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

Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

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

  • #31
    Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

    In terms of on the court contribution, Scola is on par with West this season if the minutes are leveled. I think instead of giving a fixed minutes limit to both, why not just adjust the minutes on a situational basis? If West is clicking, play him more than Scola. If Scola is clicking, play him more than West. I just don't like them playing together though because they give up too much on interior defense.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

      This is an easy question to want to say yes to but I don't see it happening. I do think 13 minutes is not enough and I'd like to see West kept to around 30 as long as Scola is playing well. When we first made the trade I thought Ian would be the odd man out but the combo of West/Scola doesn't seem to work well for us. Our front court rotation just isn't as interchangeable as our wing rotation. It's a lot easier for me to see PG/Granger/Lance all play around 30-33 minutes each then to want to split West/Scola at 24. I'd say 30/18 would be a good split but I agree that Vogel needs to stop being such an egg timer with minutes. There are too many times when we have a bench player playing better then a starter and Vogel doesn't adjust to this.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        He should get at least 20 minutes, I don't understand Vogel he takes minutes from the young guys and refuses to take minutes from the older one weird.
        I want David West to take a whole game off. Maybe put him on the Duncan diet. That way we all can see Scola go up against starters and chill on this "Scola is getting shafted".

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
          I want David West to take a whole game off. Maybe put him on the Duncan diet. That way we all can see Scola go up against starters and chill on this "Scola is getting shafted".
          It kind of looked to me like West took the game off yesterday he was bad and still got 36 minutes and for your information Scola is a capable starter.

          And nope I never said that Scola is getting "shafted" stop making s*** up.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
            I want David West to take a whole game off. Maybe put him on the Duncan diet. That way we all can see Scola go up against starters and chill on this "Scola is getting shafted".
            I wouldn't mind if Frank rested the starters occasionally as the season went on... especially West and Hill. West because he's got the best backup, and Hill to counter the nagging injuries he tends to pick up as the season goes on.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              It kind of looked to me like West took the game off yesterday he was bad and still got 36 minutes and for your information Scola is a capable starter.

              And nope I never said that Scola is getting "shafted" stop making s*** up.
              Sorry but it seems like this is your next campaign. I don't think West took the night off. I don't think he played super great either. He demanded a double team and got tired. I don't fault him for being tired. I fault Vogel. Thompson is young and relentless on the offensive glass. In the 1st half I want to see Scola play half of it. And depending on the need I want West fresh out there in the 2nd. If that is 18 minutes because the other team is close then fine. West is a better player. We obviously do not agree on that. So we should just leave it at that.

              I want Scola to play more because I want West fresh for the playoffs. It seems that you want Scola to play more because he is the better option. Agreeing to disagree. I could pull up the defensive ratings and rebound rates of Scola last year as a starter to see if he better than West as a starter. But it is a different team, different story. So I am not wasting my time.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                His defense is an issue. He seems so flat footed
                "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                  Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                  Sorry but it seems like this is your next campaign. I don't think West took the night off. I don't think he played super great either. He demanded a double team and got tired. I don't fault him for being tired. I fault Vogel. Thompson is young and relentless on the offensive glass. In the 1st half I want to see Scola play half of it. And depending on the need I want West fresh out there in the 2nd. If that is 18 minutes because the other team is close then fine. West is a better player. We obviously do not agree on that. So we should just leave it at that.

                  I want Scola to play more because I want West fresh for the playoffs. It seems that you want Scola to play more because he is the better option. Agreeing to disagree. I could pull up the defensive ratings and rebound rates of Scola last year as a starter to see if he better than West as a starter. But it is a different team, different story. So I am not wasting my time.
                  I see that you are making a lot of assumptions and you are saying a lot of things that make my point, you are saying that West was tired and that you want West fresh for the playoffs well that is my point it doesn't make sense for the best PF backup in the NBA to only play 13 minutes last night that is stupid.


                  Read my previous posts too I'm only suggesting more minutes for Scola I'm not suggesting to trade West or to bench him.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                    Really though, I don't think it's a big deal. We are winning. Granted, it's been ugly lately, but the current formula is working. I think on the second night of back to backs the minutes should probably be split closer to 55/45 or even 50/50 to keep West fresh for the playoffs, but all in all I can't really complain too much.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      Really though, I don't think it's a big deal. We are winning. Granted, it's been ugly lately, but the current formula is working. I think on the second night of back to backs the minutes should probably be split closer to 55/45 or even 50/50 to keep West fresh for the playoffs, but all in all I can't really complain too much.

                      I think that playing him too much yesterday when he was having a bad game almost cost us the game, not that saying that it was going to be reason number 1 but one of the reasons.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                        I think that Scola should play about 2 or so extra minutes per half, roughly 4-5 extra minutes per game.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          I think that playing him too much yesterday when he was having a bad game almost cost us the game, not that saying that it was going to be reason number 1 but one of the reasons.
                          I think Scola is your dude and you are kind of sour on West which is driving a lot of this narrative.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                            Honestly, we are winning games, so it's not a huge deal. Scola should be getting around 18-20 minutes a game, but I imagine he'll get more PT down the stretch as it gets closer to the playoffs to keep West fresh.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              I think Scola is your dude and you are kind of sour on West which is driving a lot of this narrative.
                              No really I'm actually noticing that West looks tired as majorcold said and also why no give more playing time to Scola? the guy is getting as many minutes as Tyler Hansbrough think about it, that is crazy.


                              And also somebody that is shooting a high percentage like Scola should get more playing time he is like 60% in jumpers?
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Question: Why Scola is not getting more minutes?

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                No really I'm actually noticing that West looks tired as majorcold said and also why no give more playing time to Scola? the guy is getting as many minutes as Tyler Hansbrough think about it, that is crazy.


                                And also somebody that is shooting a high percentage like Scola should get more playing time he is like 60% in jumpers?
                                To be fair, he is basically just taking Tyler's role. The problem is you just can't put Scola and West out there together--the defense, as others have noted, is awful. So it kind of backs you into a corner with Scola's minutes. I would like to see him play more, but I trust Vogel to know what's best for the team.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X