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

Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

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

  • #46
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Yes, it will be interesting to see how things go. But Pritchard's daughter is right. We have taken a step back on talent needed to achieve a title...and arguably we are in rebuild mode. Probably the better word is retool because we have several players who are worthy of being part of a team winning a ring. But as presently constructed we do not have the offensive system or offensive talent to win it all. The more interesting thing will be the moves made over the next couple years. The question is if Larry can recreate the Spurs in Indy...and that means he needs to drop his "we don't need all milk-drinkers" mindset. That's why Lance Stephenson was drafted and unfortunately you are just wasting your time on those guys most of the time...even if the talent was all-star caliber.
    how can you say it is a rebuild or retool when we haven't even seen the team play yet? WE LOST ONE GUY. If the Pacers come out next season and continue to play .500 level ball and looking like the the Pacers that ended the season then, yes that should signal to Larry to blow it up.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
      Also, the stat about having the 3rd lowest field goal attempts in the paint is absolutely pathetic for a power post team, and we just let our best player at attacking the paint walk lol.
      That's because this team abandoned its power post identity for the better part of last year. We became a jump shooting team and our bigs were not happy about that at all.

      Let's hope that this is going to change this season.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        how can you say it is a rebuild or retool when we haven't even seen the team play yet? WE LOST ONE GUY. If the Pacers come out next season and continue to play .500 level ball and looking like the the Pacers that ended the season then, yes that should signal to Larry to blow it up.
        Remember he's a future multi All Star though I look for the Pacers to be just as good because the team unity will be better. They probably won't start 33-7 because the East will be stronger, but I look at 50 wins minimum and that not too shabby.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
          That's because this team abandoned its power post identity for the better part of last year. We became a jump shooting team and our bigs were not happy about that at all.

          Let's hope that this is going to change this season.
          I want it to change as well as you do, but we have three deadly 3 point shooters on the team now and I hope Frank isn't afraid to use them. Roy Hibbert really has to put on the big boy pants this season.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            That's because this team abandoned its power post identity for the better part of last year. We became a jump shooting team and our bigs were not happy about that at all.

            Let's hope that this is going to change this season.
            Quoted for the truth. I'm not sure why Frank allowed it to happen. It was Frank's biggest failure as a coach last year. I dunno if he felt the pressure to feature PG and Lance more, or just hard to argue against the early results the team was having. The team from 2 years ago was gritty, physical, and just plain executed from the post. Throw it down there and go to work. Crash the boards and get easy put backs. It was one ugly mo-fo of an offense, but our players were proud and wore it like a badge of honor! The power post should return in my opinion.
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

              Originally posted by presto123 View Post
              I want it to change as well as you do, but we have three deadly 3 point shooters on the team now and I hope Frank isn't afraid to use them. Roy Hibbert really has to put on the big boy pants this season.
              You can use your 3 point shooters and still be a power post team.

              Case in point, our very own Indiana Pacers.

              We attempted 19.6 3 pointers in 12-13 and we were pretty clearly a power post team -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...ate=2013-06-20

              We attempted 18.9 3 points in 13-14 but we had transformed into a jump shooting team -> http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...mpted-per-game

              The amount of 3 pointers was never the issue for us. It was the amount of pull up jumpers after a PnR that was the real problem.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                how can you say it is a rebuild or retool when we haven't even seen the team play yet? WE LOST ONE GUY. If the Pacers come out next season and continue to play .500 level ball and looking like the the Pacers that ended the season then, yes that should signal to Larry to blow it up.
                Weren't we supposed to be a championship contender tho?

                Nobody is crazy enough to say we are a contender anymore, lol.

                The best case scenario that's been thrown out there is making it back to the ECF. That is not the direction we were supposed to be going. So at worst, we have to retool on our hands with no cap space for the next two years and low draft picks who aren't likely to contribute anytime soon.

                We were talking about a potential title 6 months ago, and now we are hoping we can reach the ECF?

                The truth is even the fans that hated Lance the most, realize this is a step back. They ain't talking about Championships anymore. They are worried at what they see. They might talk a good game and try to sound optimistic, but deep down they know this teams title hopes are done for the near future.

                So why NOT blow it up? Why waste time? Why? It doesn't make sense.
                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                  The pacers need to learn from teams like Charlotte and Memphis. Last season Charlotte committed to being a power post team with Al Jeff down low and McBob running offense from the post. They became a better team and even a dark horse in the playoffs depending who they would be matched up with. Their weakness was not enough quality wing players who can shoot. Now they have acquired some Talent on the Wing and will probably be even better this year.

                  Memphis 2 years ago was basically our Western Conference Twin. They got spanked by the Spurs, but the year before that they sent those same spurs home. They committed to a power post team with a gritty defense when Rudy Gay got injured 3 years ago. At the beginning of this last year they tried mix it up and get uptempo and they completely fell apart, and quickly reverted back to being a power post team, and saved their season.

                  Pacers abandoned the power post offense and they looked lost and one dimensional on offense.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                    I'm sorry, but how do you get this:

                    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                    Scoring was a major problem with Stephenson because he was a massive ball stopper.

                    If we insert Miles we may be less talented, but I am sure we will be a better passing team with a smoother offense.
                    from this?

