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

Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

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

  • #31
    Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    No, we lost the lead when Sarunas was in by himself. In the third quarter, with DA and Sarunas both in, we did just fine.

    Saras plays fine, as long as he doesn't have to be a point guard.
    Look at the play by play for the 3rd starting at 8:02 and finishing with 4 minutes.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

      When Tinsley took that horrible three after Jeff had been working so hard to get rebounds, I said to myself, don't even bother Jeff.

      I stand by everything else I posted in this thread, except, OK, the 11 point lead dropped to a 3 point lead. Is that a major point

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        In my initital comments I didn't rip Baston, I said mostly NEUTRAL. I stand by that still. He was given very little to do on offense, mostly was off to the side, and POR attacked the snot out of him when Zach was on the court, mostly with decent success.
        Yup, that's how I felt as well.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          OK, the 11 point lead dropped to a 3 point lead. Is that a major point
          The five-point lead dropped to a 3-point lead.

          The 11-point lead was only for a couple possessions... it's not like it was ever a solid lead. We hung at 9 for a while, but 11 only rarely. And never more than 11.

          BTW, Tinsley was on the court when the lead went from 5 to 11. Surely that's got to count for something.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            When Tinsley took that horrible three after Jeff had been working so hard to get rebounds, I said to myself, don't even bother Jeff.

            That play sparked Portland's comeback, and it's the third time this season that we've taken a very bad shot with a 10+ point lead only to watch the other team make a run directly afterwards.


            I don't know what Jamaal's problem is, but he hasn't looked good this year. He's shown very brief flashes, but that's it. Complete mystery to me.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

              Tinsley was on the court when they ran the lead TO 11 from 5 too. But JO and Foster were a big part of this. Here is the sequence under discussion basically.

              JO went on a drive for a score, Foster takes the Zach charge (great play by Foster), Jack feeds Al cutting baseline after an in-bounds...59-48

              They traded baskets - Tins stopped Jack on the PnR, they posted Zach vs Foster and Zach made a nice play for the score. JO just popped a catch and shoot mid-jumper.

              Jack did nothing, they posted Zach, missed shot, foul on the rebound by Foster.

              Pacers zoned with Tins up top. JJack was in Jackson's area, eventually dribbled in and missed a long jumper.

              Jack forces a crap jumper over Pryz (the bad side of Jackson), but Foster rebounds. Tinsley then puts up an unexplainable 3pt shot with 22 on the clock. Now he's left free by Jack to shoot this, but no one is even moving yet, there is no set going....really bad choice by Tins here (unless he was a 38-40% guy, which he isn't).

              They run PnR with Jack and Pryz, cutoff fine by Tins and Al. Over to Zach to attack Foster. He pops an off-balance fade elbow jumper (Zach has a killer touch, that's for sure).

              Al has Udoka fronting him with no help behind. Tinsley throws the pass over the top, Al falls to the floor, easy steal for Udoka. IMO Tinsley read the play better than Al, who was still moving away from the bucket even though he had a smaller guy fronting him with empty space to the bucket behind him. Tins read it well, Al got caught moving the wrong direction which is when he tripped on Udoka's foot.

              Tins defends the ball as Udoka brings the transition right up the middle. JJack runs right wing and Tins is forced to foul Jack to prevent the layup. This was caused by the blown play at the other end.

              Jack then misses the 2nd FT and Udoka comes down the lane for the rebound. Tinsley is out with Udoka and perhaps is supposed to yell out a warning (hey, for all I know he did). But Tinsley does move to the right baseline to either take the ball out of bounds, get a long right direction tip, or be there for a big to pass to after the rebound.

              The PG is NOT IN CHARGE of defending the lane from a guy sneaking in from behind the FT shooter.

              It was HARRINGTON who didn't even bother to watch the ball that left the lane unprotected. He was the high lane man and he just turns and starts walking up court when the shot goes up. Why? Because Pryz is doing it too, so Al buys into it and fails to make his normal blockout of the shooter (and anyone coming from that way). Even as the ball hits the rim Al just looks and keeps walking. JO had it but it bounced to the other side where Foster was left unguarded as well and was just ball hawking. This left Jack free to catch the ball well below the rim and put a quick shot back up.

              Now JO was up above the rim trying to get the ball, Foster was guilty of not coming to the ball, but he was in block out position even though no one was there to block out (left side, not middle lane). Al was the guy who was not defending the rebound, not blocking out, nothing.

