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

Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

    It's official, we're getting spoiled.


    Access With The Pacers: The Art of Politicking
    Candace Buckner, IndyStar
    http://www.indystar.com/story/inside...y-nba/4294411/

    The NBA just might be the best league in terms of access. Although media availability has slightly scaled back this season - players need only to speak to reporters once before the game - it's still offers a committed amount of time for interviews. Specifically with head coaches, who still talk after the morning shootaround (if the team has one) and an hour or so before the tipoff.

    What this means -- coaches spend a lot of time in front of cameras and voice recorders. So, they could: A. pull a Popovich and mutter one-syllable answers that reveal nothing, B. pull from a drawstring of cliches that reveal nothing or C. wisely use that time to their benefit. I believe on Wednesday night in Toronto, Dwane Casey answered 'C.'

    The night started with the head coaches proving that they could have made great debate team captains in high school, and ended with some politicking from the players. Let me explain.

    I don't view it as a coincidence that Pacers center Roy Hibbert just so happened to foul out during the loss to the Raptors - for only the second time in 31 games - on the same night that Casey focused on his defense and the debate around the verticality rule. There's a reason that Casey, who's in his third year with the Raptors, was just named the Eastern Conference Coach of the Month for December. He's a smart man, and while praising Hibbert during his pregame interview, he also dropped subtle soundbites about whether Hibbert catches a break on those plays.

    "He's the best. He's one of the best in going vertical. He caused a lot of discussion in the coaches' meeting about changing the rules," Casey said, while stressing the word 'discussion.' "But a rule is a rule. If you go vertical, you can go there to infinity to cover the basketball but there was some talk about changing that rule, but in the wisdom of the league, (the NBA) stayed with it."

    When I posed the question about Hibbert's defense, first phrasing it as getting "the benefit of the doubt" then muttering something semi-intelligible about having a "reputation" for playing good defense. Casey shook his head.

    "You had it right. He does," Casey said, honing in on the "benefit of the doubt" part. "He has a reputation and this league is about reputation. He's one of the best at doing it. The question comes is when he follows through and comes over ...

    From behind the podium, Casey then demonstrated by holding up both of his arms and angled down into an imaginary offensive player. (Now, note Casey's next words carefully. He doesn't debate on whether or not Hibbert can go straight up - he absolutely can in his airspace to defend the rim. But in Casey's eyes, it's about those times when an offensive player is attempting a shot and Hibbert may angle in - a natural reaction when there's contact.)

    "...is that legal or not? That's the huge question and that was the question in the coaches' meeting. But again if you have that reputation you can get away with some of those things. I thought he impacted the entire series against Miami with that one defensive move of his, whether he comes over or not, that's the call that officials have to make."

    I believe that Casey gave us reporters a preview of what he shared with the game's officials - he wanted them to watch Hibbert closely for contact. Of course, this isn't new. The "coaches' meeting" that Casey referred to was the summer gathering in Chicago when all 30 NBA head coaches discussed issues of the game. Casey portrayed Hibbert's style of defense as a hot topic in that meeting. Pacers coach Frank Vogel also remembers the discussion and still recalls the explanation that exonerated the art of verticality. (We'll use legal terms here because Vogel spoke like a defense attorney passionately representing Hibbert and his play.)

    "There was just some debate about league wide… was the defender getting more of the benefit of the doubt where it used to be the offensive player (who) got the benefit of the doubt," Vogel said, recalling the coaches' meeting. "What it comes down to, what the officials are trying to say is, every defender's entitled to vertical space no matter where you are on the floor - the restricted arc means nothing to our system because we don't take charges at the rim typically. So you try to get yourself in front of the ball and take advantage of the legality of vertical space. And that was the message that the league was trying to tell everyone, there is no benefit of the doubt entitled to the defender. It's just that defenders are entitled to vertical space."