                    Originally posted by Zach Lowe
                    He stood as Indiana’s only game-to-game jolt of creativity. They ran more with Stephenson on the court. They generated more shots within the restricted area, and though the Pacers shot fewer 3s with Stephenson playing, they nailed those shots at a much higher rate — especially from the corners. Indy shot 45.5 percent on corner 3s with Stephenson on the floor, and just 33.6 percent when he sat, per NBA.com. Corner 3s work only when someone creates them by penetrating the defense and drawing help.

                    Indiana overall scored 102.9 points per 100 possessions with Stephenson on the floor, and a dreadful 98.3 when he sat. George’s split was similar, but George’s field goal percentage cratered from 44.4 percent with Stephenson alongside him to 38.6 percent when Stephenson left to go chat with Larry Legend.
                    2015 and 2016 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                      I think he does a VERY good job of talking about what the Pacers lose. Yet when talking about what Charlotte will gain, he fails to acknowledge the faults; it's almost as if he thinks Lance is a perfect fit there and Charlotte just gets to add his production to his core.

                      The problem is that Lance, with his 35% 3FG% will be their second best shooter next season, behind Gary Neal, another shooting guard. With the exception of Neal (and maybe Henderson, their other current backup shooting guard), Lance is their best off-ball scorer. The special parts of Lance's game mostly involve what he does once he gets the ball, however. Which is exactly how you would describe Kemba Walker. Their main low-post option prefers the left side of the court while Lance prefers the right side.

                      As Lowe mentioned, Paul George's FG% suffered while Lance was sitting. Yet when Scola wasn't hitting his midrange shots our 2nd unit was terrible with or without Lance. Who's going to be Lance's outlet in Charlotte? How much did Lance benefit from playing significant minutes as the 2nd perimeter option and the 3rd 3-pt option all year?
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                        Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                        I'm sorry, but how do you get this:



                        from this?
                        Classic Eye Test vs Metrics.

                        I fall more towards the Eye Test. At the beginning of the season Lance was the NOS for our Engine. In the 2nd half the season Vogel broke the Valve on the NOS bottle and he cracked the engine head, bent a piston rod, and blew the valve seals. Too much NOS kills your engine.

                        You almost have to separate the Pacer's regular season into 2 parts. The 1st half and the 2nd half for the season stats to mean anything relevant.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          Well this is where George Hill comes in on the creating side of the offense. Paul George will have to create more offense yes, but George Hill will now be tasked to be a creator as well. I think something the national media misses is how good of a player Hill actually is when aggressive. I think everyone who watched Hill in SA and here when aggressive knows he can create, and without Lance, he will be forced to be aggressive. Stuckey isn't a bad creator himself either.
                          If George Hill hits his absolute peak potential he still won't be a creator. It's not in his repertoire. He is a very basic and cautious passer, not a playmaker, not a creator, not anyone's idea of a true point guard. None of this is to say that he's a bad player.


                          I also don't get why people are saying the ball will move better with Miles. What? He's an awful passer. You want him to catch and shoot, nothing more. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking that I'm afraid is bred from ignorance on the players we've added.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                            Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                            If George Hill hits his absolute peak potential he still won't be a creator. It's not in his repertoire. He is a very basic and cautious passer, not a playmaker, not a creator, not anyone's idea of a true point guard. None of this is to say that he's a bad player.


                            I also don't get why people are saying the ball will move better with Miles. What? He's an awful passer. You want him to catch and shoot, nothing more. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking that I'm afraid is bred from ignorance on the players we've added.
                            One reason I want Hill moved to SG.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                              Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                              If George Hill hits his absolute peak potential he still won't be a creator. It's not in his repertoire. He is a very basic and cautious passer, not a playmaker, not a creator, not anyone's idea of a true point guard. None of this is to say that he's a bad player.


                              I also don't get why people are saying the ball will move better with Miles. What? He's an awful passer. You want him to catch and shoot, nothing more. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking that I'm afraid is bred from ignorance on the players we've added.
                              You can have a great offense without players constantly using their individual one v one skills to create shots for others.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                                Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                                If George Hill hits his absolute peak potential he still won't be a creator. It's not in his repertoire. He is a very basic and cautious passer, not a playmaker, not a creator, not anyone's idea of a true point guard. None of this is to say that he's a bad player.


                                I also don't get why people are saying the ball will move better with Miles. What? He's an awful passer. You want him to catch and shoot, nothing more. There's a whole lot of wishful thinking that I'm afraid is bred from ignorance on the players we've added.
                                It's harder to play the passing lanes on defense when you have to devote a guy to making sure Miles doesn't get more than 3 feet of space on the perimeter. Considering Lance is only a willing passer if his target was in scoring position, the amount of "ball movement" lost by losing Lance isn't equivalent to his handling and passing abilities. Hill, PG, and West are all willing passers. Having more open passing lanes will make Hill and Paul look like better passers than before, but for different reasons. Paul sees plays developing and sometimes forces it, and Hill is so careful with the ball he sometimes decides to not pass or doesn't see the play until it's too late. More space means more time to see the play and more open plays in general.

                                I think people also underestimate Hill's playmaking abilities. Lance's 2 best APG years were 4.6 and 2.9. Hill's 2 best were 4.7 and 3.5. Hill's best two PER36 APG totals were also higher if you discount Lance's rookie season where he played minimal minutes in 12 games and averaged 6.6 AP36 (and 5 TO per).
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X