In June, having defeated Houston in the Finals, they were pouring champagne over one another in celebration.

    "The way you get to be the best team is to have the best chemistry and have guys willing to give and take a little bit," Bird said.

    And so begins the Pacers' season of sharing.

    Seeking chemistry

    The Pacers won a franchise-record 61 games last season, swept Boston in the first round of the playoffs, eliminated a rapidly improving Miami team in six games in the second round, then faced Detroit in the Eastern Conference finals.

    The Pacers believe the greatest factor in their six-game series loss to the eventual champions was health.

    All-Star forward Jermaine O'Neal suffered a hyperextended left knee in a Game 4 win in Detroit. He played reasonably well in the remaining two games, averaging 15.5 points and 8.0 rebounds, but wasn't at full strength. Point guard Jamaal Tinsley played the entire series with injuries to his left ankle, knee and hamstring. His play dropped off significantly from earlier rounds -- he averaged 6.8 points and 3.5 assists -- and he played just three minutes in the final loss.

    Still, the Pistons looked like a team that had been there before, which indeed they had the previous season -- under Carlisle. The Pacers, meanwhile, were fraying around the edges. They were playing against the best half-court defense in the league but still missed enough open shots to qualify for self-destruction.

    They hit just 35 percent of their attempts in the series, including 27 percent of their 3-pointers. After winning Game 4 in Detroit to tie the series, they managed just 65 points in each of the final two games.

    Carlisle has adjusted his offense to induce more movement and balance, but he wants the players to tweak the intangibles to extract more points, too.

    They shouldn't need major improvements to win a championship, just a lot of little ones.

    A little more health and a little more luck, sure, but also a little more teamwork, a little more patience, a little more poise and a little more camaraderie.

    "The chemistry has to be better than it was last year," Bird said. "They won 61 games, but at times I thought they got a little selfish out there.

    "I know we have a good team here. It's obvious we have a lot of players who can play. It just all depends on the guys. They all seem like good guys, but on the court are they going to be able to play with each other every night and stay together? If that happens, they've got a good shot this year."

    Rewards of teamwork

    If the Pacers need to hear the message from someone other than their team president, they can turn their collective ear toward Miami. Shaquille O'Neal, winner of three league championships in Los Angeles before the team chemistry exploded last season, knows the formula for winning a title.

    "The main ingredient is sticking together," O'Neal said. "Talent will only win you 40-50 games. You have to put that talent together and stick together and everybody has to be willing to sacrifice. I see that from this group."

    He meant his group, in Miami. Detroit, meanwhile, established a template for teamwork in dismantling the Lakers in the Finals last season, making "total team effort" the NBA's latest cliché. The Pacers played much the same way as the Pistons, only not quite as well or for quite as long. Now they have more firsthand evidence of what it takes.

    Bird and Carlisle already had it, from having played on those championship teams in Boston. Each of the three titles Bird won was distinct, but if he had to pick one that is most relevant to what the Pacers are trying to accomplish, it would be the one from 1986.

    That team was loaded with talent. Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish are in the Hall of Fame and some believe Dennis Johnson should be. The other starter was Danny Ainge, now the Celtics' director of basketball operations. The bench included Carlisle and Jerry Sichting, now an assistant coach at Minnesota. It also included Bill Walton, whose career at Portland earned him Hall of Fame induction.

    Along with drinking, the Celtics also sacrificed individual glory. All five starters averaged in double figures during the regular season, and any one of them qualified as a go-to guy if matchups and circumstances required it. Their rotation went just eight deep, but they had enough depth to conduct competitive practices as well as rest starters during the regular season.

    "The only thing that mattered to that team was winning the last game of the season," Carlisle said. "To get to that point there were a lot of small sacrifices and a lot of big sacrifices made along the way.

    "There was a sense of obligation between the starting team and the bench team that everybody had a job to do and things like individual statistics never entered the conversation that year."

    The depths of sacrifice

    The Pacers' quest for ultimate unity is made more difficult by their depth.

    They have perhaps the best bench in the NBA, certainly a good thing. It gives them leverage, making them less dependent on any one or two players and more able to withstand injuries. That was proved last season when they went 10-2 in games O'Neal or Artest missed.

