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

Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

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

  • #61
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

    Originally posted by Pacertron View Post
    In terms of his hustle absolutely. Very much needed. Even though he is a bull on offense, he has a better offensive skill set than Foster. I for one would be happy if Tyler followed in Foster's footsteps as a lifelong Pacer.
    Foster's hops make fun of Tyler's hops and then beat the hell out of them. This is not close. Foster had one of the quickest verts in the game before the back problems. I saw him catch one pass virtually at the rim on a full sprint and still get it up and over. His quick vert was part of his 2nd ups that allowed him to contest, land and then go back up for another shot at the board.

    Tyler has none of this. As Peck pointed out Tyler looked overmatched by size/vertical game all night. He doesn't contest rebounds vertically, only laterally when he bangs around into people and chases them down after they hit the floor or at least shoulder height.

    In that regard he is an elite hustler and he is an elite foul drawer. But in basically every other way he remains quite sub-par. His lack of vertical power is a big factor in his poor FG% and why he has a HUGE amount of blocked dunk attempts (check 82games.com).


    Ian is smoother and stronger than Foster, not as quick and doesn't have his vertical (quickness or distance). Ian has a more reliable jumper, neither could dribble drive. Ian does have a post game that is usable at least. Foster might have the edge on defense due to hands.

    Ian should be the better offensive player when it's all said and done but he'll never be the rebounder Foster was.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Foster's hops make fun of Tyler's hops and then beat the hell out of them.
      Are you trying to tell me that you don't think Tyler could dunk it from the free throw line? Get out of here.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
        I'd like to team up with some people (you perhaps?) to come up with data to support that claim. I think it's there.
        So far the average ranking for the teams the Pacers have faced in both FG% and PPG is 16th. The Pacers have played 6 games against teams ranked in the top 10 for FG% and 4 games against teams in the top 10 of PPG. However this includes the Spurs twice.

        On the other hand they also only have 6 games against teams in the bottom 10 in FG% and 4 in the bottom 10 of PPG.

        So an average distribution of opponents, not too hard nor too easy.


        BUT...only 4 times out of 15 have teams scored above their average PPG. The Spurs by 2 the other night, the Hornets by 13 in OT, the TWolves by 4 and the Kings by 4 in 2OT. SIX times they've held opponents to at least 5 points below their average, contrasted with only 1 team going for more than 5 points over their average...and that's in an OT game. They've held 4 opponents to more than 10 below their average PPG and 3 of those teams are top 11 FG% teams (Dallas, New York, LAL)


        This suggests a non-normalized random distribution. We should expect an average set of opponents to yield about a 50/50 split of above/below their scoring average. Instead we have clear weighting toward many teams scoring far below their norm and only a few getting above their norm even a small amount.

        The debate about their defensive capability is really pretty silly actually. This isn't even close. It's just more subjective analysis by the king of it. Remember the examples that support the POV, forget or ignore the ones that don't.



        PS - if I removed their scores against the Pacers from their total PPG average then these numbers would be even more skewed because 12 out of 15 opponents would see a rise in their overall PPG. What these teams do against Indiana is worse than what they do against other teams, and that's true for virtually every opponent.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-28-2012, 09:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Are you trying to tell me that you don't think Tyler could dunk it from the free throw line? Get out of here.
          I love how so many PD'ers were buying the junk Bird was selling about Tyler's workout vertical. Sure you didn't see it for 4 years in UNC, but once we got him behind closed doors it was LOOK OUT!

          I don't hate Tyler, I hate his insane fanbase and the disconnect between merit earned support and the amount of support he actually gets. Tyler's a good, hard working kid that I can easily root for if I wasn't always dealing with "he's so great" comments.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            I love how so many PD'ers were buying the junk Bird was selling about Tyler's workout vertical. Sure you didn't see it for 4 years in UNC, but once we got him behind closed doors it was LOOK OUT!

            I don't hate Tyler, I hate his insane fanbase and the disconnect between merit earned support and the amount of support he actually gets. Tyler's a good, hard working kid that I can easily root for if I wasn't always dealing with "he's so great" comments.

