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

Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

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

  • #16
    Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

    At least it was nice to see Augustin do something well. He looked a lot more aggressive on all fronts.
    DG for 3

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

      Originally posted by flox View Post
      as far as remember, he's always been better on combo 1/2s and 2s than 1s, and it shows against elite 1s.
      He was really good last year against PGs, but he was facing mainly backups.

      I thought he'd be a lot better than he has on D this year. I don't see him really digging in (i.e. trying) as much as I'd like. He seems disinterested to me on defense at times. With that said, it's got to be demoralizing trying to defend the pick and roll with David and Roy, and that's when he seems to struggle the most.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

        D.J. Augustin: A+

        As Hick’s who was sitting with me tonight said “he’s a pretty good point guard when he’s breathing oxygen”. By far and not even a close second anywhere to be found this was his best game as a Pacer. He led the offensive attack and he wasn’t a complete sieve on defense either. Yes I’m being overly generous with the grade because it really wasn’t an A+ game but with what we’ve gotten from him up till now believe me it was an A+ game for him.
        I've only been able to see the last bit that I saw live, but whenever you let your man separate from you by a good 10 feet on nothing but his dribble, ie no pick needed, and go right to the lane unchallenged late in a close game, you can not in any good conscience be given an A+. I swear at one point DJ intentionally moved away from Parker ala Troy Murphy.

        DJ is setting a record for worst defensive effort of all time. I'm slipping from "well yes he hurts on that end, but his passing" and moving into "why even bother going to that end of the court DJ, enough with the sham".



        Dunleavy, who by the way I felt wasn't a very smart basketball player.
        I agree. Massively overrated. One of his dependable plays was the pass to the other team while still in the backcourt. He did it all the time, almost every game it seemed.

        Shooters who move off of screens to get open jumpers are not smart in my opinion. I consider that action mostly neutral and to be a taught, specific behavior that can be done regardless of any awareness or appropriateness to the particular offensive set being run.

        As it happens smart players will do this as one of the weapons they utilize (going off screens, making space) and because of this it gets folded into the idea that all players doing this have great awareness in total. But it's really like assuming all shot blockers have great defensive awareness. Some do, but that doesn't mean all do.



        I need to watch the good potion (first 2.5 quarters) to see what worked well. Maybe this game wasn't quite the end of turning the corner but I think it showed that they are in fact in that process. They are getting more competitive and able to suppress the offensive ineptness for 12-15 minutes at a time.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
          we have zero chance of beating the Lakers because?............... aren't they 6-7???
          Exactly, what part isn't clear?




          But it does make for an odd game. Two teams massively under-performing early on. The last few years this challenge has been one where I'd say they could win, especially JOB's last year where I was one of the few strongly standing by their chance to win because I believed in the talent. It was a mark of validation for the team.

          Now it's just as winnable, and yet it's no longer a validation of talent but instead will simply mark the absence of proof of futility if they win.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            Extremely low ball IQ. I remember a few of them growing up. Athletic freaks with super hops who for some reason never played much organized ball. Maybe they ran track or something. When they do play a season or two or play pickup, they are clueless--kind of hover around the perimeter looking for the ball--hoping at some point for a chance to dunk or something.

            For the record, this is not even accurate regarding Gerald Green. It's just the popular misconception, kind of like when everyone rode the "Lance sucks, will never amount to anything, has a horrible attitude and should be cut ASAP because I don't know why but just do it" bandwagon. There is no honest, objective evaluation going on in either case. I understand reputation precedes, but before bestowing such semi-permanent labels on players at least have analysis to base it on. "I feel like he doesn't do x" or "there's just something about him," doesn't cut it. I mean, it does. It's just a very ignorant thing to do, because it lacks substantial analysis. And if we're making definitive statements about professionals sans analysis, what's the point?

            Gerald Green's shot selection and spacing have been good, dare I say excellent so far this year. Certainly the best of our bench players. He's been moving around, bringing the ball up court when needed (but not when the point guard is open), hitting the open man, cutting and dishing, taking good threes. He needs to be more aggressive (this has nothing to do with "bball IQ" and everything to do with coaches orders, as he had no problem being aggressive with moderate PT on his previous teams). Is he a complete player? No. Do I wish he was a little faster or was better at taking his man off the dribble or played really good defense? Certainly. But he is hardly hovering "around the perimeter looking for the ball--hoping at some point for a chance to dunk something." It's absolutely non-factual. It's funny how he's portrayed in that manner yet Leandro Barbosa last year had some of the worst shot selection I can recall seeing from a regular and many on this board wish he was still a Pacer. Perception is everything, eh?

            Green is shooting 46% over the past 5 games, and that's with limited shots. He's still giving us 8 ppg and 4.3 reb off the bench. Not sure how many backup 3's in the league are even doing that, and this is with him working his way out of a slump and getting inconsistent minutes (as only Frank Vogel can provide). Let's drop the witch hunt and let the man play, make actual observations instead of hazy, hasty characterizations.

