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

Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

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

  • #16
    Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
    It's pretty clear to me at this point that Dunleavy is by far the best offensive option we have at the 2 guard position. It's pretty clear at this point that the inclusion of Rush and George into the starting lineup has not helped the defense in any way.

    Really what the absence of Dunleavy has done is make me worry about the long-term future of the position. Rush was given his last chance to step up as a Pacer and failed to take advantage of it. George has failed to step up in equally spectacular fashion. We all want to excuse him because he's young and a rookie, but Rush had just as many flashes during his rookie year as George has had. I can see his potential just like everyone else, but I'm going to be pretty skeptical until he shows the inclination to consistently assert himself offensively.

    As for Jones, I hate it when he has the ball in his hands. Other than that, I like him as a player.
    Which is pretty often.

    Good post.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

      Oh, how abstinence makes the heart grow fonder and how much things look better than they are.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

        I wonder if playoff basketball will make Rush step up. I wonder if the increased intensity will effect the way he asserts himself. I want his defense in the playoffs. I want his defense late in games. I would actually like to see him guard Deng if we face the Bulls. Let Granger guard Korver/Brewer/Bogans.
        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
          It's pretty clear to me at this point that Dunleavy is by far the best offensive option we have at the 2 guard position. It's pretty clear at this point that the inclusion of Rush and George into the starting lineup has not helped the defense in any way.

          Really what the absence of Dunleavy has done is make me worry about the long-term future of the position. Rush was given his last chance to step up as a Pacer and failed to take advantage of it. George has failed to step up in equally spectacular fashion. We all want to excuse him because he's young and a rookie, but Rush had just as many flashes during his rookie year as George has had. I can see his potential just like everyone else, but I'm going to be pretty skeptical until he shows the inclination to consistently assert himself offensively.

          As for Jones, I hate it when he has the ball in his hands. Other than that, I like him as a player.
          Just because Brandon Rush has stayed the same for 3 years (inconsistent) doesn't mean Paul George will.

          Also, you would probably see more out of him if we actually ran anything for him. He wants to score with the ball in his hands, so naturally we usually just tell him to stay out of the way and space the floor.

          It slightly amazes me how we've gone from running iso plays for him to end the quarter (which he produced when he did), to now we can't even call an iso for him in the middle of the 1st quarter.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            We don't need Dunleavy for anything, can somebody tell me who he is going to guard from Chicago? Deng? Korver? Rose? Or who he is going to guard from Boston? Pierce? Ray? Green? Are his 8 ppg since Vogel took over that important? ..... I didn't think so either.
            Chicago? He would guard whoever their shooting guard is, and that would be great for him because those aren't guys that are going to burn him. Korver, Brewer, Bogans, whoever. Not a bad matchup for Mike.

            Boston? I assume it would be Ray Allen. Ray isn't going to drive by him and torch him left and right, but Mike will have to fight through screens galore and chase him around a lot. Not a terrible matchup again.

            Really, the one team that we wouldn't want to see if Mike is healthy would be Miami. He (famously) can't guard Dwyane Wade and that is exactly the type of player you want to avoid having Mike check.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              Just because Brandon Rush has stayed the same for 3 years (inconsistent) doesn't mean Paul George will.

              Also, you would probably see more out of him if we actually ran anything for him. He wants to score with the ball in his hands, so naturally we usually just tell him to stay out of the way and space the floor.

              It slightly amazes me how we've gone from running iso plays for him to end the quarter (which he produced when he did), to now we can't even call an iso for him in the middle of the 1st quarter.
              Agreed. I'm nowhere close to writing George off. I'm just skeptical. At this point we've never even seen him play an entire game where he was assertive and active offensively. He's had some brilliant stretches, but there's never been an entire game where I've said "Man, Paul really brought it tonight." Even Rush had some really great games his rookie year.

              You make an excellent point about the offense. I have no idea why we're not making any sort of a conscious effort to get him involved. Maybe the 2 guard position is really only designed for 2 types of players: Guys that move well w/o the ball (Dunleavy) and Guys that stand in the corner (Rush). What worries me, however, is that when D. Jones is the SG, he has the ball a lot. Even Rush seems to handle the ball more than George does.

              I wonder if moving George into the starting unit was a mistake. It kept him tied to Tyler, who really likes to shoot. I wonder if we'd have played George in the goon squad along with McRoberts if we couldn't encourage him to do more offensively as essentially the #1 option with the second unit. Maybe he's just not ready to shoulder that load yet.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                Dunleavy is not Jordan, but he's our current best SG option for the starting unit. While a lot of love is given for PG's defense, it's mostly individual defense that I feel he excels at, while Dunleavy is obviously not as good of an individual defender, but a better team defender. PG still makes mistakes.

                Dun also stirs the starting unit's flow by his off-ball movement, something PG doesn't do very well.

                I think the biggest issue, tbo, is Dun's salary. I don't think people would hate on him so much if the monetary obligation to him was reasonable. I don't feel that he's our long-term solution either, but... for this playoff run... if he's 100% and in a groove, we'd be wise to integrate him back to the starters and put PG on the bench.

                I'll always contend that he's not near as bad as a lot of people on here say he is, which I can only attribute to most peeps not fully understanding how things actually work and only taking things for face value... but everyone is an expert, aren't they?
                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


                • #23
                  Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  Oh, how abstinence makes the heart grow fonder and how much things look better than they are.
                  Abstinence? I don't think the heart is what abstinence makes grow.
                  "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                  -Lance Stephenson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Chicago? He would guard whoever their shooting guard is, and that would be great for him because those aren't guys that are going to burn him. Korver, Brewer, Bogans, whoever. Not a bad matchup for Mike.

