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

O'Brien says team to go small...

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

  • #31
    Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    Ford
    Price
    Watson
    Dunleavy
    Murphy

    NOW THAT'S THINKIN' WITH YER DIPSTICK, JIMMY!
    I just threw up a little after seeing a lineup that small.

    We still have some bigs who still need to play and we have enough smaller players who can step up in their regular position.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

      Originally posted by Speed View Post
      I'm hoping regardless of who gets minutes we see a similar type thing that happened in Sacramento when Kevin Martin went down. That would be awesome!
      What happened to the Kings when KMart went down?

      If you are referring to this season.....they had Tyreke Evans to pick up the slack...on top of that....they had a Coach that was able to adjust his offense/defense to fit the strengths and weaknesses on his roster.

      In what way could these things in any way translate into the situation that we face now?
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

        Originally posted by Trophy View Post
        I just threw up a little after seeing a lineup that small.
        It won't be that small....but honestly.....I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a huge up-tick in the minutes for Dunleavy/Murphy/Foster as the primary core that JO'B uses while surrounding them with some combination of Ford/Watson/BRush/Inferno/Hibbert/Head.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

          lets see what luther heads got!
          Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

            This has got to be the solution! It Is Obvious Now!

            I believe I remember reading that Foster played point guard at times in high school! Maybe we should go BIG with a totally unorthodox lineup instead!

            PG - Foster
            SG - Murphy
            C - Hibbert
            PF - Solo
            SF - DJones

            Talk about mismatches! Jeff could post up anybody else at that position in the league! We also would not constantly have our point guard dribble penetrating into traffic and then jumping in the air like we all hate! The interior defenders of the other teams would be forced to truly move away from the basket, opening things up for Hibbert (it would be a shame that we couldn't pass it into him without throwing it away, but still...)!

            We would have a mix of offensive options, rebounding, Murph could stay at the arc on both ends of the floor, shot blocking from nearly any position on the floor at any time, and a perimeter defender who also is a significant offensive threat when he slashes into the paint at random, especially with the bigs of the other teams scrambling around trying to cover our perimeter bigs! The lane would be Wide Open!

            How can we make sure that this is being considered!?!?!?!?

            Please! For The Good of the Franchise! How can we make sure that Jim thinks about ALL of the options?!?!?!?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              In fact with Granger out we know he won't be playing any PF minutes, so that might mean more minutes for the big guys.
              I'll bet you a million dollars Dunleavy gets time at PF in the next two weeks.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                If we need a SF, Eddie Gill is available.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                  Well, the lineup stuff has been beaten to death and what I think is already scattered around the board, so I'm going to bring up something else.

                  Am I the only one who doesn't like that O'Brien has several different variations of "our guys aren't all that good individually," that he has been more than happy to share with the media over the past couple of years?

                  The debate about how much talent there actually is on the team is not the point, and I'll set aside whether or not coach is trying to shirk some responsibility here. My main issue is that these guys are what he has to work with and I doubt that calling their overall talent level into question in public is inspiring. Tell your GM. Hell, tell the guys in the locker room if you have to. Tell the media...? I don't like it. Coaches are a part of team chemistry too!
                  "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                  "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                  "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                    Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                    I just threw up a little after seeing a lineup that small.

                    We still have some bigs who still need to play and we have enough smaller players who can step up in their regular position.

                    I dunno, that could be a fun lineup..and by fun I mean hilarious.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                      Here are some +/- stats, especially for all those Muprh hatters that always complain about it. The link has all of them but here are the top 10 +/- lineups......seems to be the smaller lineups do better, so maybe JOB is listening to you guys complain about +/- stats.

                      8 out of the top 10 are lineups with 3+ gaurds

                      http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusmi...=9&team=Pacers

                      1. (+39) E. Watson D. Jones D. Granger B. Rush R. Hibbert
                      2. (+23) T. Ford D. Jones D. Granger B. Rush R. Hibbert
                      3. (+12) J. Foster T. Murphy E. Watson M. Dunleavy D. Granger
                      4. (+9) T. Murphy M. Dunleavy T. Ford D. Granger B. Rush
                      5. (+9) T. Murphy E. Watson D. Jones L. Head S. Jones
                      6. (+9) T. Ford D. Jones S. Jones T. Hansbrough A. Price
                      7. (+9) T. Ford L. Head S. Jones B. Rush T. Hansbrough
                      8. (+7) L. Head J. McRoberts B. Rush R. Hibbert A. Price
                      9. (+7) J. Foster T. Murphy T. Ford D. Jones B. Rush
                      10. (+6) D. Jones B. Rush R. Hibbert T. Hansbrough A. Price

                      and yes I realize D. Jones plays G/F, but he is small at the Forward position. On the same note, I left Dun off the Guard spot because he is not a small guard...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        I'm pretty sure if you asked him what the solution to the conflict in the Middle East he would determine a way to go small and get up more shots.
                        For the....win? Loss? What is it when it's dead-on but depressingly so?


                        Let's be honest, JOB probably lives for getting a flat tire. He gets to go out and pull off a big tire and swap it for the tiny temp spare. That must bring him real joy deep inside.


                        The dude almost had a logjam at the wing. The one place the team could legitimately take an injury hit and he turns it into Defcon Small.