            That's all I have to say about that.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                i can delete multiple posts at a time, so i can delete faster than you can post, keep it basketball only or you have to find another board to post on.

                we have very very long standing rules about that crap and answering is just as bad as starting it, so don't even start to tempt me.
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                  Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                  He was. I think his defense goes on the milk carton that Augustin was on. He has been getting Collison torched this season on the ball (off the ball is still good).
                  Hmmm, I dunno, I think you might find if you go back and sift through the tape that him being a "great" defender has always been a bit of a myth. He makes some plays cause of his length and athleticism that Collison can't but fundamentally he's always been shaky


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                    I've only been able to see the last bit that I saw live, but whenever you let your man separate from you by a good 10 feet on nothing but his dribble, ie no pick needed, and go right to the lane unchallenged late in a close game, you can not in any good conscience be given an A+. I swear at one point DJ intentionally moved away from Parker ala Troy Murphy.

                    DJ is setting a record for worst defensive effort of all time. I'm slipping from "well yes he hurts on that end, but his passing" and moving into "why even bother going to that end of the court DJ, enough with the sham".
                    Yea an A+ was way over the top. But believe me as bad as he has played all season his offensive production was a joy to behold for a short time. I've just come to expect that from him on defense so it didn't bother me as much as it did you.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                      Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                      For the record, this is not even accurate regarding Gerald Green. It's just the popular misconception, kind of like when everyone rode the "Lance sucks, will never amount to anything, has a horrible attitude and should be cut ASAP because I don't know why but just do it" bandwagon. There is no honest, objective evaluation going on in either case. I understand reputation precedes, but before bestowing such semi-permanent labels on players at least have analysis to base it on. "I feel like he doesn't do x" or "there's just something about him," doesn't cut it. I mean, it does. It's just a very ignorant thing to do, because it lacks substantial analysis. And if we're making definitive statements about professionals sans analysis, what's the point? Let's drop the witch hunt and let the man play, make actual observations instead of hazy, hasty characterizations.

                      That's all I have to say about that.
                      If the evidence presented so far isn't enough to convince you "he makes bad basketball decisions", and there has been plenty discussed in this thread already, explain how a player with elite shooting and athletic ability has failed to find a home in this league until now? Don't get me wrong I like him and haven't given up on him (it's way too early for that), but all signs so far point to there being no misconception.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                        Frank lost control of the game, I wish you could see that. I know a coach can't control a players wide open miss. But, His subs was terrible and he done nothing to change the pace of the game between all his early timeouts. Which, would have been awful if Pacers had a chance at the end and needed that last crucial timeout and wouldn't have had one. Why pull Lance and Hans out when they was balling is beyond me. Hans was showing the aggression and grabbing rebounds like a kid grabbing candy in a candy store. Lance was straight up balling and Spurs had no answer for him and it took the refs to slow him down and then Frank to put the chains on the beast. Ian was playing aggressively and doing quite well but to leave Hibbert on the bench so long is just ridiculous. He needs more time to get going and by the time he comes in the ball is always force to him, This is unacceptable, Hibbert should always be in at the 8:30 mark unless he is in foul trouble.
                        Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                          Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                          If the evidence presented so far isn't enough to convince you "he makes bad basketball decisions", and there has been plenty discussed in this thread already, explain how a player with elite shooting and athletic ability has failed to find a home in this league until now? Don't get me wrong I like him and haven't given up on him (it's way too early for that), but all signs so far point to there being no misconception.
                          I don't know why my original post on this subject got deleted, besides it being the wrong digest, but I basically agreed with this. He just seems lost in a structured offense. When I say "structured offense" I mean offensive sets. His shot selection is fine and when it is one on one against his defender he usually fares well. Defensively, again, one on one he is fairly passable, but he gets lost running through screens and seems to have low awareness of where the ball is if the guy he is defending does not have it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                            Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
                            How does a 7' 2" center who gets 7 offensive rebounds and tries to score on each of them not shoot one free throw?

                            Someone please teach Roy to gather himself and go up strong with two hands instead of flipping up the one handed b.s. shots
                            yeah, that is one of the most aggravating things about roy. those wimpy shots won't cut it. he needs to go strong.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              I don't know why my original post on this subject got deleted, besides it being the wrong digest, but I basically agreed with this. He just seems lost in a structured offense. When I say "structured offense" I mean offensive sets. His shot selection is fine and when it is one on one against his defender he usually fares well. Defensively, again, one on one he is fairly passable, but he gets lost running through screens and seems to have low awareness of where the ball is if the guy he is defending does not have it.
                              Exactly. The guy basically lost a game for us because of his low awareness on defense. He does these hilarious slow motion fake cuts before he starts an offensive set that never work and only slow down the offense. A few games ago he was yelling at Mahinmi when it looked like he was the one messing up the plays. There's plenty of evidence so far that "he makes bad basketball decisions." Then again there's plenty of time to get it figured out. A lot of our guys have underachieved so far this season so I'm not too down on him.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Odd thoughts: Black (and Silver) Friday

                                Is there no way to remove the the this message has been deleted by X message?


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X