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

  • #46
    Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Eh, I would advise for people not to let yourself be fooled by situations like this. It's completely normal that players don't fit a system, and it's also true that certain systems aren't built for late-season success. You need to step back and look big picture. The question you need to ask is: does the player fit a successful post-season system.

    You take a less structured, free-wheeling system like Phoenix, put a couple of athletic but less structured players like G Green and Plumlee in it, and of course they are going to look better. But these types of offenses rarely go far in the post-season. We know this. We also *know* exactly how G Green performs in the post-season when placed into a post-season style offense. It's not pretty.

    A simple comparison would be the Detroit Lions in the NFL. They look amazing on offense in the regular season, with players who make spectacular plays, put up record-breaking stats. But down the stretch, as teams gear up defensively for the playoffs, all of a sudden they can't execute. They either miss the post-season, or get in and get blown out. Successful post-season offenses are largely ones able to *execute* tough plays, settle for the safe gains, keep the chains moving, and not necessarily look pretty doing it. They bore you to death with simple execution, and then here and there, they go for the big plays.

    Indy's offense looks ugly against good or bad defenses, but equally effective, whereas Phoenix' offense tricks you a bit in the regular season. Come the post-season (that's *if* Phoenix gets there), when defenses increase by many factors (which is the opposite of offense, which typical decreases across the board in the playoffs), Phoenix and Gerald Green are going to be doing a lot less of those high-flying/scoring antics. Indy's ugly-*** offense, meanwhile, will continue to be ugly, but it will also continue to score enough to win, and that's all that matters.

    Bynum for instance --- he fits a post-season style offense. He will do fine our system; he's half-court based, able to run set plays, make smart decisions, work out of the post and handle double-teams. Gerald Green isn't the smartest player; most of his plays come out of more free-wheeling systems. There's a lot less structure to his game. He appears to play better in less-structured systems --- systems that make you second-guess things in the regular season, and then make you remember why in the post-season.

    Who would you take in the post-season, Indy's ugly, often gummed up offense? Or Phoenix' free-wheeling, open offense? Couple that with the defensive considerations.

    I think people aren't giving enough credit to Indy's "systems". Don't confuse entertainment with effectiveness when it matters. It's all about how it all works together, what it's built for. That said, I'm not saying that Indy's offense doesnt' have room for improvement... but it *is* a successful post-season offense. You don't get to game 7 of the conference finals against the best team/player in the world without having a system that is effective in the post-season. It may not be *pretty*... but it works. I'd like for it to work a little better... and I think that will come with our new players and experience for our young guys. But I'm not about to let go our all our guys to bring back the likes of Augustin, Green, and Plumlee just because they're lighting it up in other systems. Augustin is a little different because he is in a playoff-style system, but it's different than ours... it's a PG-centric offense, obviously put in place for DRose.
    I completely disagree with the idea that our offense is set up for success more than a team like Phoenix. This isn't the NFL where the change in weather causes offenses to slow down considerably. Look at the teams that have made the finals the last few years (Heat, Spurs, Thunder, Dallas, Lakers, Boston) 5 of the 6 teams were high scoring, offensively efficient offenses. 4 out of those 5 were more of an up-tempo, "free wheeling" offense that is a lot closer to Phoenix's style than they are to Indiana's slow, methodical yet sloppy and inconsistent style.

    Speaking of our slow methodical offense, it is NOT effective in the playoffs. We have seen success within the playoffs due to our size, rebounding, and our defense. In fact, we have done so in spite of our offense at times. There is absolutely nothing efficient about our offense, especially since we have gone away from the inside/out attack that we SHOULD be utilizing. But you kill your own football analogy because for the most part we kill ourselves when it comes to looking for the simple/effective play or "keeping the chains moving" if you will.

    I don't think anyone believes Gerald Green is going to lead the Suns on a long playoff run. That's not the point of this thread as I read it. There is just a growing trend of players leaving the Pacers and looking twice as good in a different offensive setting. It's not like these guys are going to bottom-feeding teams either. They are going to legit playoff contenders in both the East and West. That to me says that we are not utilizing our talent to the best of our abilities--which is somewhat of an issue.
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 03-13-2014, 12:46 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      I completely disagree with the idea that our offense is set up for success more than a team like Phoenix. This isn't the NFL where the change in weather causes offenses to slow down considerably. Look at the teams that have made the finals the last few years (Heat, Spurs, Thunder, Dallas, Lakers, Boston) 5 of the 6 teams were high scoring, offensively efficient offenses. 4 out of those 5 were more of an up-tempo, "free wheeling" offense that is a lot closer to Phoenix's style than they are to Indiana's slow, methodical yet sloppy and inconsistent style.

      Speaking of our slow methodical offense, it is NOT effective in the playoffs. We have seen success within the playoffs due to our size, rebounding, and our defense. In fact, we have done so in spite of our offense at times. There is absolutely nothing efficient about our offense, especially since we have gone away from the inside/out attack that we SHOULD be utilizing. But you kill your own football analogy because for the most part we kill ourselves when it comes to looking for the simple/effective play or "keeping the chains moving" if you will.

