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

Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

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

  • #16
    Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I thought Simmons was just making the point that JOB was ahead of his time for relying on the three so much when every year teams shoot more and more of them.
    Exactly, the problem for JOB was never his reliance on the 3 point shot. It was the guys he played to get to those 3 point shots.

    Heck, the Pacers would be a really 3 happy team especially if Danny and Paul had both been playing this year.


    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      Exactly, the problem for JOB was never his reliance on the 3 point shot. It was the guys he played to get to those 3 point shots.

      Heck, the Pacers would be a really 3 happy team especially if Danny and Paul had both been playing this year.
      But how much would we enjoy that team going 40-401and being in the middle of pack defensively while Roy never gets the ball and David West was reinventing himself as a 29% 3FGA player to keep from losing minutes to some new mystery backup PF that we signed because Pendegraff wasn't hitting a high enough % from behind the arc.

      If you're going to go to bizarro-land, you've got to go all the way there...
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

        I think we've been far too reliant on the three this season. I think it's one of our bigger downfalls.

        JOB was ahead of the curve on 3s, no doubt about it. And I think the evolution of reliance on the 3 has been a good thing for the game, because eventually the spacing will pay off as players become better at mid-range again. The spacing is key for everything.


        Honestly, every team should try to get an uncontested dunk or layup on every possession. The closer to the basket on an uncontested look, the better. But that's up to a certain point on the court (who knows where?), and then the 3 becomes the better shot.

        I think that's where JOB's system is flawed. The first open shot isn't the best shot. The closest open shot is the best shot, and there are also other less measurable things such as putting pressure on a defense and wearing them down physically; things you can't do by jacking up 3s.
        Last edited by imawhat; 04-19-2013, 12:03 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

          You can still be an interior focused team and shoot a lot of 3s. Look at how much Miami plays lebron out of the post and then surrounds him with shooters.


          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            Then Simmons understands it better than BRWD's "Basically, a 3 is a better shot than anything besides dunks and lay-ups. That is indisputable."

            That's not the same thing as saying a long two is the lowest percentage play on the court. The midrange game matters. Otherwise, just walk down the court and fire up the first three you can get. Hey, that's exactly what this team has been doing since they got back from California.
            Not to speak for him, but I imagine that is what he meant by "basically". If you can shoot the midrange shot at about 44%, then it is a good shot, especially when it is a PF or a C. That draws a big man away from the rim. That is actually the easiest way to beat the Pacers: have a big man guarded by Roy that can drain that shot. Atlanta is a great example of that...

            Getting to the rim is a crucial element of the more 3's theory. A team is much more likely to get an offensive rebound when they shoot within 5 feet OR shoot a three.

            Actually, a better name would be the "Less than 5 feet or a corner three or any other three or a midrange shot by a +44% shooter (preferably a big man), in that order" theory. That doesn't roll off the tongue, which is why it is easier to say "basically, 3's are always better than 2's".
            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
            RSS Feed
            Subscribe via iTunes

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

              If Simmons says JOB is visionary, then I would suggest that Simmons has a severe case of macular degeneration or early-onset alzheimer's... or both.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                Shooting a lot of threes is not a bad thing. It only becomes bad if you aren't making them, and you don't adjust to your poor shooting to take higher percentage shots. It is all about the context of the three, not the three itself.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                  After reading the article I think it's clear Simmons is being a bit snarky here and isn't necessarily praising JOB as a great coach. Just to get that out there...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                    Unless you have a guy like David West who can hit mid-range jumpers from all over
                    Smothered Chicken!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                      A rushed, quick 3 calls into question exactly your shooting percentage in making those type of shots in the first place. Then you have to factor in a missed 3, especially a quick/rushed missed 3, is typically an easy ball for the defense to rebound and get out into transition.

                      So while shooting 33% from three-land might be as good as 50% from 2 point land on paper, if you're giving up easy baskets in transition with your 67% misses then the other team will be shooting much, much better than 50% from 2 on those possessions (with their layups and dunks at the rim and other assorted wide open shots... let alone if you yourself give up wide open 3's in transition to a better, more disciplined offensive team in the first place).

                      That's the flaw Jim O'Brien never accounted for. IMO
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                        Did you guys read the article? This small blurb is a footnote on the column, and you shouldn't overthink it.

                        http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-column-part-1

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                          Some journalists think they need to be contrarians. But they don't need to be idiots too.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            Jim O'Brien is a bad coach but his decision to eschew long 2's in favor of 3's is correct. Basically, a 3 is a better shot than anything besides dunks and lay-ups. That is indisputable.
                            I understand the logic and the fact what you say is true statistically...overall. ...and has been emphasized so much on PD that sheep are following it.

                            But I don't agree that abandoning that weapon is a good idea in all cases and assume everyone needs to jack threes. It can be part of a winning strategy if you have a guy who can hit it for a good percentage.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                              Originally posted by immortality View Post
                              Did you guys read the article? This small blurb is a footnote on the column, and you shouldn't overthink it.

                              http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-column-part-1
                              Thank you for providing the link.

                              Now we may have this discussion again, only this time with facts about Simmons' assertions clouding the issue.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Simmons is hailing JOB as a visionary coach in his new column.

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                So while shooting 33% from three-land might be as good as 50% from 2 point land on paper, if you're giving up easy baskets in transition with your 67% misses then the other team will be shooting much, much better than 50% from 2 on those possessions (with their layups and dunks at the rim and other assorted wide open shots... let alone if you yourself give up wide open 3's in transition to a better, more disciplined offensive team in the first place).

                                That's the flaw Jim O'Brien never accounted for. IMO
                                And free throws from two point shot attempts, and the general amount of energy/effort an opponent spends guarding guys from easy scores vs. a stationary, three point specialist. There's more, but 33% from three is not as good as 50% from two.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X