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

Vogel's Flaws Showing?

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

  • #46
    Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

    Originally posted by owl View Post
    The players are not the problem offensively primarily, it is the way and who is used. If DJ Augustin can flourish with Chicago then it has to be coaching.
    Bring on ET and Copeland and some new offensive sets and movement.
    I think Augustin is doing well in Chicago because their offense centers around the point guard dominating the ball, which is the complete opposite of how we use our PGs.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

      I don't get the "This guy was bad in Indy and good on another team do Frank is a bad coach" argument.

      Every player doesn't fit in every system. I like Seth Rogen a lot and think he's a super talented, funny actor. But Seth Rogen couldn't cut it in "12 Years a Slave." That doesn't mean Rogen sucks, or Steve McQueen sucks as a director. Sometimes the pieces just don't fit.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

        I think by now we know what the 2ne unit brings defensively, and outside of Mahinmi erasing a couple shots per game its not much, and they certainly not scoring with any real consistency. I don't think they are going to get any worse defensively if you put Butler and Copeland in there. But they will gain alot on offense with dead eye shooters. Evan Turner will get easier looks because teams can't just load up in the paint.

        Also if Vogel made sure Hill got some minutes with that unit, that would allow him to be Aggressive Hill and get him going too. They need to reel Lance in, his pace is too fast for the rest of the team. Causing fatigue amongst the other starters trying to keep up with him.

        I don't think Vogel will do it though, he will jsut continue to talk about championship level passing.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

          I've seen it in the work place. Frank is one of those managers who strokes the ego very well and created a healthy locker room. That worked very well but it has run its course and the team has some kind of issue. I just don't know what it is. It's not just a problem with coaching the team though. My best guess is that it is the Bynum acquisition and everything leading up to it. But no, I really don't know.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            I've seen it in the work place. Frank is one of those managers who strokes the ego very well and created a healthy locker room. That worked very well but it has run its course and the team has some kind of issue. I just don't know what it is. It's not just a problem with coaching the team though. My best guess is that it is the Bynum acquisition and everything leading up to it. But no, I really don't know.
            It's a few bad games. Let's see in April
            Smothered Chicken!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

              What the hell? Just run Watson, Butler, Cope, Turner and Mahinmi out there and see what happens once! Scola can replace up to three of them pending which one is sucking.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                First let me say that I like Frank.
                I am a defensive guy.

                But JFC we are amazingly bad on offense.

                First, I wonder about our conditioning.
                It is the only thing I can see to account for most of our problems.
                We SUC on back to backs.
                We STAND around way to much on offence.
                We go one for ten with astonishing regularity.
                Coach is a nice guy.
                Nice guys are not ball breakers.

                I also see fairly few plays that even resemble a PLAY. Guy with the ball stands and looks. Roy flashes to the middle. That looks pointless...
                Guys shuffle around (I can't get open so I'll just stand here).
                Time clock runs down...hero ball time and we are not good at that.
                That has got to be coaching.

                Also I notice too often we come back from a time out and get nothing- but the usual last second three.
                I remember when Larry Brown called a time out we would come back with something cool and score.
                It was pretty much the rule.

                I could say well maybe our guys are not too bright and cant execute. But two things about that.
                First it is the coaches job to make a plan they can execute.
                The other thing is If i stood there watching pathetic lazy hero ball and my plays were not being run- you bet I'd yank some guys. Nope. Same ol' ugly street ball lookin' offense way way too long.

                Personally, I've seen enough. This may be...IS... our cities best chance to win it.
                If I'm LB
                I get a strong O guy (maybe a couple) here for our next practice.

                Next season may well be tooooo late!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  Pretty easy fix in the offseason, bring in an assistant coach who can really put together an offense.
                  Yeah. I'm wondering if right now Nate McMillan is that guy, because I thought I heard that when he was the head coach in Portland it was a slow/boring half court offense as well.

                  Not sure who would be ideal to add to the fold, though.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    What scares me shitless is most arm chair coaches biggest criticisms of Frank are the same criticisms most of us dummys had for Rick Carlisle, and well, we were wrong on that one.
                    I was thinking the same thing. I hope it doesn't get as bad as back then.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                      Teams go through rough spells. Frank has repeatedly proven himself. We have one of the best coaches in the league. Enough with the whining.

                      You want to know a reason why the team might be struggling? I'd guess (like I said) bringing in two new guys and getting rid of Danny is a huge part of it. You just don't screw up chemistry on a championship caliber team. That being said, they'll work through it and get themselves together.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                        You want to know a reason why the team might be struggling? I'd guess (like I said) bringing in two new guys and getting rid of Danny is a huge part of it. You just don't screw up chemistry on a championship caliber team. That being said, they'll work through it and get themselves together.
                        While I agree that Frank will probably right the ship eventually, I don't think the trade is the (sole) factor. We were struggling before the trade. In fact, the team's struggles may have prompted the trade in the first place.

                        Originally posted by solid View Post
                        But JFC we are amazingly bad on offense.
                        Actually no. At worst we are mediocre (21st in the league on offensive efficiency, bottom third sure but not that far from the middle). More importantly, the starters' offense compares favorably with other teams' starters, over the season anyway and during previous seasons as well. So at least some parts of our offense is ok, even elite.

