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

Question of the Day - 2-26

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

  • #16
    Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

    Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
    Chuck Person is not the problem.

    Perhaps the responsiblities given to him were a bit of a stretch. He's in, what, his second or third year overall as an assistant, and rarely do you see a guy that young put in charge of something as significant as the defense. Growing pains? Perhaps.

    Still, I'm not convinced that the occasionally poor defense the Pacers have played this season is because of coaching or strategy. We're still dependent on some not-so-good individual defenders, and that makes any defensive coach look bad.

    Really, for those that are all over Tinsley, Dunleavy, and Murphy for their defense, what are you going to have the coach tell them? Get faster? This team is just not going to be a great defensive team, period, so they are going to have to score more than they allow while doing their best on defense. Its that simple, really. A "better" defensive PG would help, but let's be honest, we don't really have one on our roster.

    We definitely have a team of below average defenders, but all I can think about is how Dick Harter got our team to play good defense with a roster including Mark Jackson, Chris Mullin, Rick Smits, and Sam Perkins. And I'm sure our worst defenders now are individually better than those guys.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

      Is this UncleBuck actually engaging in conversation regarding our coaching?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

        Just who on the Pacers current roster is a below average defender.

        Jamaal
        Murphy
        Ike
        - that is all I count in the top 10.

        Dunleavy is borderline, but I consider his team defense so good that it makes up for his weak one-on-one defense.

        Daniels is above average.

        Granger is above average - our best one-on-one defender against wing players.

        Foster is well above average as is Baston

        DA is very good.

        JO is excellent

        Those are our top 10 players. We have some good defenders. Certainly I wish we had more and better quality, however --
        A good defensive coach could whip these players into a pretty good defensive team.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

          Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
          Is this UncleBuck actually engaging in conversation regarding our coaching?


          You seem surprised. I'm more than willing to discuss the Pacers coach, always have been and always will be. What I don't like and what I don't do is the knee-jerk reactionary discussions that take place 10 minutes after a horrible loss. You know the kind - so and so should have played more - how can the coach take out so and so and put this guy in. I didn't do it during Isiah's time here (even though I thought he was a terrible coach) and I'm not going to do it during Rick's tenure even though I think he's an excellent coach.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

            Most of the posts on this board about what to do with the Pacers don't make a lot of sense, however I do think that the Pacers need to reevaluate Chuck as defensive coach.
            Go Pacers!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

              I'm going to throw a little curve in here to see what happens.

              If Person takes most of the heat for the teams defensive problems, deserved or not, does this take pressure off Carlise, or is the problem bigger than Chuck; & Carlsie gets dragged down too?

              I think Chuck gets a lions share of the blaim here but if we can somehow move Tinsley & upgrade the defense at the 1 over the summer, Chuck could be given the benefit of the doubt & be brought back next season.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

                From a coaching perspective and experience, I can tell you a little about this problem, and offer some specific names of some coaches who i think could help our defense perhaps next season.

                First of all, as a coach, defense has to be your foundation for your team and your franchise. Ive always believed that you should base your starters on playing your best five defenders just to emphasize to your players how important playing defense is to you. While it may not always work that way in reality, it definitely should be emphasized and strided for.

                Secondly, defense should be consistent....when your shooting is off and you are out of rhythm, good defensive teams can still win because they play hard and consistent on that end of the floor. Defense can bail you out and get you wins much more than offense can, just because its more dependent on concentration and effort rather than athleticism and skill. The Pacers struggle defensively for a myriad of reasons, lack of individual defenders, lack of cohesion, and lack of effort and concentration all going hand in hand.

                Third, while good offense is built inside-out, good defense is built outside in. Your point guard must be able to pressure the ball and defend the point of attack without excessivley gambling. Ideally he can get in a stance and turn the opponents ballhandler a time or 2 just to get the ball up the floor, and if nothing else wear them down and make them burn clock. its these precious seconds used up that can help later in a possession, keeping the offense from running the plays they want to run to completion, causing a rushed shot, etc etc. Good defense starts at the point, and we dont have it.

                Fourth, your wings must be able to defend the dribbler and force them into help in a predetermined and designed way. They must dictate to the offense instead of vice versa. They also have to have the will and the skill to rise up and defend ajump shooter, and contest shots hard. We stink at this part of defense....I started a thread on it a while ago even.

                Fifth, you need to make it harder to get the ball inside. We play decent defense after the ball is caught inside, but its too easy to get it in there sometimes. Again, our perimeter defensive weaknesses cause our post guys to watch the ball sometimes a bit much and not fight for position as hard as we need to.

                Sixth, you need to rebound, which we actually arent that bad at. We arent great, but it isnt a huge weakness like it was early in the year. Of course, since the opponents make more shots than they used to, there are less rebounds to get.