      I don't think anyone believes Gerald Green is going to lead the Suns on a long playoff run. That's not the point of this thread as I read it. There is just a growing trend of players leaving the Pacers and looking twice as good in a different offensive setting. It's not like these guys are going to bottom-feeding teams either. They are going to legit playoff contenders in both the East and West. That to me says that we are not utilizing our talent to the best of our abilities--which is somewhat of an issue.
      The Spurs and Dallas are not free-wheeling offenses, they run set plays and execute extremely well. Miami and OKC also have LeBron James, Dwayne, Chris Bosh, Kevin Durant, and Russell Westbrook --- and not Gerald Green. That affords them some liberty to wing it more on pure talent. Also, the weather has nothing to do with playoff defense --- the grind of an 82-game season does. Teams just don't ratchet up the defense until down the stretch on pure energy conservation. And none of those teams defend or rebound on the level that Indy does, so they *have* to score more.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #48
        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
        Don't injure your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

          Green plays for a team that doesn't care who scores and doesn't care about defense as for Plumlee too. Augustin was never bad, he just didn't fit with us. McRoberts plays for Charlotte, enough said
          Smothered Chicken!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

            I'm in for wanting Vogel to switch up the offense and gear it more like San Antonio's.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

              Mike Dunleavy has had a solid year with Chicago too.
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • #52
                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.
                He was solid in Milwaukee as well but I'm pretty sure that no one wants him back.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  I'm in for wanting Vogel to switch up the offense and gear it more like San Antonio's.
                  If he does that, the Pacers are going to have to get rid of Lance and Evan and resign Danny. More shooters and less mid-range guys on the wings.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                    Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                    If he does that, the Pacers are going to have to get rid of Lance and Evan and resign Danny. More shooters and less mid-range guys on the wings.
                    Not really. Lance has speed, he likes to push the ball. We'd just have to surround him with shooters. Copeland, Butler, Solo. I think Solo if they work in the offseason, can be a lot like Danny Green with the Spurs. Just be an assassin off the bench. They just need to get him to practice his 3 point shot from the usual spots. Those spots where they shoot in the NBA All-Star weekend 3-point shootout.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      I'm in for wanting Vogel to switch up the offense and gear it more like San Antonio's.
                      That's not a simple switch-up, that's years of working together as a unit.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                        I'm in for wanting Vogel to switch up the offense and gear it more like San Antonio's.
                        Did we trade for Tony Parker? None of our guards can penetrate and finish like he does.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                          Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                          Did we trade for Tony Parker? None of our guards can penetrate and finish like he does.
                          Not many can, doesn't mean he can't learn from their offense. There is more to it than just Parker penetrating.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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 suspect that Dunleavy would be an awesome fit with our second unit now. He definitely has toughness at times, and as a very willing passer who can also score he knows how to make an offense efficient as long as the other players are willing to move without the ball. Chicago definitely improved when they got Dunleavy.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                              Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                              Green plays for a team that doesn't care who scores and doesn't care about defense as for Plumlee too. Augustin was never bad, he just didn't fit with us. McRoberts plays for Charlotte, enough said
                              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.

                              Originally posted by Rick Bonnell, NBA beat writer, Charlotte Observer

                              http://blogs.charlotte.com/inside_th...ts-around.html

                              March 13, 2014

                              A look ahead: The Bobcats should start figuring out how to keep Josh McRoberts around

                              Roughly this time each NBA season – two-thirds of the way through – I remind myself to look at the Charlotte Bobcats’ player salaries to see if anyone is vastly under- or overpaid.

                              Ben Gordon is gone, so that’s more a “How much did you pay for a future first-round pick?” issue. The more interesting situation going forward is starting power forward Josh McRoberts.

                              Boy, is he underpaid.

                              McRoberts makes slightly more than $2.6 million this season. That makes him the eighth-highest paid player on this team. He is the third-best player on this team behind Al Jefferson and Kemba Walker. Some perspective:

                              It’s not rookie Cody Zeller’s fault he makes $3.8 million. That’s the system, and if the Bobcats drafted Zeller fourth overall, he should make that much. But if you’ve watched the last 60-some games, two things would strike you about McRoberts and his backup, Zeller.

                              One, McRoberts is a lot better than Zeller. Two, that isn’t going to change at the start of training camp in October or anytime in the foreseeable future.

                              Again, not Zeller’s fault. He has potential for the same reason the Bobcats like McRoberts in this time in basketball when a power forward’s skill set should include the ability to make 3s, pass and dribble.

                              The Bobcats signed McRoberts to a two-season contract. This and next season is guaranteed, but McRoberts can opt-out after this season and hit the open market as an unrestricted free agent.

                              This was a very cost-effective move by the Bobcats. But even before the team played its first regular-season game, owner Michael Jordan acknowledged to me the prospect of McRoberts opting out was worrisome.

                              They want him back. As Jordan put it so well, McRoberts is the Bobcats’ “connect-the-dots” guy because of his sophisticated passing.

                              I’ve no idea how this will work out in July. Here’s how it should work out:

                              The Bobcats should make a fair, but preemptive, offer that keeps McRoberts around. I think Josh gets it he’s valued here, and he should want to keep playing for Steve Clifford.

                              After so many misadventures at upgrading the talent – Adam Morrison, Gana Diop, Tyrus Thomas – shouldn’t you retain somebody who’s been about as cost-effective as any player in franchise history?
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Ex-Pacers Making Us All Look Like Idiots

                                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                                I suspect that Dunleavy would be an awesome fit with our second unit now. He definitely has toughness at times, and as a very willing passer who can also score he knows how to make an offense efficient as long as the other players are willing to move without the ball. Chicago definitely improved when they got Dunleavy.
                                Doesn't make him any less of a dick though

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X