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

Tinsley needs to watch this video...

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

  • #16
    Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

    Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
    What, should they play him more? He already starts every game. Should he shoot more?

    Tinsley has alot of problems. Opportunity isn't one of them.
    It looks like able had pretty well answered this question but there is a little I would like to add.

    There have been a few times when Jamaal was turned lose.

    There were some games in Ricks first season where he coached us into a 20 point hole and he had to turn Jamaal lose. Some of those games we lost anyway because as soon as Jamaal got the lead he was yanked in favor of Johnson who immediately lost the lead and the game. That alone should have gotten Rick fired.

    The best example of him being turned lose in the RC era was the game where the Pacers were down 20 and Rick got kicked out of the game. He had not played Jamaal up to that point. The assistant (who I would take as our coach right now) put Jamaal in and turned him lose. We still lost the game but in that one quarter Jamaal proved he should be playing. The next night stubborn Rick still started Kenny Anderson only to have him dig a hole Jamaal got us out of. He let Jamaal play long enough to get us the lead only to watch Kenny and AJ lose it again. After that Rick was clearly given orders to start Jamaal.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

      Originally posted by able View Post
      LOL@MR

      but seriously, what on earth does possess you elgin56 to even consider that my judgement is clouded? because you think you are right?
      Stop and think about that for a little while, when you grasped it I will continue:

      There are two extremes, 1: Coach calling all (or most) plays, the situation we are in, not because of lack of skill of players involved but because we have a micro manager as coach
      2: let the pg and team do as they will (and honestly I don't know any team that has that situation)

      Now first thought in to that; it is known RC runs more plays in the 1st Q then most other teams all game, it was like that under LB (who held him back from that) so it wont certainly be better now.
      second thought; even with all those plays you do not need the coach on the sideline calling out the plays, your pg has a brain and (often) sees more then the coach.
      Final thought; give the set of plays to the pg and let him decide in the flow of the game, after reading the defense, etc what to do and which play to run.

      first situation;what we have, resulting in a (usually) less happy players, delays in setup; stringent calls means that players have to get in place before the pg can make a move to initiate etc etc etc and in the end it ruins the faith in your pg, the pg's self-esteem and confidence and the team's confidence.

      second situation; does not exist (anymore)

      Third situation; for instance (extreme) Suns, but basically all good teams, in recent history; LB's 2000 Pacers.


      As I now stated many times (and not me only) RC was held back from doing what he does now when he was doing the O for LB, it is clear that he can only work with a PG like AJ who is slow to begin with and needs the "hand from the bench" instead of any "free" pg who has smarts.

      You can only lead as far as you are allowed to lead

      Tins can not lead this team because the coach makes that impossible.
      I don't recall mentioning your name in my post, I was speaking to Pacer fans as a group. Why the harsh tone towards me and other posters who don't happen to agree with you about Tins? Why do you think that you are right and I am wrong, and talk down to me as if I am brainless. I find your response to my post, that didn't include you, demeaning. It is just YOUR opinion that Rick is keeping Tins from leading this team and only YOUR opinion.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

        The difference between Jackson and Tinsley is like - uh, Iraq and Las Vegas.
        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

          I think it's pretty well up for debate whether or not Tinsley has a full functioning brain.

          I don't know how you can say Rick doesn't ever turn him loose, considering "Bad Jamaal," is a Jamaal that likes to go one-on-one with the other PG just to try and show him up. He drives to the basket at will. If it's such a completely strict system, he wouldn't even have the opportunity to do that.

          So there's flaw #1.

          Second, look at how inconsistant he is, with either his actual playing or his lack of it. So what he's only missed 3(?) games this season, he's missed 20+ every year for the past 2. When he does play his play flucuates so badly, it's like flipping a coin. You either get "Good Jamaal," which we don't have a problem with, or you get "Bad Jamaal," see above.

          I would much rather have an inconsistant shooter, like Jax (without the other baggage, than have an inconsistant player, especially when that player is supposed to be your team leader.

          The only place Tinsley woud actually lead this team to, would be Rucker Park.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

            Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
            I don't recall mentioning your name in my post, I was speaking to Pacer fans as a group. Why the harsh tone towards me and other posters who don't happen to agree with you about Tins? Why do you think that you are right and I am wrong, and talk down to me as if I am brainless. I find your response to my post, that didn't include you, demeaning. It is just YOUR opinion that Rick is keeping Tins from leading this team and only YOUR opinion.
            I was kind of wondering the same thing myself. I didn't see where you mentioned any names.

            I happen to more or less agree with you. I tend to think that Tins is not that good of a PG. Then again, I'm not privy to how many plays that RC calls and how many Tins creates on his own. I don't think that RC micro-manages as much as a lot of other fans.

            Even if RC does call the majority of plays, there are numerous busted plays that Tins can make something out of. He is much more talented than Jax1 and if he had Mark's instincts, he would be an all-star.

            It may be that Tins on the right team could be an all-star but at least on this team, I don't think he will ever take us any where. Nash was a decent PG in Dallas but look how he really blossomed with the Suns. Could be what Tins needs.
            .

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

              I miss mark... Reminds me of the goodole days.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

                Since86, I agree with your thoughts.