    The complaints in the summer coaches' meeting have carried over to the regular season because Hibbert has often overheard rival coaches try to persuade refs against him. After all, Hibbert leads the league in personal fouls while on the road. So clearly, he doesn't get the whole "benefit of the doubt" while wearing the blue uniform. But before you start feeling too sorry for Hibbert, just know that he does a good job making his own case. During every captain's meeting at center court, Hibbert tries to inform the referees that he's about to play some good, legal defense.

    "If you ask any referee before the game – they ask me if I have anything to say, I tell them 'I'm going straight up.' Every time. Every game," Hibbert said. "And they know that and they say I'm one of the best at it."

    But midway through the game in Toronto, the refs did not agree with Hibbert and called him for his first foul as he raised both hands to stop a DeMar DeRozan drive. On that play, it should be noted that Hibbert was also backing up. Then the whistles kept coming: a questionable offensive foul while trying to get position against Jonas Valanciunas, a call while wrestling for a defensive rebound, another personal while jumping into Valanciunas, a loose ball foul on Tyler Hansbrough and finally a charge when Kyle Lowry wisely stepped in front of a drive that Hibbert started at the 3-point arc.

    Hibbert's six fouls came on a night when the Indiana Pacers collected 27 fouls, one shy of the season high that also resulted in a loss in Portland. The Raptors made a big deal about being gritty and tough against Indiana, so after the game when I asked Paul George if the Pacers met their physicality, he used it as an opportunity to slyly get something off his chest about the officiating.

    "I feel like we did and the results of that, almost 30 fouls. I never talk about officiating or anything like that but we've never had that much fouls," George said. "It's never been that difference of fouls where we've had about 30. But I guess we were too physical tonight. We'll continue our style of play, though."

    When given a chance to comment on the fouls, Hibbert gave a great reaction. He smiled at the ground and chuckled in a way that said more than his words ever could. Then, he shrugged and answered.

    - "We didn't get the whistles that we normally would've wanted but it doesn't go your way sometimes," Hibbert said. "We beat ourselves. We turned the ball over. We weren't doing our defensive assignments and they were the better team tonight. I can honestly say that."

    ***

    So, I celebrated New Year's Day as a first-timer in Canada. For anyone familiar with crossing north of the border, this next section might bore you. So feel free to skip over the wide-eyed musings of a rookie beat reporter. But if you haven't been to Canada, let me break some news to you... pack a coat. Maybe two. And wear both of them if you dare to walk outside.

    You know it's frigid when you stroll through the Pacers' locker room, send a common pleasantry George Hill's way by asking him how he's doing, and he blurts out: "Cold!" But I didn't need Hill to tell me. It was minus-15 there and I clumsily learned this cold hard fact while trying to walk to the arena from my hotel - without a hat and gloves. Yes, I left both back in Indiana, clearly under the impression that nobody really needs warm winter clothing in sub zero temperatures. So after the short walk through the freezer of Antarctica, it only took 20 minutes for the feeling in my fingers to return.

    Obviously, I need some tips from native Torontonians - some of whom actually stood in the cold to watch the 2014 Winter Classic between the Maple Leafs and Red Wings on the jumbotron outside of Air Canada Centre. Either that's insanity or devotion. Maybe a little bit of both. And here's some more breaking news: hockey is huge up there. It wasn't just the folks standing outside to watch the game that revealed this to me, it was a radio commercial I heard in the car. I'm not kidding at all here, this is how the commercial goes:

    An actor portraying a sports radio talk show host takes a call and asks the guest: "What did you think of our goalie last night? Should he even be our goalie?" And the caller meekly responds by saying that he doesn't know, and all he feels like doing is crying. Then cue the dramatic music and soothing voiceover for the big reveal. It's a mental health commercial.