    But it also requires players to accept limitations on playing time and scoring. Al Harrington struggled with that last season, which led to his trade. Harrington ranked third on the team in minutes played and scoring as the top reserve, but he was frustrated to still be coming off the bench in his sixth NBA season.

    Moving him to Atlanta for Stephen Jackson appears to have brought a significant change to the team's chemistry. Jackson was the starting shooting guard on San Antonio's championship team two seasons ago and is the only Pacer with a ring. His willingness to come off the bench after starting the past two seasons sets an example.

    "You always have to sacrifice something to get something," he said.

    In Jackson's prejudiced opinion, the Pacers are better than those Spurs, largely because of their depth.

    "I'm not saying this because I'm here now," he said. "But we are better and deeper and younger. (The Spurs) had a great player in Tim Duncan and a Hall of Famer in David Robinson, but we have 13 or 14 guys who can go."

    Other Pacers already have showed a willingness to surrender to a greater cause. Reggie Miller, the franchise's all-time leading scorer and a widely projected Hall of Famer, began making a graceful transition to a subordinate role three seasons ago. Austin Croshere has learned to live with erratic minutes. Scot Pollard swallowed his pride and bit his tongue throughout last season after he was pulled from the starting lineup after the first two games. Jeff Foster, who replaced Pollard as a starter, experienced a diminished role in the conference finals, playing just two minutes in Game 6.

    This season, O'Neal and Artest figure to take their turn. They'll still be the focal points of the offense, but slightly less so than before. The system will have them setting screens and looking for open cutters more often, and their scoring averages could drop.

    O'Neal, an All-Star the past three seasons and third in the MVP voting a year ago, is OK with that. He averaged more than 20 points each of the past two seasons but says he's most interested in boosting his field goal percentage, which dropped to a career-low .434 last season.

    "Whatever needs to happen for this team to be successful, whether it's scoring more points or scoring less points, is OK with me," he said.

    "This is (an offense) where every player can benefit from it. It makes my job easier. I don't have to bang, bang, bang all day long to get a shot off. I'll take whatever's given to me on any particular night. The more I can get my teammates involved and increase my shooting percentage, I'm still making everybody happy."

    Artest on board

    Artest's ability to adapt could be the most crucial element to the Pacers' season. He was the focal point of the loss to Detroit after he hit just 29.8 percent of his shots in the series and complained of not being on the same page with his teammates. That issue was exacerbated by his absence from a few of the final practices and his decision not to fly with the team to Detroit for Game 6.

    His aggressive mind-set and confidence led him to take some questionable shots against the Pistons. While nobody within the Pacers' organization blamed him for the loss, his name crops up occasionally in conversation -- such as when Bird discusses the need for better offensive balance.

    "Say if Ronnie doesn't have his shot that night, he has to find ways to do things (to help the team)," Bird said. "But it's not just Ronnie, it's everybody.

    "We have enough firepower here that if you're not having a good shooting night, do something else to help your teammates."

    Artest often has said he wants to have the offense run through him, and he talked of wanting to lead the league in scoring this season. But he later said he didn't give Carlisle's offense a fair chance last season, adding, "I should keep my mouth shut a little bit."

    For now, he says he doesn't mind if he gets fewer shots, and he is on board with the emphasis of making teammates better. He also believes the players are closer because of the experience gained last season. And while he was close to Harrington, he already has formed a tight bond and understanding with Jackson, whose locker is just around the corner from his.

    "I feel I can't lose, having him on my team," Artest said. "I feel real, real confident."

    So do the rest of the Pacers, who appear to have hit a sweet spot in their development. They're young, aside from Miller, but playoff-tested. Their core has been together long enough to establish cohesion, but they haven't accomplished enough that complacency should be an issue. They're widely regarded as one of the top three teams in the league, and have a sobering opportunity. With the possible exception of the lockout season of 1999, they appear to have their best chance to win a championship in the franchise's NBA history.

    If they follow the signs."

    http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/190328-5608-036.html

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws
Working...
X