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

NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

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

  • #61
    Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

    Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
    I feel like almost every thread ends in a stupid argument over pointless, minor details.
    Is this really a minor detail in this case? Vnzla is wondering why people give David West a pass for his average to below average D, but never gave a pass to Murphy...I mean try to digest that one for a second.

    EDIT: Also, everyone is acting like West's stats are terrible, when in reality, they are pretty close to on par with his career averaged. He's just playing 5-6 less minutes a game then he has in his career in the past. Last year West played 35 MPG, this year he is playing 29.7 MPG. And even with playing nearly 6 minutes less per game, he is only averaging .7 less rebounds a game than he did last year. West averaged 7.5 RPG last year and is at 6.8 last year. So maybe his assists are down? Nope again. Last year in nearly 6 more MPG West averaged 2.3 APG that has dropped down a whopping .1 APG this season to 2.2 APG.

    So yeah, his scoring is down, but he's also recovering from one of the most catastrophic physical injuries you can have. However, his rebounds and assists are virtually identical to last year and he is doing it in 6 less minutes a game. That is impressive. David West having a poor statistical season? I say bullocks.
    Last edited by Trader Joe; 03-01-2012, 03:02 PM.


    Comment


    • #62
      Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

      Jeez, how many people actually read the article?

      It's about West's complementary nature offensively.

      Not about his stats, not about his defensive play.

      Why is it that people want to pick apart each individual player's weaknesses, when most of those don't manner in the milieu of a game that's played as a team?

      Most NBA players have to be spectacularly bad at a specific skill (read: Murphy) or poorly matched up with non-complementary teammates (read: GSW) for it to have real, fundamental meaning.

      I can see pointing out that we have no real consistently effective second team lineup. I can see pointing out that we, as a team, seem to struggle feeding the low post effectively.

      But to pick apart West's average to subpar team defensive skills seems like a waste of time, and borderline trollish.

      Hibbert: "I am an all-star this year because of West"

      Record: 22-12

      Team: happy, cohesive

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

        Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
        I feel like almost every thread ends in a stupid argument over pointless, minor details.
        I think that's pretty accurate, although the details aren't always minor - it's just the way some people structure their arguments (and don't know how to let anything go) that's the problem, imo. I try to read all the posts before I respond in a thread and for the past 6 months or so by the time I get to the end I am annoyed enough that I don't even bother half the time. I can't avoid it by using my ignore list because the people I want to ignore the most tend to get quoted over and over again. Besides, the thread has often been narrowed down into "Yes, he is/X sucks!" and "No, he isn't/x doesn't suck!" anyway, so I figure - what's the point?

        It's disheartening, especially when the team is doing so well overall. That's not to say there shouldn't be disagreement and discussion - of course there should be, it's a message board. But does almost every thread have to end in ? There have definitely been periods of time when in-depth but at least semi-respectful disagreements were normal around here, and no, it wasn't "boring." Now the board seems to be dripping with sarcasm, exaggeration, and self-congratulation. I'd hoped the combativeness would ease up just a bit post-JOB, but it really hasn't.

        Ah well. I should be working anyway.
        Last edited by gummy; 03-01-2012, 04:57 PM.
        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

        "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

        "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

          If West really wanted to, he could score more points than he currently is. Same's true of Roy, Danny, Paul George, and Collison.

          Every one of the starters has sacrificed a couple ppg in order to build a well-rounded offense.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            If West really wanted to, he could score more points than he currently is. Same's true of Roy, Danny, Paul George, and Collison.

            Every one of the starters has sacrificed a couple ppg in order to build a well-rounded offense.
            And our team is better for it.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              If West really wanted to, he could score more points than he currently is. Same's true of Roy, Danny, Paul George, and Collison.

              Every one of the starters has sacrificed a couple ppg in order to build a well-rounded offense.
              Indiana is in the middle in scoring I'm pretty sure they are looking to score more and yes I know we are 22 and 12.

              Edit: and we are still on the bottom 8 at shooting percentage.
              Last edited by vnzla81; 03-01-2012, 05:41 PM.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                Again, to win on the playoffs you need to play defense, there is a reason why Tom T always uses Gibson to shut people down instead of Boozer's passing ability and shooting, you win with defense.
                This part is true. However, Gibson can shoot and pass as well. Gibson is not only a good defender. He is a great role player that can defend and provide you valuable offense to boot.

                We don't have a player like Gibson to back up West. Hans may be a better scorer than Gibson (mainly because he can draw more fouls and hit most of his FTs) but defensively he is not the upgrade that Gibson is to Boozer.

                Lou is our best defender at PF. I doubt that we would want to see Lou getting major time during the playoffs. He is an excellent defender but offensively he is not as good as Gibson.

                If we could merge Lou and Hans together (and get a Louer Amundsbrough or a Tylis Hanson) then we could use this hybrid in the same way that Tom T uses Gibson. We cannot do this, though.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Edit: and we are still on the bottom 8 at shooting percentage.
                  Do you know any way to see team shooting percentage by game? I'd like to see what it's been like recently. I expect that a lot of the really poor shooting came early in the season, and will drag down the percentage all season long. But I don't know how to get that data.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Do you know any way to see team shooting percentage by game? I'd like to see what it's been like recently. I expect that a lot of the really poor shooting came early in the season, and will drag down the percentage all season long. But I don't know how to get that data.
                    According to teamrankings.com we are shooting 44% in the last 3 games. Our effective FG is at 48.4%. Our non-blocked 2 Pt is at 52.2%.

                    I guess that the most disappointing fact is that we are in the 28th place in non-blocked 2 Pt attempts for the whole season shooting 49%. In this category we're only better than the Pistons (48.7%) and the Bobcats (48.1%). Even the Wizards are slightly above us (49.1%).

                    The good thing is that we still are a good team despite missing several open shots.

                    PS: Here's the link -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...ocked-2-pt-pct
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

                      http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-chat-w...rk-nugent-3112


                      Cain

                      With Rondo being shopped any chance Pacers make a play? Granger + Collison for Rondo + Allen?

                      Mark Nugent

                      I haven’t heard anything. I’m not sure Rondo is a good fit for the Pacers, Ray Allen certainly is though. The Pacers need their PG to be able to hit a Jumper in order to provide spacing for their slashers and Hibbert in the paint. I just don’t see Rondo making the Pacers that much better because of his issues offensively. He’d be great on defense
                      .
                      Sittin on top of the world!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Do you know any way to see team shooting percentage by game? I'd like to see what it's been like recently. I expect that a lot of the really poor shooting came early in the season, and will drag down the percentage all season long. But I don't know how to get that data.
                        I have no idea but I know that this last few games got us moving from bottom 5 to bottom 8, we are still missing a lot shots.

                        edit: Here are the numbers from the last five games, we are ranked at 11th(last five games).

                        http://www.nba.com/statistics/sortab...able1.html#top
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: NYT: Stats Fail to Show West’s Impact on Pacers

                          I think the best measurement of team offense and defense is OFF EFF and DEF EFF because that way you don't get deceived when a team has a low FG% but gets offensive rebounds (or defensively, gets people to miss but can't get enough D rebounds), plus it balances every team by accounting for pace.

                          The Pacers are currently 13th in the league in OFF EFF (which sounds about right to me), while our DEF EFF is currently 7th, which also seems about right to me.

                          We're fine. Nothing spectacular, but we're doing quite well overall. When you're in the top half in both OFF EFF and also DEF EFF, and one of the two is top 10 (preferably top 5, however), you're doing a lot of things right.

                          http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/tea...ff/order/false

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X