    Yes, in Canada, an advertiser actually paid for and produced a commercial about mental health by using the device of a man who's so sad that he can't even talk about hockey. Let that sink in for a bit. And I thought Indiana loved it's basketball - clearly not as much Canada digs hockey    .
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

    Candace is always a good read!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

      Not really relevant to the original post but it is no coincidence that the T-wolves spiral into irrelevance started when they prematurely fired Dwane Casey.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

        Her game stories are good, but it is her feature and blog articles (like this one) that sets her apart from what we have seen in the past by a wide margin.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

          Articles like this one make me want to walk in to the Star office and personally thank Candace and whoever hired her. Top notch!

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

            Wow, is anyone else worried that veritcality was such a hot topic in the coaches meeting? This has been one of my biggest fears for awhile now.

            Roy and the Pacers are basically re-writing the way post defense is played in the league by, what I'm sure a lot of people believe is, abusing a rule. I'm not sure how long the verticality rule has been around, but I'm guessing its been awhile. The Pacers just found a new way to interpret the wording of that rule to their advantage. I'm sure a lot of people aren't happy about it (*cough* Heat *cough*). Or for that matter any other star players who's bread and butter is driving to the lane to draw contact. A lot of those star players are taking a beating against Roy, and judging by the article it sounds like they are already seriously considering changing it. I'm afraid all its gonna take is 1 or 2 injuries to happen and we'll see this rule re-written to favor the offensive player again.

            I think this is probably the biggest concern for the Pacers' continued success going forward. Honestly I'm shocked this hasn't been more of a topic of discussion around here over the last couple years considering how this lone rule is one of the biggest reasons for our improvement.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

              Well, to "abuse" the rule isn't really the right way to say it. It's a rule. The Pacers are contending that it should be enforced as written. That's all.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

                I think many of us hated the NBA game with referees always calling a foul when the offensive player with the ball would throw himself into the defenders chest and be rewarded with free throws. It's nice that the pendulum has swung and this politicking reminds me of the Shaq rules and (before my time) Kareem's sky hook which developed out of the ban on dunking. If you don't have a Hibbert, try to change the rules.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

                  Funny that the idea of changing the rules or the interpretation of the rules to STOP a player has come up now that someone is challenging the NBA Hyped Teams. Seems like in recent years the trend has been to interpret the rules to ALLOW a hyped player to do their spectacular things without interference from mere mortals.

                  That said, Roy has gotten sloppy with it this season. He has to not take it for granted and continue to work on not automatically moving his arms forward as part of the jump. A play with one arm/hand on the ball is acceptable, throwing the arms forward is a foul.
                  BillS

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

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

                    If I recall correctly, a player's entitlement to his established vertical space is one of the oldest rules in basketball. Talk of changing it now is just loser talk to me.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

                      Even if the verticality rule does get tweaked, Hibbert is still a good post defender. And not to forget, we have the best (if not one of the best), perimeter defender in the game.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

                        What I've seen the last few games are players coming into Roy with the knee raised. As a result, I think we've seen Roy give a little ground by moving backwards while also keeping his hands high but reaching slightly forwards of his vertical position. It's like he's moved back a little while also trying to keep his hands where they were before he gave ground.

                        The result is, now matter how you cut it, Roy is no longer vertical, but instead is reaching forward, appearing to come down with his hands on the ball. If the ref is not going to call a foul on the offensive player for leading with his knee, then he has two other choices. Not making a call. Or, calling a foul against Roy when the offensive player contacts Roy's arms on the shot.

                        There are a couple of solutions. Roy can hold his ground and possibly sacrifice future children or a lower abdominal injury, or the Pacers can start lobbying just as loudly against the knee thrusts as our opponents are about Roy's wavering verticality.

                        The opponents have discovered a weapon against Roy. I can't fully blame them on using what is not being called. But, it's not only gamesmanship on their part; it's also dirty play. From my perspective, we should use the same move against opposing post defenders in retaliation until the league instructs its officials to get it cleaned up.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Indystar - Candace Buckner - The Art of Politicking

                          I haven't been paying attention to raised knees, though it was blatantly obvious when Aldridge was doing it in Portland. If it's been continuing, the league needs to wake up because jumping into a defender knee-first is not acceptable.

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X