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/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

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

  • #76
    Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
    I'll take that bet on that it won't happen. Lance might want to, but West won't have any part of it.



    Every game that we play the more and more I think it might be smarter to bring Granger off the bench. The first unit has a good mixture to start the game, then a few minutes into the game you bring in Granger and you get a second boost.
    But our starting unit offense could really use a jump shooter.

    I don't understand why people continue to believe that George and Granger are incompatible, when George could desperately use another jump shooter so that defenses can't key on him.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

      The only real question about putting Paul and Danny together long term is this: Is George more effective and impactful when he's guarding SF's and being guarded by SF's, or is he more effective and impactful when he's guarding SG's and being guarded by SG's? Yes, those positions can be very similar, but there is a difference, and it's a question I would like to know the answer to. Danny's return, assuming he mostly resembles his old self, should go a long way in finally answering this question now that George appears to have come out of his cocoon.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

        Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
        The only real question about putting Paul and Danny together long term is this: Is George more effective and impactful when he's guarding SF's and being guarded by SF's, or is he more effective and impactful when he's guarding SG's and being guarded by SG's? Yes, those positions can be very similar, but there is a difference, and it's a question I would like to know the answer to. Danny's return, assuming he mostly resembles his old self, should go a long way in finally answering this question now that George appears to have come out of his cocoon.
        One of those questions doesn't matter. Paul George is going to defend the best perimeter player on the court. On paper, he should have an advantage at the 2, but you never know until it's played.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

          Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
          The only real question about putting Paul and Danny together long term is this: Is George more effective and impactful when he's guarding SF's and being guarded by SF's, or is he more effective and impactful when he's guarding SG's and being guarded by SG's? Yes, those positions can be very similar, but there is a difference, and it's a question I would like to know the answer to. Danny's return, assuming he mostly resembles his old self, should go a long way in finally answering this question now that George appears to have come out of his cocoon.
          Let's just hope Paul doesn't have to face a lot of guys running off screens.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            The thing with Plumjam is he's a project with no experience. Mozgov has been in the league 3-4 years. Walsh when at NY originally signed him.

            Mahinmi doesn't have the bulk Mozgov has, but Mahinmi is quicker.

            It would take a trade, and I'm not sure the Pacers have a bench player/players Denver would want. Green's salary fits for those that want to get rid of Green. I had orginally thought about a trade using Pendergraph, but he only makes half of Mozgov's salary.

            I'll be a Pacers homer and suggest a Green and DJ trade for Mozgov and Miller trade. I'd throw in a 2nd as a sweetner.
            So, you're suggesting that we play both Ian and Mozgov as the b/us? I don't that we want to commit so many bucks on the b/u Center position.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
              One of those questions doesn't matter. Paul George is going to defend the best perimeter player on the court. On paper, he should have an advantage at the 2, but you never know until it's played.
              Well, if the other team has two reasonably-close-in-talent wings, then he's going to be guarding the smaller of the two with Granger next to him, so I think it does still matter. Clearly he's better defending his man straight up versus having to chase a guy around screens, and generally speaking SG's tend to do that more than SF's do.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                But our starting unit offense could really use a jump shooter.

                I don't understand why people continue to believe that George and Granger are incompatible, when George could desperately use another jump shooter so that defenses can't key on him.
                My thoughts on that have nothing to do with whether or not they can coexist, because they can, although I do believe it is in the teams best interest for one of them to always be on the court. If a great SF and SG couldn't co-exist the Bulls wouldn't have had a dynasty in the 90's and the Heat wouldn't have won the championship last year. For me it is all a strategic issue, that really comes down to if it is better to bring Granger off the bench or Lance. I think you have to take a serious look at bringing Granger off the bench as he will bring veteran leadership, intensity, and scoring to the bench, not to mention he would still be getting starting minutes so a lot of his time will come with the starters and he could still play with the starters at the most crucial times. I am not going to say it would be better to bring him off the bench instead of Lance until there is some actual evidence one way or the other, but I don't think it would be a bad idea.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  I think you have to take a serious look at bringing Granger off the bench as he will bring veteran leadership, intensity, and scoring to the bench, not to mention he would still be getting starting minutes so a lot of his time will come with the starters and he could still play with the starters at the most crucial times.
                  Agreed. You are not forced to start your best starting 5. The Thunder did this with Harden in his last two seasons there and now they're doing it with Martin. Martin and Harden both played more minute than Sefolosha but Thabo was the starter because he fit better with the starting unit.

                  Martin and Harden are great as the scoring punch of the bench. I could certainly see Granger prospering coming off the bench and still playing starter minutes.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    Agreed. You are not forced to start your best starting 5. The Thunder did this with Harden in his last two seasons there and now they're doing it with Martin. Martin and Harden both played more minute than Sefolosha but Thabo was the starter because he fit better with the starting unit.

                    Martin and Harden are great as the scoring punch of the bench. I could certainly see Granger prospering coming off the bench and still playing starter minutes.
                    The problem is that I'm not sure our starting lineup's offense is good enough to be playing games like that.

                    Granger would be a help off the bench and in the starting lineup. Because he's Danny Granger.

                    I'm also hoping that when Danny gets back, we can run a 3 guard rotation with Lance/Hill/George. I'm not a fan of Lance at PG, but I'm really not a fan of DJ playing so I'm willing to try that experiment. Kind of hard to do when you start Lance.

                    I also think Roy and West likely need a 3 point shooter out there.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                      But our starting unit offense could really use a jump shooter.

