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

Pacers Bench

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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers Bench

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    Ist of all, the talent of the Pacers starters would make almost any coach look good.

    2nd the bench suffers b/c of mismanagement by Vogel. Vogel himself was gushing over how Copeland played in the Pacers/Knicks series and questioned why Woodson didn't play him more against the Pacers. Then the Pacers acquire Copeland and Vogel lets him rot on the bench all season. SMH
    Maybe Frank saw him in training camp, in practice, in meetings, in shoot arounds and doesn't think he can help us. Don't you really think that is exactly what has happened. You might disagree with Frank's assessment, but I am 100% sure it is an honest assessment.

    I think our offensive system is excellent for our starters. We are limited offensively.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers Bench

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Maybe Frank saw him in training camp, in practice, in meetings, in shoot arounds and doesn't think he can help us. Don't you really think that is exactly what has happened. You might disagree with Frank's assessment, but I am 100% sure it is an honest assessment.

      I think our offensive system is excellent for our starters. We are limited offensively.
      I disagree that our starters are limited offensively.

      PG and Lance have tons of scoring potential. PG has some of the most offensive talent in Pacer history.

      West is certainly a very talented scoring big man.

      Hibbs, when not in a slump, is a decent scorer for his size.

      George Hill can shoot and take it to the rack when aggressive.

      Our problems are that guys have gone though some bad slumps, plus we don't have a classic shooter. But there is a ton of offensive talent on this club. They are way more talented in this department than say the 2004 Pacers, who had two weak links with a limited Jeff Foster and old Reggie Miller who wasn't very good that year.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers Bench

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        I disagree that our starters are limited offensively.

        PG and Lance have tons of scoring potential. PG has some of the most offensive talent in Pacer history.

        West is certainly a very talented scoring big man.

        Hibbs, when not in a slump, is a decent scorer for his size.

        George Hill can shoot and take it to the rack when aggressive.

        Our problems are that guys have gone though some bad slumps, plus we don't have a classic shooter. But there is a ton of offensive talent on this club. They are way more talented in this department than say the 2004 Pacers, who had two weak links with a limited Jeff Foster and old Reggie Miller who wasn't very good that year.
        Look at all the qualifiers you put on everything. Potential, when not in slump, when aggressive.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers Bench

          If you put Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Durant, LeBron James and LaMarcus Aldridge in a starting 5, you'd have at least 2 of them (probably 3) scoring well below their potential. And I guarantee one would have the 'not aggressive enough' tag.

          We're nowhere near that, but my point is we have more offensive firepower in our starting lineup than we can use.
          Last edited by imawhat; 05-22-2014, 08:52 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers Bench

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Look at all the qualifiers you put on everything. Potential, when not in slump, when aggressive.
            There are always qualifiers, but I don't believe that this is a fundamentally limited offensive team. This is a team that should be very good offensively when they do what they are supposed to do.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers Bench

              [QUOTE=Unclebuck;1859907]Maybe Frank saw him in training camp, in practice, in meetings, in shoot arounds and doesn't think he can help us. Don't you really think that is exactly what has happened. You might disagree with Frank's assessment, but I am 100% sure it is an honest assessment. /QUOTE]


              Jimmy, Brown, etc had players they didn't play b/c of "their assessments". Doesn't mean their assessments were correct. Ask Jalen.

              What if Walsh only signed Copeland, b/c Vogel liked what he saw of Copeland in the Pacers/Knicks series? I believe I, vnzla, and a few others were against signing of Copeland, and it's been nothing more than a waste of money. Money that could of been better spent elsewhere or not at all.

              You are such an avid BB person, did you catch the 4th qtr of Spurs/Thunder game last night when they were talking about how RC Buford and FO built the Spurs around Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli? I found it to be quite informative!!! Getting players with the right mindset and chemistry that can play in their system, not the most talented but the right players. Those who know how to play the game. Look at their bench excluding Ginobli: Diaw, Mills, Baines, Joseph, Bonner, etc. Now, there is a bench full of well known players! Pop plays and developed the best bench with them. I bet vnzla is shouting to high heaven I told you PD people so about Diaw not being too fat, lazy, and washed up. IMO, if Diaw had come to the Pacers as vnzla wanted he'd be a player Vogel wouldn't use, and yet in SA he could be wearing a ring after seasons end while playing a major role off the bench in SA.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers Bench