              Even Jackson came to the lane from the other side to help out. After the score you see Jackson just look back up court to Al and sort of shake his head. For a second he just stands in disgust before realizing that they still need to play ball (which honestly is an understandable reaction at this point). Actually on another look I think he and Foster are both looking at Rick who is probably saying something, either "F'n TIMEOUT!" or something worse.

              It is a 6 point game down from 11...not exactly a collapse.

              Now, does Al not hustle enough? Of course he hustles. Does he typically make a bunch of mistakes? No. Was this all his fault? No.

              But it sure as heck wasn't just Tinsley. The bad pass was flat-out an on-court chemistry issue. Given time Al would read that oop situation better or see it in Tinsley's look.


              Anyway, Rick IS NOT YELLING at Tinsley. You clearly see him say "Let's go! Let's go!" and then he gives Foster some direction (pointing and explaining), and actually JO, Al and probably all 5 of them. He points to the lane I think and perhaps says "block" as one of the words.

              In general this is a coach that has seem the team lose concentration and fire and is using the timeout to give them a kick in the pants to wake them up. He doesn't pull Tinsley early in his rotation time, and actually the Pacers are still winning the 3rd by 1 point.



              Tinsley also isn't getting killed by Jack one on one, the Blazers are running hard PnRs at them and he is forced to run between Zach and Foster (or others at other times). This is where the big must make the turn slow for the ball handler, and the help from down low has to turn the PG away.

              ALL PGs (well nearly all) can be beat if they don't get help on a PnR. On the play that makes it a 4 point game it is JACKSON that starts to come close off the path but buys into a pass fake and jumps back out of the way to cover his man. JO is also part of the problem as Pryz just turns him out of the play and actually runs JO into Tinsley a little bit. It's a team level breakdown.

              I'm not saying Tins hasn't been struggling on defense this year, I'm just saying these PnRs aren't examples of that. The Blazers really attacked the zone with the PnR which was where it was especially effective.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                but what in the heck is up with HUGE difference in +/- for Harrington and Tinsley compared to JO and Granger?

                Jo didn't play in the blowout loss to the Wiz. Other than JO, Danny has the most minutes played. He's played with the second unit and during some mop up time the other starters watched from the sidelines.
                I'm in these bands
                The Humans
                Dr. Goldfoot
                The Bar Brawlers
                ME

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  really bad choice by Tins here (unless he was a 38-40% guy, which he isn't).

                  Technically, even after his 0 for 4 performance last night he's still shooting .351, going into the game he was shooting .394. He's shooting pretty well from beyond the arc with as many attempts as Runi(39) and Armstong(39).
                  I'm in these bands
                  The Humans
                  Dr. Goldfoot
                  The Bar Brawlers
                  ME

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                    Maybe I'm wrong about Rick yelling at Jamaal, if you notice I always posted the disclaimer (I think), but I know I was yelling at him and was glad he sat out the last 16 minutes of the game

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Maybe I'm wrong about Rick yelling at Jamaal, if you notice I always posted the disclaimer (I think), but I know I was yelling at him and was glad he sat out the last 16 minutes of the game
                      Hater!




                      -Bball
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                        Nobody disputes Jamaal can't make some good plays and handle the ball really well. What is in dispute is his ability to sustain high levels of smart play, not only throughout a game, but consecutive games.

                        He has a tendency to want to dominate the ball and he has a tendency to not value possessions as much as he should. Particularly when he feels he needs to 'one-up' someone. So for all the good you want to point to, he needs to minimize this stuff (and stay healthy and committed) to actually live up to some of the hype that has built around him in fandom.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Nobody disputes Jamaal can't make some good plays and handle the ball really well. What is in dispute is his ability to sustain high levels of smart play, not only throughout a game, but consecutive games.

                          He has a tendency to want to dominate the ball and he has a tendency to not value possessions as much as he should. Particularly when he feels he needs to 'one-up' someone. So for all the good you want to point to, he needs to minimize this stuff (and stay healthy and committed) to actually live up to some of the hype that has built around him in fandom.
                          And neither Seth or I would disagree with that. I've already said that I'd love an upgrade at PG.

                          I'm just saying that while Jamaal wasn't shooting very well, he wasn't having as bad a game as UncleBuck was saying.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                            Question, why is it the a JO-Foster front court is bad?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                              I only said he was having a bad third quarter.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Blazers post game thread - Thankfully Tinsley sat the 4th quarter

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                                I only said he was having a bad third quarter.
                                Upon further review, Unclebuck is right.

                                In this instance. Don't let it go to your head.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X