                        I can handle the losing, but this kind of stuff is tough to put up with.

                        Originally posted by Anthem to Buck
                        I'll bet you a million dollars Dunleavy gets time at PF in the next two weeks.
                        The man has a real problem, I don't think it's appropriate to take advantage of it for your own personal gain.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                          bkenny, what you say is correct, but note that the list you present is for overall +/-. It is not necessarily the best lineups because it is affected by the number of minutes the various combinations have been allowed to play together.

                          I looked at your link and noticed a whole different list of best combinations under the "+/- per minute" column. Looking at it that way, the best lineup is: Watson, Dunleavy, Jones, Head, Hibbert.

                          The Ford Jones Granger Rush Hibbert one you cite as #2 is actually the worst of all on a per-minute basis.
                          Last edited by Putnam; 12-09-2009, 03:48 PM.
                          And I won't be here to see the day
                          It all dries up and blows away
                          I'd hang around just to see
                          But they never had much use for me
                          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                            Originally posted by gummy View Post
                            Well, the lineup stuff has been beaten to death and what I think is already scattered around the board, so I'm going to bring up something else.

                            Am I the only one who doesn't like that O'Brien has several different variations of "our guys aren't all that good individually," that he has been more than happy to share with the media over the past couple of years?

                            The debate about how much talent there actually is on the team is not the point, and I'll set aside whether or not coach is trying to shirk some responsibility here. My main issue is that these guys are what he has to work with and I doubt that calling their overall talent level into question in public is inspiring. Tell your GM. Hell, tell the guys in the locker room if you have to. Tell the media...? I don't like it. Coaches are a part of team chemistry too!
                            Yes, I thought about that too when I read his comments today.

                            While I never really have a problem with a coach calling out a player every now and then I think he really has not done a very good job this year of instilling confidence in his players. I have been particularly distraught at the way he has treated Roy.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                              Originally posted by bkenny View Post
                              Here are some +/- stats, especially for all those Muprh hatters that always complain about it. The link has all of them but here are the top 10 +/- lineups......seems to be the smaller lineups do better, so maybe JOB is listening to you guys complain about +/- stats.

                              8 out of the top 10 are lineups with 3+ gaurds

                              http://www.nba.com/statistics/plusmi...=9&team=Pacers

                              1. (+39) E. Watson D. Jones D. Granger B. Rush R. Hibbert
                              2. (+23) T. Ford D. Jones D. Granger B. Rush R. Hibbert
                              3. (+12) J. Foster T. Murphy E. Watson M. Dunleavy D. Granger
                              4. (+9) T. Murphy M. Dunleavy T. Ford D. Granger B. Rush
                              5. (+9) T. Murphy E. Watson D. Jones L. Head S. Jones
                              6. (+9) T. Ford D. Jones S. Jones T. Hansbrough A. Price
                              7. (+9) T. Ford L. Head S. Jones B. Rush T. Hansbrough
                              8. (+7) L. Head J. McRoberts B. Rush R. Hibbert A. Price
                              9. (+7) J. Foster T. Murphy T. Ford D. Jones B. Rush
                              10. (+6) D. Jones B. Rush R. Hibbert T. Hansbrough A. Price

                              and yes I realize D. Jones plays G/F, but he is small at the Forward position. On the same note, I left Dun off the Guard spot because he is not a small guard...
                              None of these are double PG situations except a brief bit of Price with Ford. What you see instead is that the team is at it's best going with 3 wings, not 2 guards.

                              Luther Head is much more a SG than PG in application, though he does keep the roster a bit smaller.


                              I had not looked at 82games in quite awhile, but I'm more annoyed than ever seeing that my feeling was in fact correct and that lineups featuring Rush-DJ-Granger-Hibbert, and preferably Watson, are ones that work well.

                              I also have been impressed with Head coming in to relieve one of those wings briefly (obviously filling the #2 spot no matter which wing leaves).

                              OTOH, I've HATED the Ford-Watson combo.



                              Also Putty is right about per minute vs. absolute, although some of the minutes are so low that you have noise in the data and can't trust it. However groups with perhaps 10+ minutes together do give us some kind of feel since they have likely played in multiple situations together.

                              Going by that you see that the Ford version of Rush-DJ-Granger-Hibby is poor in comparison to the Watson version, and that many of the Watson based groups do very well.


                              I would expect decent results from Watson-Rush-DJ-Dunleavy-Hibbert (or Foster even). Will we see that? Seems doubtful. Probably more like Ford-Watson-Head-Dunleavy-Murph quite a bit.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: O'Brien says team to go small...

                                re: bkenny and putnam

                                what's wrong with the link is that it only shows the top 5-man units. it doesn't show the lineups with negative +/-, for example.

                                82games does show some of our worst 5-man groups

                                http://www.82games.com/0910/0910IND2.HTM

                                no surprises that the worst groups feature a front line of murphy and hibbert. by contrast, the small ball core of dahntay-rush-granger-hibbert looks awesome.

                                btw putty, that phenomenal watson-dunleavy-dahntay-head-hibbert group has played all of 1 minute 28 sec together so i wouldn't put too much stock on that, yet.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X