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Look at all the qualifiers you put on everything. Potential, when not in slump, when aggressive.
                Those qualifiers are on everyone in the league. LeBron doesn't score well when he isn't aggressive.
                #LanceEffect

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers Bench

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  You are such an avid BB person, did you catch the 4th qtr of Spurs/Thunder game last night when they were talking about how RC Buford and FO built the Spurs around Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli? I found it to be quite informative!!! Getting players with the right mindset and chemistry that can play in their system, not the most talented but the right players. Those who know how to play the game. Look at their bench excluding Ginobli: Diaw, Mills, Baines, Joseph, Bonner, etc. Now, there is a bench full of well known players! Pop plays and developed the best bench with them.

                  The Spurs bench can afford to have 'lesser' players because they have an amazing offensive system. That's one of the top advantages of having a great system. It becomes less about talent and more about fit (and therefore more probable for success, imo).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers Bench

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    I disagree that our starters are limited offensively.

                    PG and Lance have tons of scoring potential. PG has some of the most offensive talent in Pacer history.

                    West is certainly a very talented scoring big man.

                    Hibbs, when not in a slump, is a decent scorer for his size.

                    George Hill can shoot and take it to the rack when aggressive.

                    Our problems are that guys have gone though some bad slumps, plus we don't have a classic shooter. But there is a ton of offensive talent on this club. They are way more talented in this department than say the 2004 Pacers, who had two weak links with a limited Jeff Foster and old Reggie Miller who wasn't very good that year.

                    Specifically, I do not believe an NBA Bench that has beaten the "starters" of albeit two bad teams is limited offensively. CJ, Scola, Turner, Mahnimi are fringe starting level players in this league on bad teams. Cope, Allen, Butler are worthy rotational minute players on bad teams. We have a good a bench talent wise, but they do not perform cohesively and consistently.

                    Hence the reason, I am over it this offseason. I say we find Lockdown Defenders at all positions possible SG-C. If were never going to score, and least shutdown the other team while our starters get rest.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers Bench

                      Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                      Specifically, I do not believe an NBA Bench that has beaten the "starters" of albeit two bad teams is limited offensively. CJ, Scola, Turner, Mahnimi are fringe starting level players in this league on bad teams. Cope, Allen, Butler are worthy rotational minute players on bad teams. We have a good a bench talent wise, but they do not perform cohesively and consistently.

                      Hence the reason, I am over it this offseason. I say we find Lockdown Defenders at all positions possible SG-C. If were never going to score, and least shutdown the other team while our starters get rest.
                      I don't think our bench is bad, just in a slump like our whole team was for a good 2 months. Unfortunately they are still in the slump and aren't getting a whole lot of playing time to work out of it like the starters did.
                      Stephenson with the .1 second tap in.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers Bench

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        NOTE TO ALL - I know that we are still in a Championship run.....but I'm bored....so I'm going to entertain this line of discussion.


                        Looking at the roster....going into the 2014 season....I think that most of it will be filled mainly because we have a lot of backup Players that can fill the roster's need while having guaranteed Salary.

                        Backup PG - CJ
                        Backup SG - ???
                        Backup SF - Solo
                        Backup PF - Copeland
                        Backup C - Mahinmi

                        IMHO, I think that it's terribly inefficient and ineffective to pay Players a sizable contract to sit on the bench for too long and not do anything with them. That's why I think Copeland will and should get rotational minutes. At some point...you just have to start playing him. Bird brought him in for a reason....having $3.18 mil sit on the bench is stupid IMHO. Same goes for Solo. He's Cheap talent that can be developed. I think that Scola's unguaranteed contract won't be picked up ( mainly to make CapRoom Space to re-sign Lance while freeing up the Team to make more moves ). Copeland and/or Lavoy ( I think he will be re-signed to a cheap but fair contract...hopefully no more than $1.5 mil a year ) will back fill the Backup PF spot.