                      I don't understand why people continue to believe that George and Granger are incompatible, when George could desperately use another jump shooter so that defenses can't key on him.
                      No kidding. I'm so jacked up on the idea of adding Danny to this mix that I can't stand it.

                      Paul George is being asked to guard WHOEVER IS HOT, period. Not just SFs. When Ellis got going in the 3rd Vogel tried to have both Lance and Green slow him down with no luck. So what happened next? He put Paul on him and shut that s*** down. This happens all the time and maybe people just don't catch it. But PG is the assigned stopper, especially with Young off the team now.

                      Danny will just guard whoever is left over.

                      Maybe at the start of a game they will begin by defending "their position", but not once Vogel sees where things are going.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                        Exactly. But quite frankly, as a featured part of the offense, Hibbert's efficiency and FG% are very disappointing. So, from my perspective at least, his means of getting points tonight is exactly what he should be doing. Using him only when he is wide open and having him crash the boards for put backs will yield a much better efficiency and FG%.

                        He needs to do whatever will cause our opponent to have to pay more attention to him, thus further enabling West, George and Hill, and Granger upon his return. Crashing the boards seems like a great way of getting that accomplished. He won't be as successful every game as he was this game, but again, anything that draws more attention from the opposition will yield great results for the team.
                        Totally agree, and this was something that was missing the night before in Boston. Despite massive focus on West/Paul Roy was unable to pick up scraps or really force Boston to deal with him in any way.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          No kidding. I'm so jacked up on the idea of adding Danny to this mix that I can't stand it.

                          Paul George is being asked to guard WHOEVER IS HOT, period. Not just SFs. When Ellis got going in the 3rd Vogel tried to have both Lance and Green slow him down with no luck. So what happened next? He put Paul on him and shut that s*** down. This happens all the time and maybe people just don't catch it. But PG is the assigned stopper, especially with Young off the team now.

                          Danny will just guard whoever is left over.

                          Maybe at the start of a game they will begin by defending "their position", but not once Vogel sees where things are going.
                          And Vogel went away from that last year. I think Vogel is improving in the majority of his faults. I had the line change subs, but he has made adjustments else where.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                            And Vogel went away from that last year. I think Vogel is improving in the majority of his faults. I had the line change subs, but he has made adjustments else where.
                            I definitely agree there. This topic died out a month or so ago, the idea that Vogel was on the hot seat. He was certainly my pre-season "key player" coming into this season and I thought a majority of the success or failure was on his shoulders and on his ability to improve as a coach.

                            I see that improvement, I see those adjustments. Not everything is a winner but the guy explores ideas and doesn't settle for just playing it safe. I mean he kept looking for the Danny solution at the start of the season, working different guys into the lineup. He's adjusted defensive assignments. He's made massive offensive structure adjustments even if he would downplay it to the press. For example, they work Roy early still but they learned to get away from it quickly and get to Hill/West PnR action if Roy was struggling. He's mixed up going all bench at the same time with trying to have different starters work longer shifts to keep at least 1 starter out there to be an offensive focus at all times (most nights at least).

                            People have been uptight about a couple of games where Tyler got hot and West returned while in a slump, but this is after 20+ games reinforcing how critical West was and how unreliable Tyler was. That's not something you just instantly ignore because a guy made a couple of jumpers. Not to mention defensive awareness and rotation mistakes that fans often overlook or are unaware of. Heck, just the fact that West draws attention makes him more important to getting other players going than Tyler hitting some jumpers does.

                            I'm a huge Carlisle fan, specifically because of the brilliant offensive playbook adjustments during the 98-2000 era. I see Vogel developing that kind of intelligence for the game. Maybe this has as much to do with the staff as Frank, but ultimately he's the guy making the calls and taking that advice so he's at least smart enough to listen if he isn't inventing it himself.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                              Vogel uses the assets he has around him. I think that is why Shaw is so willing to stay when he has had at least 2 teams that expressed interest in him. I think he still uses Green and a slumping West because of attention defenses have to give them. Defenders have to keep Green in front of them or he will be in the top plays on ESPN. Vogel is running plays for Green, he simply is not hitting. But the attention given to him does free up pressure for Tyler to hit those jumpers or penetration or baseline 3s.

                              I have no problem taking the hot player out for the known commodity. But I understand the contention in the same breath.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Pacers/Bucks Postgame Thread 1/5/13

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                                So, you're suggesting that we play both Ian and Mozgov as the b/us? I don't that we want to commit so many bucks on the b/u Center position.


                                Don't confine your thoughts to this season only, think ahead to next season.

                                If the Pacers don't re-sign DWest this off season, then Mahinmi and Hansbrough are your PF. Mozgov b/u 5. Mozgov's 3 mil is nothing compared to what DWest could have been paid.

                                If Dwest is signed and Tyler isn't a Pacer next year, then Mahinmi is the b/u PF. Mozgov b/u 5. Tyler's salary becomes Mozgov's salary next season.

                                In both scenario's Mozgov covers the b/u 5 at a 3 mil salary.

                                PLumjam can be brought along slowly, so that it wouldn't be necessary to re-sign Mozgov for the 14-15 season as Plumjam can cover the b/u 5.

                                You bring in Mozgov this season as b/u insurance to a possible injury to Hibbert, or this coming off season for the foresaid reasons. If Mozgov is secured, it would apt to be this off season. I doubt it ever happens, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it did. He's never going to beat out McGee for the b/u 5 spot, so Denver can afford to trade him. I'd just as soon see him in a Pacers uni than a competing team's uni. JMOAA

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X