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

Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

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

  • #61
    Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

    9/5/4 on 44% shooting. If McBob is truly the Bobcats' third best player, then that would explain why they're on pace to win just 39 games in the lowly East.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
      Mike Dunleavy has had a solid year with Chicago too.
      That doesn't fit the criteria of this thread because despite how he's playing this year, Dunleavy's best years were in a Pacers uniform.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

        Originally posted by Lance George View Post
        9/5/4 on 44% shooting. If McBob is truly the Bobcats' third best player, then that would explain why they're on pace to win just 39 games in the lowly East.
        I think that is probably has more to do with the two players who are considered better than him are Kimba Walker and Al Jefferson.

        He has a usage rating of 13.4 (for comparison his lowest usage rate for us was 14.7), meaning they rarely actually use him. When they do it is mostly as a facilitator it seems, which he excels at with a 4:1 assist to turnover ratio. He takes almost 50% of his shots from 3, so 44% isn't a bad FG%.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          Doesn't make him any less of a dick though
          lol.

          don't hold back. let it out.

          when he and Hans are in the game at the same time it is a veritable dick fest. Throw Anderson from Miami and Kobe in the mix and it would be a big bag of Richards.

          Maybe we could come up with a roster of the biggest dozen in the NBA. Guys who when they check in, you say to your buddy, "that guy is such a dick".

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
            Charlotte is a playoff team who beat us by 30 the last time we played. Maybe it's time to acknowledge they aren't the same team that won 7 games a couple of years ago.
            Charlotte beat us on the 2nd night of a b2b with our star player playing with a back injury, lighting problems on one side of the court (your opinion about how bad those problems were), and coming off a tough buzzer-beater loss vs. GSW at home. Not to mention it was our 4th game in 5 nights. If we met them in the playoffs it would be a totally different story.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
              Charlotte beat us on the 2nd night of a b2b with our star player playing with a back injury, lighting problems on one side of the court (your opinion about how bad those problems were), and coming off a tough buzzer-beater loss vs. GSW at home. Not to mention it was our 4th game in 5 nights. If we met them in the playoffs it would be a totally different story.
              Excuses, excuses. Done with any kind of excuse concerning this Pacer team. Give Charlotte some credit for once.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                Excuses, excuses. Done with any kind of excuse concerning this Pacer team. Give Charlotte some credit for once.
                I don't think he was taking anything away from Charlotte, just pointing out that Indiana is a superior team despite the lopsided result last game.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                  It's kinda great that our talent scouting is so good that we have essentially acquired 25-30 quality rotation guys over the past few years. That's a really, really good front office. Very few misses and a lot of home runs.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                    It's kinda great that our talent scouting is so good that we have essentially acquired 25-30 quality rotation guys over the past few years. That's a really, really good front office. Very few misses and a lot of home runs.
                    Thats one way to look at it. The fact these guys didn't produce in Indiana makes you wonder about some things as well.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      He was solid in Milwaukee as well but I'm pretty sure that no one wants him back.
                      I wanted Dun to stay if the price was right. I thought he was solid while he was here just over-priced. Just think if we had Dun as PG's backup last year instead of Sam Young

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                        As bad as our former players played for us and as good as they are now playing for other teams...there are a grand total of 0 of them that play on a team with a record superior to the Pacers this season.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                          Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                          As bad as our former players played for us and as good as they are now playing for other teams...there are a grand total of 0 of them that play on a team with a record superior to the Pacers this season.
                          Season's not over yet

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                            Season's not over yet
                            Of course the Clippers could very well pass us, but I think our system may not be as bad as some think. And the Clippers probably have the two most successful former Pacers on their squad anyway. It's especially disheartening for Green and Augustin, but with the exception of David West, we don't really have any players that are just phenomenal all around offensive basketball players. Scola and George are close this year, but of course last year Scola was Hansbrough and George wasn't as much of a featured scorer last year.

                            I'm sure Vogel's system has plenty room for improvement, but I don't think the ceiling for this team is very high offensively anyway.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              All of us? Not really. The only people that look like idiots (to borrow your title, I don't believe that anyone is an idiot) are the ones that ridiculed those players and wanted to run them out of town.

                              The ones who defended those players and attributed their below par performance in Indiana to some real issues (like a bad fit for our offense in Green's case, a bad fit for our defense in DJ's case and lack of playing time in Plumlee's case) look really good now
                              This list of guys playing well is classic anecdotal "stats are lies" logic first of all. No one thinks of the guys doing nothing because of exactly that fact, they are doing nothing and are therefore off the radar.


                              I was quite vocal and basically alone (maybe 1 other) as a Gerald Green defender at the summer PD party. He shot the 3 atrociously for 5 weeks, that was his only flaw as a BENCH player. His 3P% the rest of the year was an acceptable 35% when you add in his vertical attack on offense and rebounding. He seemed injured when the playoffs hit which reduced his hops and made him less effective. Even still is year in PHX is his best NBA season, and he qualifies for this thread because the Pacers just let him go (traded him).


                              Plumlee had zero PT so who knows. And for all his greatness what I see with the Suns is him feeding off other guys. He's not having the same "do something to stop me" impact that Green is.


