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

Possible lineup changes?

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

  • #16
    Re: Possible lineup changes?

    I would make a case for Copeland but at the 3 or even 2 not the 4 he is NOT a PF, he can guard small forwards (especially bench small forwards) and man sometimes we need a guy who can just hit that three. Let Danny guard the 2 Cope the three and I think our second unit would be better.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Possible lineup changes?

      I don't think Cope is the answer. His defense isn't good.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Possible lineup changes?

        Originally posted by owl View Post
        I think the Pacers have a problem giving players a chance, ie Green and Plumlee, and now Copeland.
        This team needs some more EFFICIENT scoring and by that I mean at a higher percentage from the 3 point line...
        Copeland and Plumlee, I hear you. But to say Green didn't get plenty of chances last year is crazy. He played in 60 games, started 7, and was a 36% shooter, turnover machine, and couldn't guard a ball boy. It appear that he had some sort of mental/ confidence issue last year, given how he is playing now, but I can't blame the pacers for how he freaked out and played far below his ability for a whole season.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Possible lineup changes?

          Nah, we don't need lineup changes. Every team goes through their swoons. Hell the Heat were something like 6-8 in January last year before they rattled off their 29 game winning streak or whatever it ended up being.

          The only thing I would like to see is a little more offensive assertiveness from George Hill. That move where he drives by his defender, stops at the free throw line and takes a quick jumper usually results in him either getting fouled by the recovering defender or him making a short jumper, or ideally, both...that is golden.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Possible lineup changes?

            I don't think Copeland needs to get regular minutes, but last night he should have gotten some. If your defense is struggling to matchup with a team trying to space you out, why not put him in at the 4? Channing Frye wasn't going to take him off the dribble, so you don't really need to worry about his lack of lateral speed.

            He brings a very different skill set and ability than your other two pfs. They just weren't getting it done in the first half.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Possible lineup changes?

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              Nah, we don't need lineup changes. Every team goes through their swoons. Hell the Heat were something like 6-8 in January last year before they rattled off their 29 game winning streak or whatever it ended up being.

              The only thing I would like to see is a little more offensive assertiveness from George Hill. That move where he drives by his defender, stops at the free throw line and takes a quick jumper usually results in him either getting fouled by the recovering defender or him making a short jumper, or ideally, both...that is golden.
              This. George Hill definitely needs to take some of the perimeter scoring/ballhandling pressure off of Paul and Lance. I don't think we need to make any lineup changes, but I think we definitely need to get back to the basics offensively. More ball movement, more assertiveness, and less flashy/careless type of plays. Last year, a lot of our turnovers were the "trying to make the extra pass" variety. This year it's the "I'm trying to force something out of nothing" variety.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Possible lineup changes?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                35-10, no lineup changes.
                I'm with you. I don't really know how to say this, but the Pacers have 8 1/2 guys that can play. They need to get the minutes. No one on the bench will make the rotation stronger.

                If you want to tinker with the rotations to change the mix of guys on the court or run a different mix of plays, I'm cool with that. But the guys that are playing are the best players on the team.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Possible lineup changes?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I don't think Cope is the answer. His defense isn't good.
                  I don't think anyone is saying that he's the answer on a consistent basis. But on a night like last night where everyone off the bench was garbage, it certainly wouldn't have hurt to throw him out there and see if he could have got anything going. It just seems stubborn of Vogel to completely refuse to play him under any circumstances aside from garbage time.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Possible lineup changes?

                    I think Vogel needs to look at how he has the back-ups offense running. It is usually just Lance dribbling, with Granger and Watson sitting in the corner doing nothing, and Scola maybe or maybe not setting a screen. While the pick and pop is the most effective way to get Scola in scoring position, having Granger and Watson sit in the corners waiting for a Lance pass doesn't really take advantage of their abilities fully. It causes the bench to be too reliant on how well Lance is playing, and how well the shooters are shooting. It is essentially designed to be inconsistent. The offense really needs to be 1/3rd Scola, 1/3rd Granger, and 1/3 Stephenson, with a little Watson thrown in for some spice. Instead we have something more along the lines of 9/10th Stephenson, 1/10th Scola. Simply put, Stephenson hasn't been that consistently good to earn that kind of share consistently.