                    Boston? I assume it would be Ray Allen. Ray isn't going to drive by him and torch him left and right, but Mike will have to fight through screens galore and chase him around a lot. Not a terrible matchup again.

                    Really, the one team that we wouldn't want to see if Mike is healthy would be Miami. He (famously) can't guard Dwyane Wade and that is exactly the type of player you want to avoid having Mike check.
                    Kyle Korver and Ray Allen are both terrible match-ups for Dunleavy. Like Allen, all Korver does is run around screens and move without the ball. Brewer and Bogans aren't the same kind of shooters, and he won't have to stay as tight with them, so he should be fine against them, but not Korver, and if Allen gets an even an inch of space, you're in trouble.

                    Dunleavy's major defensive weakness is away from the ball. He is simply unable, or unwilling to try to fight through screens and contest jump shooters.

                    Obviously, he can't guard Wade, simply because Wade is so good. He is a tough cover for any player, but Allen and Korver are potentially even worse for Dunleavy, from a purely match-up perspective.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                      Our main problem defensively is not Dunleavy. It's Collison.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                        Kyle Korver and Ray Allen are both terrible match-ups for Dunleavy. Like Allen, all Korver does is run around screens and move without the ball. Brewer and Bogans aren't the same kind of shooters, and he won't have to stay as tight with them, so he should be fine against them, but not Korver, and if Allen gets an even an inch of space, you're in trouble.

                        Dunleavy's major defensive weakness is away from the ball. He is simply unable, or unwilling to try to fight through screens and contest jump shooters.

                        Obviously, he can't guard Wade, simply because Wade is so good. He is a tough cover for any player, but Allen and Korver are potentially even worse for Dunleavy, from a purely match-up perspective.
                        I was just going to post the same thing, thanks, I would also ad that a guy like Brewer could get hot at times and he is pretty good in open court.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                          Our main problem defensively is not Dunleavy. It's Collison.
                          Fact.

                          Even though I'm certainly not a fan of Dunleavy, and I haven't missed him one bit, he's more like the 3rd biggest problem defensively, when in the lineup, behind both Collison and Granger.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            Dunleavy is not Jordan, but he's our current best SG option for the starting unit. While a lot of love is given for PG's defense, it's mostly individual defense that I feel he excels at, while Dunleavy is obviously not as good of an individual defender, but a better team defender. PG still makes mistakes.

                            Dun also stirs the starting unit's flow by his off-ball movement, something PG doesn't do very well.

                            I think the biggest issue, tbo, is Dun's salary. I don't think people would hate on him so much if the monetary obligation to him was reasonable. I don't feel that he's our long-term solution either, but... for this playoff run... if he's 100% and in a groove, we'd be wise to integrate him back to the starters and put PG on the bench.

                            I'll always contend that he's not near as bad as a lot of people on here say he is, which I can only attribute to most peeps not fully understanding how things actually work and only taking things for face value... but everyone is an expert, aren't they?


                            Dun's lack of "D", his salary, and taking PT time from George's development makes it hard for fans to give him his due. The samethings said about Murphy and McBob.

                            For the playoffs, I agree with you about Dunleavy starting and PG back to the goon squad. I felt starting PG was best, but I've feel George's play has went down since starting.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                              I think we need Dun in the second unit.

                              First unit, I don't want to watch Dun try and guard a starting shooting guard. I also think the offense has been better in the starting unit since we've added Tyler and George to it. And he's not as needed. This unit is also capable of playing decent defense.

                              Second unit though. That unit needs some motion, it needs more ball movement, it needs some more scoring in the flow of an offense (heck..it needs an offense) and Dun would help significantly there. And we can play him at his natural position, which would help him defensively. And he'll be on the court with AJ, either Rush/Dahntay, Josh and Foster...all pretty good defensive players. So they are capable of covering for him.

                              The only question is..do we play with 11 guys, or do we sit one of Rush or Dahntay down..and then which one do we sit down. And..if by the time Dun is healthy, and at that time, by some miracle, the second unit can come together (I really just don't think thats possible. The only way that second unit works offensively is if Price and Rush are hot..probably needed together..and that might happen once..for the rest of the season..) do we even bother to change it?

                              So Dahntay or Rush. I like all three wings, and recognize the problems with all of them. We have to ask ourselves if we want Dahntay's aggression, vet leadership (he's on the only guy on the roster that's been deep in the playoffs..that is currently playing) or Rush's more "in the flow of he offense" offense and probably superior defense.

                              I'd go with Dahntay (keeping him in the rotation)..but it's another difficult question for Vogel.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Dunleavy's absence has made your heart . . .

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                Dun's lack of "D", his salary, and taking PT time from George's development makes it hard for fans to give him his due. The samethings said about Murphy and McBob.
                                All I'm gonna say is... Dunleavy went down... and our starting offense AND defense has struggled mightily ever since. These infamous "slow starts" are mostly on our starters. And they haven't looked the same since Dun went down. There's a ton to be said for chemistry and flow.

                                So not entirely sure the "D" issue is really completely validated at this point in time. Our D was pretty darn good before he went down. Shortly after, it became commonplace for us to give up 60+ point first-halfs to the opposing team.

                                As for PT, I definitely agree that PG needs it --- but he's getting it. I don't think injecting Dunleavy into the starting line-up will prevent PG from getting his 20ish minutes per game. Rush and Jones might suffer a decrease in PT...
                                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

                                Working...
                                X