                              Dunleavy? What's he done any different than he did here? His numbers are dead nuts on with his career, and perhaps slightly down in Chicago. On top of that he seems to pick fights and take cheap shots at guys every other week while still playing his terrible defense.


                              Collison has his Assists p36 lower than in Indy and his 3P% is on par with his time here. Only his 2P% is really up. His steals in Indy were also way below his norm. Of course there is one major difference with his "career norms" and Indy output - Indy started him in 135 of 139 GP (regular season) or 97%. In Dallas he started 58% (47 of 81) and in LAC he started 39% (26 of 67), meaning he's put in A LOT more time against bench players over the course of the last 2 seasons, and this was true for his time in NO as well. What Indy proved is DC is better suited to come off the bench, and despite his protests he's had to do that everywhere BUT in Indy (ironic that he complained about it while here).


                              DJ got run out of Toronto even more than Indy, and right while they were in a serious playoff hunt. And losing him didn't hurt them one bit. Shooting a terrible FG% at high volume isn't exactly making people look like idiots BTW. He was shooting 29% in Toronto, FG, not 3P%. The main thing in Chicago that's helped is his 3P%. Keep in mind his 3P% in Indy was BETTER than it had been the prior 2 seasons in Charlotte. Chicago has found a way to get him 3P looks he likes or he's gotten hot way above his career average. The Toronto thing should keep him off this list, but I'll let him be player #2 who looks better after leaving Indy just on his Bulls output.


                              Granger just went 0-4 to follow his big breakout game. I love Danny and could see that he clearly wasn't the same. He had already fit in with this group and played far better than what we saw this year. Something about his game did not make it past his injury/recovery. He might not be done but I've given up hope that we'll see the DG we love ever again. Danny needs A LOT of 15 point games and a 3P% running 37%+ to prove Indy gave up too soon. Let's check back after game 82 this year.


                              I love Sam Young's defense and hustle, but which NBA team is he playing for this season?


                              I like AJ Price and loved him as a 2nd round pick simply because any 2nd round pick that can stick on an NBA floor is a winning pick. Lance is a massive exception/win. So it's nice to see Price hanging in the league, but he's not doing more elsewhere.


                              Tyler and McRoberts haven't done any more elsewhere. Tyler is taking 3 less shots per 36 which has his FG% up to 47, still not great for a PF/OReb type but much less of a black hole. His rebounds per 36 are over 10 for the first time ever but his FT% is at a career low sub 70% which isn't so great for a guy who specializes in getting to the line. Josh is doing okay as a starter for the playoff bound Bobcats, but his numbers are nothing special (and you know I like Josh). He's become a 3pt and passing specialist and this has seen his rebounding drop way off while is 3P makes and assists are way up. But it's a wash in total output.


                              Rush looked good till he got hurt, but then he looked good here too. People just wanted him to take 14 FGA per game and that's not who he is. But otherwise he was a solid bench defensive SG who could hit the spot up 3. I think they should have kept him for the backup SG role, but post-injury the point is moot.


                              Barbosa didn't do anything more than he did in Indy. DJones? Troy? Admundson (barely hanging in NBA in NOP)?


                              Ayers is just as fun as always but he's not rolling along as anything more than a bench speciality guy.


                              Who doesn't love Pulp, but OJ has run off a 3-17 FG in Sacto. Obviously he's not fitting in with their system coming in on the fly like that.



                              So what's this list of players making us look foolish? I see all those guys and raise them 2 games of Bynum vs the 2 prior seasons of Bynum output.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-16-2014, 09:09 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                                Originally posted by Lance George View Post
                                9/5/4 on 44% shooting. If McBob is truly the Bobcats' third best player, then that would explain why they're on pace to win just 39 games in the lowly East.
                                44% shooting is weighed down by the increased 3PA. His eFG% (adjusted for the bonus point of a 3PM) is .524. His assists p36 are at 5.0 this season. Of the Pacers regulars there are TWO guys with a better eFG% - Lance at .541 and Hill at .532. ONLY LANCE can match McBob's assists p36 at 5.0 himself. So what I'm saying is Josh is putting up Lance numbers for Charlotte. It's coming from the PF spot which makes it odd and perhaps not a good fit everywhere, but it's smart change for him considering how good his handles are.

                                Lance is outrebounding Josh, though we also know some of Lance's boards are "stolen" or system based (West or Roy block out to let guard get ball clean). But Josh is also playing more perimeter so that's a negative by-product. Josh has MORE steals p36 than Lance, obviously more blocks (.7 to .1) but also less than HALF THE TURNOVERS. Josh is getting the same amount of assists for only 1.2 TOs vs 2.7. Josh is shooting the three BETTER THAN LANCE (36% to 34%).

                                Lance is shooting the 2 better and is taking more 2PA vs 3PA than Josh (Lance 8 to 3, Josh 4 to 4). Neither draw many FTAs but Josh is shooting FT a fraction better (ie, equally non-important).


                                Josh is 26, Lance is 23. Lance is playing 35 mpg, Josh is playing 30 mpg.



                                Frankly I'm glad Josh was thrown under the bus because I was undervaluing his impact this year, those are some darn good, if non-traditional numbers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X