                    I do not know why it has changed, but when Granger was scoring 10+ points 8 games straight he wasn't playing the role of stand in the corner and wait for the pass. The bench was playing extremely well during that period. Recently he has been playing more of the Brandon Rush role in the offense.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Possible lineup changes?

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I don't think Cope is the answer. His defense isn't good.
                      As opposed to the brilliant defense being played of late, though? I think it's an in-game thing. If defense is out the window anyway, as it has been far too often in the last 4-5 games, you may as well give him some burn.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Possible lineup changes?

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        I don't think anyone is saying that he's the answer on a consistent basis. But on a night like last night where everyone off the bench was garbage, it certainly wouldn't have hurt to throw him out there and see if he could have got anything going. It just seems stubborn of Vogel to completely refuse to play him under any circumstances aside from garbage time.
                        Yes!!! And I think we all understand Frank is a big believer in letting players know (at least those who play) how many minutes they'll usually get and at what point they normally will be put into the game. Just seems we've seen this movie before and Frank may not have the will/heart to shake things from time to time. Is he gun shy from what he witnessed before becoming the head coach?
                        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Possible lineup changes?

                          82 games makes for a long season. Naturally, players will have hot and cold streaks. No need to make major adjustments to the rotation based on hot or cold streaks. Granger will be huge for us come playoff time, Scola will hit shots when it matters, and there is no reason to make any changes. What's so encouraging is that even with this room for improvement, we still own the number one spot in the East - our regular season goal from day one.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Possible lineup changes?

                            Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
                            As opposed to the brilliant defense being played of late, though? I think it's an in-game thing. If defense is out the window anyway, as it has been far too often in the last 4-5 games, you may as well give him some burn.
                            I feel like the defense is as much of a problem as anything lately, so I'm not sure adding Cope to the mix is a good idea for that reason. I'd wait to put him in when the defense is going great but the offense is struggling. Not while the defense is part of the problem.

                            And even then, keep in mind his best position is PF so you're taking minutes from Scola, or you're playing Scola at the 5. Both have consequences. Particularly Scola at the 5.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Possible lineup changes?

                              Pacers need to adjust their defensive scheme alittle bit here. George Hill can't keep infront of anybody and that means Hibbert can't freeze the PnR like he normally able to when Hill is able to keep up with his man. Thats the whole reason the Pacers are able to control the PnR with a large slow center. When Hibberts steps up the typical point guard thinks he is about dribble right into a double team because Hill is still with him. Thus causing the Freeze. These speedy Points just keep going. I think Hibbert has to commit to trap the High PnR and force the ball out like they do against guys like D. Rose.

                              Hill has to be playing with some sort of nagging Hip flexior or Hammy type of injury, cause just a couple weeks ago they were blowing up the PnR on guys like John Wall
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Possible lineup changes?

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                I feel like the defense is as much of a problem as anything lately, so I'm not sure adding Cope to the mix is a good idea for that reason. I'd wait to put him in when the defense is going great but the offense is struggling. Not while the defense is part of the problem.

                                And even then, keep in mind his best position is PF so you're taking minutes from Scola, or you're playing Scola at the 5. Both have consequences. Particularly Scola at the 5.
                                I get what you're saying, but the defense is struggling (big men wise) because they're not used to playing out on the perimeter. What good is Roy to have to guard Channing Frye out at the 3pt line? He can't protect the rim without leaving him on the arc.

                                All PHX did was stretch out the defense and make Roy/Ian/West/Luis become perimeter defenders, which negates their defensive strengths.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X