                        I think we have to look at Paul George's slump. This year Frank placed a lot more responsibility on him than before, and his stellar performance in the early months carried us to a hot start. But he's been shooting at ~40% since January (and even worse recently) while still having high usage numbers on offense. Worse, his defensive numbers have dipped too. Is it a case of overwork? Has George been scouted by the opposition? Does Frank need to find new ways to get him going? Probably a little bit of everything.

                        Here are Paul George's splits btw. The splits per month seem particularly interesting

                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/splits/2014/

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          I think we have to look at Paul George's slump. This year Frank placed a lot more responsibility on him than before, and his stellar performance in the early months carried us to a hot start. But he's been shooting at ~40% since January (and even worse recently) while still having high usage numbers on offense. Worse, his defensive numbers have dipped too. Is it a case of overwork? Has George been scouted by the opposition? Does Frank need to find new ways to get him going? Probably a little bit of everything.
                          I agree with everything you said, but this especially. Paul George is 23 and is expected to be the best offensive and defensive player on a championship team. I know he's said he wants that responsibility, but that's a heavy load to bear and there's only one guy in the entire league who's doing it right now.

                          If we were to win an NBA title this year, it would be almost unprecedented to have your best player be that young and not have another Hall of Famer helping him out.

                          Here are the players who have won championships in the last thirty years as the best player on their team, and the age they won their first title as the number one option:

                          Kobe 30
                          Hakeem 31
                          Dirk 32
                          Paul Pierce 30
                          Michael Jordan 28
                          LeBron James 28
                          Shaq 28
                          Isiah Thomas 28
                          Moses Malone 28
                          Sheed/Ben Wallace 29, or maybe Chauncey at 27. Not sure who is considered the best player on that team

                          The exceptions: Tim Duncan (22) , Magic Johnson (20) and Larry Bird (24). Duncan and Magic played with David Robison and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, respectively, and Larry was just a badass (although he didn't win Finals MVP until he was 28). So basically, the key to winning a title is to be at least 28 years old, or have one of the best centers in NBA history on your team, or be Larry Bird.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                            I'll not go on our ranking but on how we are rank!

                            Yes we did average, maybe a little better for awhile.
                            But that's been awhile.
                            Our offense sucks right now. At least for large stretches almost every game.

                            I can not explain how a guy like PG can go 1 for 10 or why po' Roy can't get position, catch a freakin' pass, or hit half his bunnies; so I can not hang this on Frank alone.

                            But I've been watching, and we suck.

                            And almost worse than that our all world defense that I was thrilled with several weeks ago is NOT all that any more. Guys have figured out how to penetrate in to our mid-section for mid rangers or a dish for a dunk. Way too much. And likely because of that the perimeter has opened up.
                            I am not at all encouraged.

                            Two months ago I thought we had the best team in the world AND would get better.

                            I'd have a hard time putting us in the top ten right now.

                            As always: JMO

                            Btw I loved Carlisle and thought we we're fools to let him walk.
                            Last edited by solid; 03-07-2014, 03:36 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              I agree with everything you said, but this especially. Paul George is 23 and is expected to be the best offensive and defensive player on a championship team. I know he's said he wants that responsibility, but that's a heavy load to bear and there's only one guy in the entire league who's doing it right now.

                              If we were to win an NBA title this year, it would be almost unprecedented to have your best player be that young and not have another Hall of Famer helping him out.

                              Here are the players who have won championships in the last thirty years as the best player on their team, and the age they won their first title as the number one option:

                              Kobe 30
                              Hakeem 31
                              Dirk 32
                              Paul Pierce 30
                              Michael Jordan 28
                              LeBron James 28
                              Shaq 28
                              Isiah Thomas 28
                              Moses Malone 28
                              Sheed/Ben Wallace 29, or maybe Chauncey at 27. Not sure who is considered the best player on that team

                              The exceptions: Tim Duncan (22) , Magic Johnson (20) and Larry Bird (24). Duncan and Magic played with David Robison and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, respectively, and Larry was just a badass (although he didn't win Finals MVP until he was 28). So basically, the key to winning a title is to be at least 28 years old, or have one of the best centers in NBA history on your team, or be Larry Bird.
                              This right here is honestly my biggest concern about trading away Granger. Veteran teams with veteran players win championships, not young teams.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                                Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                                Teams go through rough spells. Frank has repeatedly proven himself. We have one of the best coaches in the league. Enough with the whining.

                                You want to know a reason why the team might be struggling? I'd guess (like I said) bringing in two new guys and getting rid of Danny is a huge part of it. You just don't screw up chemistry on a championship caliber team. That being said, they'll work through it and get themselves together.
                                I understand this point of view, but I think the struggles (certainly with the offense) started well before the Granger trade. There might be some correlation with the Bynum acquisition, but correlation is not causation, and I'd have to be convinced bringing a guy in who wasn't working out (at the time) except on his own would do anything to anyone (except maybe Ian, who does seem to have perked up in response).

                                The reason for the thread, though, is that rough times expose systemic issues that, if fixed, either help get through those times or even get the team back on track.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X