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

We really did upgrade the bench

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

  • #31
    Re: We really did upgrade the bench

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    I'm thinking every backup could 20 in a given game as well. In fact, they probably already have.
    Well, there's "could go for 20" and there's "could go for 20." In the NBA, any scrub can get hot and go on a tear, but you'd be surprised to see them do it.

    If you picked up the box score in the morning and saw that Roy went for 20, would you be surprised? How about if West did? Granger? George? Hill? That would all seem pretty normal to me.

    Now if Mahinmi, Tyler, Stephenson, or Augustin went for 20, that would be pretty notable. But they could hit 10 consistently without me blinking an eye.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: We really did upgrade the bench

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      Well, there's "could go for 20" and there's "could go for 20." In the NBA, any scrub can get hot and go on a tear, but you'd be surprised to see them do it.

      If you picked up the box score in the morning and saw that Roy went for 20, would you be surprised? How about if West did? Granger? George? Hill? That would all seem pretty normal to me.

      Now if Mahinmi, Tyler, Stephenson, or Augustin went for 20, that would be pretty notable. But they could hit 10 consistently without me blinking an eye.
      If Green,Mahinmi,Augustin and Tyler keep playing like they have off the bench that will be a definite improvement over last year and may be the deepest team I can think the Pacers have ever had.
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: We really did upgrade the bench

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Well, there's "could go for 20" and there's "could go for 20." In the NBA, any scrub can get hot and go on a tear, but you'd be surprised to see them do it.

        If you picked up the box score in the morning and saw that Roy went for 20, would you be surprised? How about if West did? Granger? George? Hill? That would all seem pretty normal to me.

        Now if Mahinmi, Tyler, Stephenson, or Augustin went for 20, that would be pretty notable. But they could hit 10 consistently without me blinking an eye.
        If the preseason is any indication, there are some dips in talent at roster positions 6-10. Mahinmi, Green, and Augustin will all get their time... Young and Hansbrough will play based on circumstances and/or foul trouble.

        That portends a shorter rotation, and more playing time for 6-8. Which means that consistent mid teens could become more plausible.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: We really did upgrade the bench

          Agree they look good...in preseason. It's a good sign, but I'm withholding judgment until I see them as a unit for a good chunk of meaningful games. I'm excited about the new guys, but not ready to render a serious assessment yet.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: We really did upgrade the bench

            The Green signing was truly great. Finally gives the Pacers more athleticism, which this team has been missing.

            Loved the Ian signing, just hated giving DC away for free. Just wish a pick was coming back to us at the very least.

            The DJ singing was good, since we traded away DC, and he's more of a distributor. Yes, his defense is subpar for what you'd want, but he's a backup, so I'm ok with that.

            Really happy that Lance is finally going to get a chance to showcase his talents. I do feel the ride will be a bit bumpy to begin, but I just hope Vogel will stick with Lance and let him figure things out on the court. If by the All-Star break there isn't any noticeable improvement, I'd be totally cool with Hill and Green splitting duty as the backup SG. We are a playoff team, so if Lance doesn't show steady improvements, I doubt he'll play much in the playoffs anyhow. Rooting for Lance to succeed though. Just another dimension he could off this playoff team that would be hard for other teams to stop.

            As for the guys looking for contracts. I still only see Young getting offered a deal. I could see a 3rd point getting a X-day contract, but not a full year. Probably just enough to ensure that Hill has completely recovered.

            Tyler seems like a preseason guy, but hearing that he's starting to mix things up a bit...well, I'll be optimistic. Hopefully that carries over to the season. However, I'm digging on the idea of Ian eventually taking Tyler's place and Plumlee playing the backup C in that Jeff Foster role (being fiesty, hustle, defense and rebounding). Ian and Hibbert together could be a pretty damn good dou next year if West leaves.

            While there are definite ??? on the bench, if Vogel gets the most out of these guys and gets them to play to their potential, this will be a very deep bench to add to one of the best starting 5 in the league. Still may not be enough for a championship, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacers did make it to the finals at least if these guys do play to their potential.
            Last edited by Sparhawk; 10-21-2012, 10:00 PM.
            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: We really did upgrade the bench

              man how fast the Tyler haters forgot that Tyler averaged 20ppg in pre-season last year?
              I thought he stunk last year in pre-season. I forgot nothing. Just like I saw his 13 rebounds on SAT and realized that they came to nearly zero for the team due to how he got them (FT rebounds) or what happened when he did (blocked shot, charge, missed shots).

              Ian has a brilliant first step, good size, great instincts and excellent footwork at both ends. He's even working to stay back on some defense to avoid fouls (mixed results but you can see his awareness).


              Green has played confidently with the ball and not tried to be the show (ahem, Lance). His hops were always legit, he showed last year he has shots and his defensive effort has been focused and energetic.


              DJ has been a far more crafty ballhandler than DC, and he was the last 2 years in CHA. No one thinks his defense is okay.

              And Young had starter minutes for Memphis 2 years ago. If his shooting issues were really injury then it explains how he ended up here and it makes him a steal.


              NONE OF THAT is box score, that's on court actions and scouting what those items should mean for the team. I don't care if they beat Memphis, I care that Ian put 3 fouls on Gasol before he could get a sweat going, and all on good offensive moves. I care that Young and Green showed the ability to body guys up on dribble drives and force them across the lane instead of down it. I care that Ian has the physical stature to enforce his will on challenged rebounds.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                The only way our bench has been upgraded is if we are able to play less of it.