                Able, I'll ask this again, because it is the heart of my thoughts on Tinsley and I haven't heard your thoughts on it. If Tinsley makes so many poor decisions when his options and responsibilities are so limited, why should anyone believe that he will make good decisions when given unlimited options? Isn't that like giving a kid a go-cart, having the kid crash the cart 8 times in a week, and then thinking the problem is that he isn't driving an Indy Car?
                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                RSS Feed
                Subscribe via iTunes

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

                  Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                  Since86, I agree with your thoughts.

                  Able, I'll ask this again, because it is the heart of my thoughts on Tinsley and I haven't heard your thoughts on it. If Tinsley makes so many poor decisions when his options and responsibilities are so limited, why should anyone believe that he will make good decisions when given unlimited options? Isn't that like giving a kid a go-cart, having the kid crash the cart 8 times in a week, and then thinking the problem is that he isn't driving an Indy Car?
                  I will address the "matter" with Elgin a little later, but let me answer this one, since it is on topic:

                  What I mean is that you are looking at the "ends" of the spectrum.
                  There is no comparison with the kid and the go-cart, if he crashes it that often you give him a walking cart and let him learn to steer first.

                  You are addressing the wrong end of the spectrum to expect or find a solution, if you are looking at the given set going wrong which is the blame on the pointguard.
                  Crux of the matter is that a totally different play would have or could have been a far better solution, one which the PG (and this is generic not necceserily Tins) DID see, but the coach, in his strategic thinking either did not consider, did not "see" sice he's not on the floor but on the sideline, or any other of a multitude of reasons did not "ask for" (order).
                  The play he DID call however is doomed because the opponent is expecting that (the SAC game was a clear example, every play RC called, certainly from the time-out, was read before it was even started).

                  A good PG with "free" reign (and again, free is not "do what you want" but "you have 25 plays, run one of those") can (like Jax) run a great team.
                  A PG that is "ordered" to run play n~ has only the options that the given play has, or find a shot when all options fail be cause the D does not give you any of the play's options.

                  Now in that scenario (the "free" reign) you will see a PG with "handles & talent" fklourish, see for an example Nash or even Billups, or even "worse" see the current play fo "Starbury"
                  How come that the "great" Larry Brown was not capable of getting Marbury to play like he does now under Thomas?
                  I think that it is because of "rigid" thinking, the same reason players "tune out" a coach, there is no gain in doing "anything extra" because "coach" does not "like" that.

                  You can not tell me that you do not see that DunDun in the first couple of games was running like Rip, and with regularity found "outside of the play" because there were hardly any plays.
                  Murphy was simply better on O in the first 5 games he played with us then he has been since, since then he has been "parked" on the 3pt line, something most of us here are "harping" about continuously, now are you going to tell me that Tinsley asks them to do that?
                  DunDun moves less then a quarter of what he did the first games, Murph is in a totally different place and hardly a factor, and it is only because now they "know" the plays RC wants ran.

                  If you give a person 5 options with the choice to pick the best option in his eyes for that particular moment he has a 5 times bigger opportunity to "score" then when you give him 1.
                  The 1 choice has only two outcomes, failure or succes while the 5 choices increase the chances of success because a "read" of the situation is made.

                  I hope this explains what I mean, in the end it was best said by a Brit (of all ppl) "there is more twixth Heaven and Earth my dear Horatio........."
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

                    Court vision, desire for success and being smarter than most other players on the court were what made Mark Jackson great. I miss seeing him on the floor. He was a true leader. A leader is what this team lacks.
                    "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

                      I don't remember seeing Mark Jackson play that much cause my Grandpa introduced me to the Pacers during the middle of the finals. After seeing that though, I really wish I would have been able to watch him more.
                      I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tinsley needs to watch this video...

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I think it's pretty well up for debate whether or not Tinsley has a full functioning brain.

                        I don't know how you can say Rick doesn't ever turn him loose, considering "Bad Jamaal," is a Jamaal that likes to go one-on-one with the other PG just to try and show him up. He drives to the basket at will. If it's such a completely strict system, he wouldn't even have the opportunity to do that.

                        So there's flaw #1.

                        Second, look at how inconsistant he is, with either his actual playing or his lack of it. So what he's only missed 3(?) games this season, he's missed 20+ every year for the past 2. When he does play his play flucuates so badly, it's like flipping a coin. You either get "Good Jamaal," which we don't have a problem with, or you get "Bad Jamaal," see above.

                        I would much rather have an inconsistant shooter, like Jax (without the other baggage, than have an inconsistant player, especially when that player is supposed to be your team leader.

                        The only place Tinsley woud actually lead this team to, would be Rucker Park.


                        Exactly. In addition, it's ridiculous to think that Tinsley isn't given as much freedom as Jackson. You think Larry Brown ran less plays than Rick Carlisle does? Right.

                        Tinsley, when at the top of his game, can perform at or slightly higher than Mark Jackson's consistent level. How often is that? In the past, as much as 40-50% of the time. This year, 5-10%. And that's generous.

                        In terms of emotional strength and leadership, the other big factor, it's not even worth comparing. Defensively they are pretty similar and heady, though I give the effort edge to Mark, by default.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X