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

What Would You Do??

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

  • What Would You Do??

    So after the most depressing playoff loss in Pacer history, what changes would you have Frank utilize??

    I believe that he has to get more scorers in the starting unit.

    And the energy level was pathetic, for a playoff game????

    Copeland, Allen and Watson are necessary. I would like to see Allen play some minutes.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

  • #2
    Re: What Would You Do??

    Trade some players in the offseason......if anyone in the league is interested.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What Would You Do??

      Start Stephenson and Turner in the back court, and move Hill to the bench.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What Would You Do??

        The Hawks are a bad team and unless they ride the wave and win game 2 I stiil believe the Pacers are likely to win the series. We could certainly get swept in round 2 though.

        Mahinmi needs to get most of the Center minutes and I want Copeland to play with Turner on the floor as well. The fact he hasn't found a spot in the rotation since the allstar break is the most damning thing you can say about this coaching staff.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What Would You Do??

          I hate to say this, but I think we need a better coach. Frank is good for motivation and "rah-rahs", but I really don't think he is a good X's and O's coach. We need a good play designer to get us easy points after timeouts and during those long offensive slumps. It seems like every other freaking team can get a bucket when they absolutely need it...we usually turn it over. Or we stand around and watch dribbling exhibitions. And when the broadcast crew gets a camera in our huddle, it seems like Frank is just repeating motivational slogans instead of drawing something up...or really correcting anything. And like everyone else, I am baffled, at times, with his substitution patterns.
          Last edited by mildlysane; 04-20-2014, 02:18 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What Would You Do??

            The playoffs are about adjustments. The Hawks like to stick five three pointer shooters out on the court to stretch us out making West, and particularly Hibbert not as effectice. I would start Lance, George, Turner, Hill, and West so that when the stretch us out we have more perimeter defense on the court. Next, I would match PG up with Teague and watch Teague try to go up against a better perimeter defenders (sorry Hill). Hill would be on Williams, Stephenson on Korver, Turner on Milsap (wth help defense nearby), and West on Antic. The Hawks personnel makes it hard if not impossible for Roy; that said I would have him in the game when or if the Hawks went bigger.
            PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What Would You Do??

              I think the problem is just that we refuse to attack the hoop regularly. All of these contested deep 2s just kill our offensive inefficiency. Draw some more fouls, get some more layups! The problem has to do with everyone though, not just the shooters. Our spacing is atrocious and its pretty common now to see possessions where our guys just do not move without the ball. We need to make faster passes, move without the ball and play with aggression. Contested 2s at the end of the shot clock aren't going to win us anything.

              Also, the amount of tipped offensive rebounds that we gave up was just unbelievable. I can't decide if it was just unlucky or if we truly crapped the bed on the boards last night.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What Would You Do??

                I've been against making any kind of change to the starting lineup all season because I was naive enough to believe they could "turn it on" once the post season arrived. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I would like to see Watson replace Hill and Mahimi replace Hibbert. I'm wondering if Hill could be more effective playing with the second unit and CJ can't be any worse defensively on Teague than Hill. I also think that Mahimi is more athletic than Hibbert and could be better suited against the Hawks spread out offense. The bad thing about not starting Roy is that I'm not sure you bring him off the bench in this series either. It's been said this isn't a series for Roy and that's starting to look true. I thought we could impose our will and make the Hawks adjust to us, but that obviously not going to happen. Also, I would like to give Copeland some minutes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What Would You Do??

                  I am just a basketball fan, but i think there are 2 ways to play. Try play big and make them adjust to our inside presence or go small and adjust to their play style. How can Pacers make them pay by going small if hibbert shooting 3 pointers and could be guarded by smaller players effectively. Copeland, why not ? But scola/west should work better. I mean what can get worse ? Also rim protection is not effective vs Teague who is speedy player and there are 2 atlanta bigs that spread floor so u can't really over commit on the drive. And when Pacers do it opens up a possibility for Hawks to move the ball because Pacers are late on everything. IMO thats why Hawk look so good versus us.

                  edit: Also could try this lineup

                  hill
                  lance
                  turner
                  PG
                  West

                  subbed in by copeland at 4 and moving PG to his more natural SF later on depending how it goes. That would give Antic/Millsap some ground to run.
                  Last edited by Saras; 04-20-2014, 11:08 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What Would You Do??

                    Burn it to the ground. Bench the entire starting 5 and gradually rotate them in, and see if that changes their mindset.

                    But that's just me.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 04-20-2014, 11:17 AM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What Would You Do??

                      Hmmmmm...I thought about that. Screening is horrible on this team. That is on the coaches mainly. I think they have to put defenders
                      Out there who can move and also move on offense.
                      Butler, Copeland and Watson have to be in the mix along with Allen getting some center time on Antic.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What Would You Do??

                        I'd start Copeland somewhere, just based on the fact that he's the only one who stuck with the headband for the playoffs.

                        Gold shoes, blue shoes, white shoes. Not one black pair of shoes out there. No bald heads. Only one headband. #playoffunity
                        PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What Would You Do??

                          I would sit Roy Hibbert down and bench him. If he cannot out-play a cab driver, D-league level player like Antic, then Roy needs to sit down
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What Would You Do??

                            I would also bench George Hill. He has gotten torched time and time again this year. And now, he is getting torched my a very mediocre PG in Jeff Teague. Teague isn's Chris Paul, Steph Curry, or John Wall. Hill should be able to hold his own agains the mediocre PG's. Basketball is about match ups, and if you cannot beat your guy that is only mediocre, you should get benched
                            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What Would You Do??

                              Put PG on Teague, Hill on Korver, Hibbert on Millsap, West on Antic, Lance on Carroll. Tell two players to stick at the 3 point line instead of crashing the boards at the glass when the Hawks shoot a 3. Last night the Hawks got about 7 offensive rebounds just from the rebound going over the Pacers heads of a missed 3. I know the Pacers don't use it (I don't know of many teams that do), but a 3-2 zone would be great right now. The good news is that everything that happened last night is easily fixable. You got to remember that this Hawks team is the perfect matchup for the Pacers. No team we've faced in the playoffs before have had consistent 3 point shooters at all 5 positions. The bench is even loaded with shooters. A team like the Knicks would have been an easier out.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X