                If we are able to use an 8 man rotation, we've gotten better off the bench. We weren't deep last year because we played 10 guys. It just meant we didn't have enough good players.

                If Mahinmi can regularly play with Hibbert, we'll be in much better shape. You have to hope that West, Hibbert, and Mahinmi can eat up all the 4/5 minutes. You assume that George/Granger/Green/Hill eat up all the wing minutes. You assume that Augustin can eat up the PG minutes whenever Hill slides down to the 2 or sits. If you can get by with those 8, our bench is in decent shape.

                If Young and Hansbrough play signifcant minutes (or Stephenson and Plumlee, though there is no reason to think they'll contribute when we're healthy in any way, shape, or form), we're in no better shape than we were last season.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                  Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                  The only way our bench has been upgraded is if we are able to play less of it.

                  If we are able to use an 8 man rotation, we've gotten better off the bench. We weren't deep last year because we played 10 guys. It just meant we didn't have enough good players.

                  If Mahinmi can regularly play with Hibbert, we'll be in much better shape. You have to hope that West, Hibbert, and Mahinmi can eat up all the 4/5 minutes. You assume that George/Granger/Green/Hill eat up all the wing minutes. You assume that Augustin can eat up the PG minutes whenever Hill slides down to the 2 or sits. If you can get by with those 8, our bench is in decent shape.

                  If Young and Hansbrough play signifcant minutes (or Stephenson and Plumlee, though there is no reason to think they'll contribute when we're healthy in any way, shape, or form), we're in no better shape than we were last season.
                  What an interesting, and totally off-base analysis. Frank didn't play a 10 man rotation because we lacked talent. He thought we had more than we did. His strategy was to spread minutes and stay fresh. We are returning the same starting five, and Frank has already said their minutes will increase.

                  Saying the only way we can upgrade the bench is by using it less makes zero sense.
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                    Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                    What an interesting, and totally off-base analysis. Frank didn't play a 10 man rotation because we lacked talent. He thought we had more than we did. His strategy was to spread minutes and stay fresh. We are returning the same starting five, and Frank has already said their minutes will increase.

                    Saying the only way we can upgrade the bench is by using it less makes zero sense.
                    Totally agree with this rebuttal. Find me a team that uses an 8-man rotation for the entire season. Even teams with 3 superstars sit them down occasionally.

                    Now, playoffs, perhaps, but the ability for players other than the super guys to go 40+ minutes depends a LOT on how much wear-and-tear they were able to avoid during the season because a bench player could step in and handle the spot against general (as opposed to superstar) opposition.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Totally agree with this rebuttal. Find me a team that uses an 8-man rotation for the entire season. Even teams with 3 superstars sit them down occasionally.

                      Now, playoffs, perhaps, but the ability for players other than the super guys to go 40+ minutes depends a LOT on how much wear-and-tear they were able to avoid during the season because a bench player could step in and handle the spot against general (as opposed to superstar) opposition.
                      You don't need or want any of the Pacers players to play 40+. But you need 8 guys you can count on. You don't want to have to play heavy minutes with guys like Hansbrough or Amundson. You're counting on one guy to take both of their minutes. You don't want to have to play heavy minutes with guys like Barabosa and Dahntay. You're counting on Gerald Green to take both of their minutes. The starting 5 plays roughly the same amount.

                      There are 48 minutes at the point, 96 minutes on the wing, and 96 minutes for your bigs. Instead of regularly dividing that up among 10 guys with hockey style substitutions, you hope you've got three guys on your bench that are good enough that you can intermingle them with the starters for long stretches without major drop offs. Obviously, we didn't have that last year. We hope we do this year.

                      You have to hope that Augustin is good enough to give you 20 minutes a night which allows Hill to play 28 at the point and a few on the wing.

                      You have to hope that Green is good enough to give you 25-30 minutes a night on the wing. You still get your 30-35 from George and Granger and spot wing minutes from Hill.

                      You have to hope that Mahinmi is both good enought and versatile enough to spell both West and Hibbert so they can play in the low 30's every night.

                      If you can get that, your bench is better. And regardless of how deep you think you are, you should always have at least two starters on the floor during meaningful minutes.
                      Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 10-22-2012, 03:48 PM.
                      "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                      -Lance Stephenson

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Totally agree with this rebuttal. Find me a team that uses an 8-man rotation for the entire season. Even teams with 3 superstars sit them down occasionally.

                        Now, playoffs, perhaps, but the ability for players other than the super guys to go 40+ minutes depends a LOT on how much wear-and-tear they were able to avoid during the season because a bench player could step in and handle the spot against general (as opposed to superstar) opposition.
                        The Pacers players (other than West and Danny) are young enough to play extended minutes, is not like we are talking about San Antonio or Boston.

                        I hope Vogel goes not more than 8/9 players during the playoffs.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                          I think most of us that are saying the bench got better are hoping for the most part that DJ, Green, and Mahinmi eat all the bench minutes. Young maybe gets 4 minutes a game in certain situations.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                            Seriously, how can Donnie not bring in the Antonio and/or Dale Davis to work with Mahinmi and the rest of the frontcourt?
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Seriously, how can Donnie not bring in the Antonio and/or Dale Davis to work with Mahinmi and the rest of the frontcourt?
                              Because they were not really that good. Dale had no offensive game at all and Antonio was a marginal player.... He wasn't bad but he certainly wasn't great.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: We really did upgrade the bench

                                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                                Because they were not really that good. Dale had no offensive game at all and Antonio was a marginal player.... He wasn't bad but he certainly wasn't great.
                                GTFO
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X