                        I do agree on the need for a defensive Ace...mainly to backfill PG24 when he'd resting or in foul trouble. We have PG24 who not only fills that role but also fills the top scorer role. Most Elite Level Teams have a Defensive Ace that can hound the opposing Team's best scorer ( while not...at the same time...being their Top Scorer ). My preference is that PG24 does not have to fill both the roles of Defensive Ace and Top Scorer.....simply cuz it's too tiring. Having a 3-D type guy would be perfect. The only UFA that fits that role is Ariza....but I'm guessing he's going back to Washington. I'd love to go after Thabo Sefalosha....he's not a 3-D type guy....but is a Free Agent Defensive Ace and unlikely to go back to OKC with Lamb and Reggie Jackson getting minutes. But I'm guessing that some Team is going to snatch him up. A possible cheap option is Alan Anderson....but he has a Player Option with the Nets.

                        Also...if a Defensive Ace is not an option....there are other options to fill that last bench spot.

                        Add a true Backup PG ( what everyone is clamouring for ) and sometimes run with a 2 PG lineup. Maybe Ridnour? I've noticed that many Teams now have 2 proverbial PGs on the floor at various times. With CJ and GH being Combo-Type-Guards.....it maybe possible to get a True PG to help run the offense more efficiently? Not a True PG....but I'm sure that many won't mind going after Patty Mills simply for the scoring that he provides. I've ALWAYS loved Ramon Sessions simply cuz the guy is a very good Player that can get to the FT line while getting teams into foul trouble.

                        Maybe add a 3pt specialist? Maybe go after Morrow? Actually stick with Butler and give him a real role?

                        Either way.....I can only see one position open in the Bench that needs to be filled. My preference would be that we go after a Defensive Perimeter Player.


                        Are you suggesting that Mahinmi isn't smashmouth enough because he's French?

                        If Mahinmi is somehow moved ( which I think is unlikely )....looking at the Free Agent Market.....if the price is right....let's say at $1.5 to 2.5 mil....I don't mind going after Nazr Mohammed or Kris Humphries. But realistically.... I'm okay with keeping him...he did a good job filling in when Hibbert went on a psychological sabbatical. I think that he's fine for the role that we want him to fill.....purely playing defense and rebounding. Just don't pass the ball to him.



                        Next season I'd like to see our bench be......



                        Copeland
                        Turner
                        Hawes (free agent from Cavs)
                        Meeks
                        CJ Watson



                        or



                        Copeland
                        Turner
                        LaVoy
                        Meeks
                        CJ


                        or



                        Copeland
                        Turner
                        LaVoy
                        Nick Young
                        Meeks




                        Either way, I want Nick Young or Jodie Meeks on next years team. Both are pure scorers/shooters and instant offense.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers Bench

                          Aaron Gray seems like an ideal fit. From what I remember of the guy he is very physical and can rebound, play solid defense. Greg Stiemsa is another cheap option that gives us a solid backup rim protector.

                          http://hoopshype.com/free_agency/centers_2014.htm

                          If we could get one of these guys and Allen back at about 2 per each. I would take it over the 4 MILL were paying Ian. Gray's a guy that is not afraid of contact if I remember correctly.


                          Hawes would be a nice addition, but not realistic at the price tag he will command.


                          Bottom Line:

                          If we get solid contribution from the bench game 2 were heading to South Beach up 2-0. Bird has made it clear he wants a solid bench. We gotta go back to the drawing board this offseason.
                          Last edited by PacersPride; 05-22-2014, 03:14 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers Bench

                            Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
                            Those qualifiers are on everyone in the league. LeBron doesn't score well when he isn't aggressive.
                            I don't know that anyone has ever questioned whether Lebron was aggressive. Ever.

                            Thats the point. Feeling the need to add a qualifier only furthers the notion that they aren't truly what you are suggesting they are.
                            "THIS IS MY CITY."- PAUL GEORGE

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers Bench

                              I am not ready to throw Mahinmi out, maybe we should just pull him aside and say BTW we are bringing Bynum back and watch him get his mojo back!

                              I had no idea Dahntay Jones was not on a team right now he was great against Miami for us a couple of years ago, anyone remember him pulling the chair on Wade

                              IMO the entire bench should be Wiley vets like Butler and Watson.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers Bench

                                Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                                I am not ready to throw Mahinmi out, maybe we should just pull him aside and say BTW we are bringing Bynum back and watch him get his mojo back!
                                Just don't tell Hibbert
                                Stephenson with the .1 second tap in.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X