                The problem is, and Ive learned this the hard way believe me, you cant fix defense in the middle of the season nearly as easy as you can offense. Defense is harder to play and to drill and coach when you have limited energy and practice time like you do now. Losing breeds upon losing, and its hard to to fix defensive issues when you playing 3 games a week in 3 different cities. Its got be established in the preseason and camp, and we didnt do it this year because we were in our "faster offense" mode at that time. In retrospect that was wasted time and effort that couldve been spent with team defense being emphasized more.

                On assistant coaches, you mostly all know about Dick Harter and kevin O'Neill. Assistants we should consider for our next staff are in my view Mike Heineman (college assistant, Indiana born and bred), Jim OBrien (ex coach of Boston and Philly), Jim Cleamons (ex Bulls assistant now with NO) , Tim Grgurich (I think he is with Denver....great great great individual coach) and believe it or not....I think Nolan Richardson would make an excellent NBA ASSISTANT coach (ex coach of Arkansas). I would assume Michael Cooper would be a nice defensive coach (ex laker, current WNBA coach). There are lots of guys out there with a defensive background. Heineman in particularly I believe has a good system in place with his background at Wisconsin.

                Lastly, in the other thread I started a week or so ago, we need to focus in the offseason on getting a great wing and/or point defender, preferably both....its the fastest way to get to a championship level. If we need to trade Ike or Shawne Williams to do it, then so be it.

                Just my opinion as always....

                Tbird

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Just who on the Pacers current roster is a below average defender.

                  Jamaal
                  Murphy
                  Ike
                  - that is all I count in the top 10.

                  Dunleavy is borderline, but I consider his team defense so good that it makes up for his weak one-on-one defense.

                  Daniels is above average.

                  Granger is above average - our best one-on-one defender against wing players.

                  Foster is well above average as is Baston

                  DA is very good.

                  JO is excellent
                  I thought you didnt consider JO to be a good defender or was that Peck?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Jay, I'm surprised by your comments in regard to coahcing not being able to turn poor defenders into good defenders. I know JVG doesn't believe that.

                    Look at the Pacers in the late 90's. They had one good defender in their starting lineup. Dale Davis. Smits was horrible, Jalen or Mullen were close to horrible, jackson was smart but limited. Reggie was very experienced. But when Reggie is a starting unit's 2nd best defender - then you should have major problems. But Harter got that team to defend as well as anyone could have.


                    But back to this current team. Jay - team defense is 99% coaching and team defense 90% effort and concentration on the players part. No coach is going to turn Tinsley into Devin Harris - but a better coach can greatly improve the team defense. And if Rick is to blame then he needs to be fired. Whoever is in charge of the defense needs to be fired. I see mass confusion out there and a ton of mental not physical mistakes defensively. Mistakes that were not made when Mike Brown, Dick Harter or K.O. was coaching our defense.

                    Edit: in May of '03 I was screaming for the pacers to fire Isiah and hire JVG. At that time I would have wanted JVG over Carlisle.
                    Poor defenders can play good team defense. But they don't become good defenders. I know its splitting hairs, but there is a difference. That's what I'm saying.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

                      We need a big man coach in the worst way. We keep acquiring talented bigs that are going to waste.

                      It's like buying a $10,000 Rolex and leaving it in your pocket.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

                        Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
                        I thought you didnt consider JO to be a good defender or was that Peck?
                        I don't know if that was me or Peck. What I believe is that Foster is generally better than JO in one-on-one defense. JO is obviously much better as a weakside defender coming over to block shots and take charges. Yes JO is a good defender - especially with our weak team defense JO is even more important

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

                          Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
                          I thought you didnt consider JO to be a good defender or was that Peck?
                          JO should get DPOY this year. He might not even make the team because someone who doesn't know might just look at our team defense and say "well, these guys can't defend at all and JO is supposed to be the leader of that" when in reality pretty much everyone consistently lets JO down.

                          p.s. Am I the only one who really misses Jack? I think Al and Saras needed to go but Jack...wow...he was pretty much peer pressured out...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Question of the Day - 2-26

                            i tend to agree that there's no quick fix for our defensive woes, and that the major adjustment (change in defensive coach) should come in the off season.

                            that said, why is orien greene still not getting any playing time. yes, i know he sucks in many areas, but the one thing he is good at (perimeter defense) is the area we are weakest at right now.

                            ever since the trade, i've thought that we would try a lineup featuring dunleavy as the offensive pg and orien as the defensive pg. even if that doesn't work out, surely playing tins with greene is a better defensive backcourt than tins and armstrong. greene is 6-4 with good length and quickness, he should be able to guard both pg's and sg's. you don't even need greene to touch the ball on offense, where his weaknesses (ball handling and decision making) get exposed; just sic him on the opponent's lead guard and see what happens from there.

                            maybe it's just reserve quarterback syndrome, but i think greene should be given another shot. nothing else seems to be working as far as perimeter defense goes.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X