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

Uncle Buck speaks....

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

  • #61
    Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
    Bird clearly did not understand the problem. If he did he would have traded Lance. You would have to be blind to think the main problem isn't Lance. It was prior to the All-Star break, and still is. Yeah Paul hasn't been great, but the guys have bought into him being a great player. They like him and respect him. Lance they don't. I also think Paul has respect for the other players on the team as well, where Lance clearly does not. Paul's play clearly isn't helping, but it starts and ends with Lance.
    Very hard for me to accept that the team's troubles stem solely from the fact that one guy got way better this year from last year, and not playing the right way. If that was the case then the other 4 guys would have reigned him in. I mean seriously. If Lance was that big a problem, you don't think some combination of that 15 man roster wouldn't have stepped in? I mean if it were that simple, Vogel would have stepped up and quashed this problem by limiting Lance's opportunities. Though i'm not saying Lance isn't a problem, I just think there is a combination of big problems that stem from PG and Lance and Roy.
    Last edited by graphic-er; 03-25-2014, 01:59 PM.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      Yeah, people are focusing on the wrong thing, and completely ignoring that Hibbert never even signed Portland's offer sheet. It was just the typical let him test the market so we don't pay him $14 million when he would have only gotten $12 on the free market.

      The point is that he would have bolted had we not ponied up. If Portland pays more, then he's a Blazer.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        Very hard for me to accept that the team's troubles stem solely from the fact that one guy got way better this year from last year, and not playing the right way. If that was the case then the other 4 guys would have reigned him in. I mean seriously. If Lance was that big a problem, you don't think some combination of that 15 man roster wouldn't have stepped in? I mean if it were that simple, Vogel would have stepped up and quashed this problem by limiting Lance's opportunities. Though i'm not saying Lance isn't a problem, I just think there is a combination of big problems that stem from PG and Lance and Roy.
        I can only get so frustrated with a wing who is shooting 50% on the season. He's not perfect. He makes mistakes, holds the ball too long, and likes to focus on getting on the highlight reel. But he's also been our most consistent player this year and is a huge reason why we won so many games. He's been way better at his role than PG has at his lately.

        Our biggest problem is that we allow a guy who has been shooting about 40% for three months to hog such a disproportionate amount of our shots.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          Very hard for me to accept that the team's troubles stem solely from the fact that one guy got way better this year from last year, and not playing the right way. If that was the case then the other 4 guys would have reigned him in. I mean seriously. If Lance was that big a problem, you don't think some combination of that 15 man roster wouldn't have stepped in? I mean if it were that simple, Vogel would have stepped up and quashed this problem by limiting Lance's opportunities. Though i'm not saying Lance isn't a problem, I just think there is a combination of big problems that stem from PG and Lance and Roy.
          Would he?

          It's the exact thing Bird said he should do about two weeks ago, without saying which player he was talking about, and we've not seen anything like it. When was the last time Vogel pulled a starter from his regular rotation? I can't think of a single example.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

            If anyone is going to have a talk with Lance about anything on the court - it should be the guy that picked him and helped develop him into the player that he is (good & bad).

            Larry.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              I can only get so frustrated with a wing who is shooting 50% on the season. He's not perfect. He makes mistakes, holds the ball too long, and likes to focus on getting on the highlight reel. But he's also been our most consistent player this year and is a huge reason why we won so many games. He's been way better at his role than PG has at his lately.

              Our biggest problem is that we allow a guy who has been shooting about 40% for three months to hog such a disproportionate amount of our shots.
              PG has scaled back the number of attempts he's taking. Earlier in the year when we were talking "Paulhog" his shot attempts were around 19 per game. I was arguing it was on par with what any leading scorer would be taking. By the time the ASG rolled around, FGA/game was down to about 17per game, post ASG it's 16 per game.

              I have a hard time believing it's the fault of the guy who's been scaling back his offense, as opposed to someone who's ramping up theirs, seeing as how the Pacers were at their best with PG in that role (with more shots) compared to their lack of success with the wings new roles.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                Very hard for me to accept that the team's troubles stem solely from the fact that one guy got way better this year from last year, and not playing the right way. If that was the case then the other 4 guys would have reigned him in. I mean seriously. If Lance was that big a problem, you don't think some combination of that 15 man roster wouldn't have stepped in? I mean if it were that simple, Vogel would have stepped up and quashed this problem by limiting Lance's opportunities. Though i'm not saying Lance isn't a problem, I just think there is a combination of big problems that stem from PG and Lance and Roy.
                Just because something should happen doesn't mean something will happen. The players themselves can only do so much, but if the guy doesn't listen and the coach doesn't do anything there isn't much they can do. As pointed out by Bird himself, Vogel isn't doing what he should to reign Lance in. I have been very disappointed with how Vogel has handled Lance this season. I am not saying Paul's play isn't a problem, but when the players are clearly more focused on Lance his play is being ignored. I for one believe that if Paul's play was the main problem, and Roy, West, and Hill confronted him about it he would change the way he was playing to help the team. Paul is still learning, but he doesn't have the ego Lance does.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  PG has scaled back the number of attempts he's taking. Earlier in the year when we were talking "Paulhog" his shot attempts were around 19 per game. I was arguing it was on par with what any leading scorer would be taking. By the time the ASG rolled around, FGA/game was down to about 17per game, post ASG it's 16 per game.