            I think I'm fairly objective concerning Tyler. I don't think we'll ever see him in an all star game but there is a place for him on this team as an energy player. I see very little love given to him on here and I can't think of anyone calling him great in the past 2 years.
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

              David West always does well vs. Gasol.
              But Gasol right now looks like he has no confidence. The Lakers should probably blame themselves and David Stern, though. He was a key to their 3 finals, then they trade him and fail at it, and then they ask him to sacrifice his game for Bynum and phase him out of his offensive comfort zones. It's a shame.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                Wasn't the offense horrible anyway? I wouldn't pin those plays all on Lance, guys were just standing around clueless. Overall his game wasn't bad. He had a couple drives that led to the ball being swung around the perimeter for open shots, played good D, handled the ball very well, and was plus 9 on the court.

                Free Lance!!! lol
                Exactly. Lance was waiting for guys to do something to start a play. Nobody did. Finally he had to try something and he took an outside shot. This happened once, maybe twice. It didn't look at all to me like a clear out for him to do something.

                I'll stick with my opinion that when the clamps come down by a great defense (not the Lakers lol) or in the playoffs, that neither Hill nor George will be able to loosen up the defense. We will need Lance.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  BUT...only 4 times out of 15 have teams scored above their average PPG. The Spurs by 2 the other night, the Hornets by 13 in OT, the TWolves by 4 and the Kings by 4 in 2OT. SIX times they've held opponents to at least 5 points below their average, contrasted with only 1 team going for more than 5 points over their average...and that's in an OT game. They've held 4 opponents to more than 10 below their average PPG and 3 of those teams are top 11 FG% teams (Dallas, New York, LAL)


                  This suggests a non-normalized random distribution. We should expect an average set of opponents to yield about a 50/50 split of above/below their scoring average. Instead we have clear weighting toward many teams scoring far below their norm and only a few getting above their norm even a small amount.
                  How does pace figure into all this? Are we're using up more of the shot clock than other teams, giving our opponents fewer opportunities to score over the course of a game?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                    How does pace figure into all this? Are we're using up more of the shot clock than other teams, giving our opponents fewer opportunities to score over the course of a game?
                    This would make sense, if opponents weren't averaging more FGA against the Pacers than they normally would. (although I think that has to do with turnovers, and lower fg% more than anything)

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                      Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                      How does pace figure into all this? Are we're using up more of the shot clock than other teams, giving our opponents fewer opportunities to score over the course of a game?
                      We have one of the slowest paces in the NBA.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        The debate about their defensive capability is really pretty silly actually. This isn't even close. It's just more subjective analysis by the king of it. Remember the examples that support the POV, forget or ignore the ones that don't.
                        Great post. Agreed that it's silly to debate high Pacer defensive effectiveness given the sample size we now have.

                        What I'm interested in, is understanding what about the Pacer defense is causing the low FG%. From my eyes, opponents do get open looks reasonably often. They're just missing them.

                        Are there stats kept around %'s of contested shots per team defense?
                        How about statistics about when in the possession (from a timing perspective) shots go off?

                        I spent some time looking on the net last night and didn't find a whole lot.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          In other words, yes, the Lakers aren't the offensive powerhouse they have been in years past.
                          The Lakers might not be a top 4 offensive team, but their 8th in FG% now. The only reason why they don't score, is because they turn the ball over. They're #1 in team TOs at 17.2 a game.

                          Trying to argue that the Lakers suck offensively, which is why their shooting percentage was so low, just isn't reality.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                            The Pacers were 17-of-27 from the foul line against the Lakers. Luckily for Indiana, the Lakers were 23-of-43.
                            Thanks god for the Pacers free throw defense ...............
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Thanks god for the Pacers free throw defense ...............
                              9 of those 20 misses were by Dwight Howard. The Lakers haven't been a great free throw shooting team all season and have still been scoring much more than they did on Tuesday.


                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Odd Thoughts: Super quick L.A. thoughts....

                                66.8% on FTs as a team for the entire year, so missing FTs (especially for Howard) is their pattern. Shooting poorly from the field, isn't their pattern. (Here's a secret, the Lakers have shot less than 44.4%, league median, three times, including the Pacers game)

                                No need to acknowledge stats though. He watches the game, and his eyes are never wrong.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X