                  I have a hard time believing it's the fault of the guy who's been scaling back his offense, as opposed to someone who's ramping up theirs, seeing as how the Pacers were at their best with PG in that role (with more shots) compared to their lack of success with the wings new roles.
                  PG shot attempts by month.....not the best way to break it down, but I'm short on time:

                  (Throwing October out since it was just two games)

                  November: 14 games, 246 FGA's (17.57 attempts per game)......47.2 FG%
                  December: 14 games, 237 FGA's (16.92 attempts per game)......46.8 FG %
                  January: 15 games, 268 FGA's (17.866 attempts per game)........41.0 FG%
                  February: 12 games, 207 attempts (17.25 attempts per game)........40.1 FG%
                  March: 14 games, 214 attempts (15.28 attempts per game).........37.4 FG%

                  Not the best metric in the world since there are only 12 games in February while there are 15 in January, but it will have to do for now. I just don't see much of a difference when it's broken down that way. Let's compare December and March since as of now there were 14 games in each. In December, he attempted 16.92 shots per game. In March, he has attempted 15.28 per game. That's a pretty trivial difference when you're talking about a bunch of shots spread over 48 minutes. However, what's not trivial is the difference in shooting percentages. He was shooting 46.8% back in December, so it was all well and good that he was shooting so much. But he's only shooting 37.4% now, yet he is only taking about 1 and a half less attempts per game. That's just unacceptable when he's been shooting so poorly for three months. He needs to take less shots.

                  But it's not just the quantity of the shots. I could accept the low shooting percentages if he was taking smart shots that just weren't falling. But many of these aren't smart shots. Instead, they are poorly forced rushed shots and crappy drives that too often with him whining to the refs after clanking it off the rim/backboard. Take last night for example. Multiple ill-advised forced ISO jumpers after some dribbling that didn't fool anyone. A couple of weak takes that were blocked (with the patented whining to the refs afterword). The worst sequence was with about 2 minutes left in the game when he took (and missed) THREE SHOTS in the same possession without passing once. It was just selfish basketball. This guy has been forcing junk for three months now and he's just not converting. This team is way too talented to put so much offensive emphasis on him when he's playing like this.

                  Revolving around this guy just isn't working right now.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-25-2014, 02:41 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    This guy has been forcing junk .............
                    Could you have phrased this ANY other way ??

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                      Could you have phrased this ANY other way ??
                      LMAO!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        Bird clearly did not understand the problem. If he did he would have traded Lance. You would have to be blind to think the main problem isn't Lance.
                        So Lance is the reason that Paul is chucking, George and David being inconsistant, and Roy getting punked by other centers? Lance has his flaws, but so does the other starters.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                          The biggest trend amongst our dialogue seems to be blame either Paul or Lance, with a smattering of you have to look at both. I'm in this latter camp, and I suspect the truth is closer to this middle ground that at either extreme. It has to be their developing profiles, increased attention, and larger roles on the team, particularly offensively.

                          Although I will freely admit that Hibbert is maddening and it may well be that "bad" Hibbert stretches are more the norm and "good" Hibbert stretches the exception. Not long ago many of use were touting this as our foundational core for years to come. Now they are all playing poorly and apparently they cant get along at all. Is this turning into a JO/Ron-Ron situation where two guys can't find a way to negotiate being "the man" with the best interest of the team and winning? Sounds like a bunch of unprofessional, immature behavior. Somebody has to step in and get those three straightened out or it is about to spiral out of control.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            PG has scaled back the number of attempts he's taking. Earlier in the year when we were talking "Paulhog" his shot attempts were around 19 per game. I was arguing it was on par with what any leading scorer would be taking. By the time the ASG rolled around, FGA/game was down to about 17per game, post ASG it's 16 per game.

                            I have a hard time believing it's the fault of the guy who's been scaling back his offense, as opposed to someone who's ramping up theirs, seeing as how the Pacers were at their best with PG in that role (with more shots) compared to their lack of success with the wings new roles.
                            But alot of it isn't just how many shots he's taking (sometimes), but what kind of shots he's taking. For instance, last night Chicago, especially Dunleavy, were getting alot of shots off of picks. And they were usually either wide open or had an open lane to take it to the rim. Alot of Paul's shots were him being stuck in hero-mode, and ending up with him taking 17+ footers with Butler draped all over him. Or getting a ball completely stripped out of his hands on a fast-break.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                              But it's not just the quantity of the shots. I could accept the low shooting percentages if he was taking smart shots that just weren't falling. But many of these aren't smart shots.
                              Then why are we giving Lance an out, brining up his FG%, when talking about his performances? His shot selection has been down right AWFUL.

                              EDIT:
                              I'm glad he's been hitting them, but there's nothing that will ever convince me that watching Lance pound nails for 5-6 seconds, only to throw up a fade away jumpshot, is a good shot. There's no rational explanation to talk about crappy shot selection, and leave Lance Stephenson out of the discussion.
                              Last edited by Since86; 03-25-2014, 03:13 PM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Uncle Buck speaks....

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Then why are we giving Lance an out, brining up his FG%, when talking about his performances? His shot selection has been down right AWFUL.

                                EDIT:
                                I'm glad he's been hitting them, but there's nothing that will ever convince me that watching Lance pound nails for 5-6 seconds, only to throw up a fade away jumpshot, is a good shot.

                                I know there's no way to measure it, but we've got to be one of the lowest IQ basketball teams in the league. I seriously think Larry needs to take this into consideration on future signings.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X