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

  • #76
    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

    Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
    How does this team become an effective power post team with a center that shoots less than 45% and rarely is able to establish position and receive the ball within the painted area? Or with a power forward whose effectiveness in the post is inconsistent from game to game and very match-up dependent?

    This team will be toast next year if it makes post feeds to Hibbert & West a point of specific emphasis. We will be the easiest team in the league to defend.

    I couldn't disagree more with the last part of your post.
    Our offense was at it's most effective when we would play from the inside out. Very few teams can defend Hibbert and West in the paint. I know Hibbert struggled at the end of the season but he's shown that he can be effective when we include him in the offensive plan. Hibbert and West are also very good passers for big men. We need to establish our post game to start every game which will open up the perimeter and we have the tools to do it. Our struggles started when Vogel gave the reins to Lance and Paul which turned us into a jump shooting team.
    Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

    Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

      Originally posted by Isaac View Post
      If we look anything like the post ASG Pacers we were last year… and have replaced Lance Stephenson with CJ Miles and Rodney Stuckey- two terrible ball handlers- we will not make the playoffs. I tend to think we will be a better team than that Jekyll version of the Pacers we saw in 2014 and for most of the playoffs, but I'm not sure of that. I'm not sure where the "jolt of creativity" comes from in this group. It is hard to imagine this team, as currently constructed, being much fun to watch.
      I disagree that Stuckey is a terrible ball handler. He's very good at creating his own offense off the dribble. It's actually what he does best. CJ Miles isn't a good creator for others but he can create space with his dribble to get his own jumper off. He's basically a younger Rasual Butler.

      The offense with Lance last year was brutal to watch at times and the spacing was bad a lot of times. There's no replacing the rebounding (or rebound stealing, haha) and defense that the Pacers are losing with Lance gone but I definitely think the offense should be better than it was last year.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

        Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
        How does this team become an effective power post team with a center that shoots less than 45% and rarely is able to establish position and receive the ball within the painted area? Or with a power forward whose effectiveness in the post is inconsistent from game to game and very match-up dependent?

        This team will be toast next year if it makes post feeds to Hibbert & West a point of specific emphasis. We will be the easiest team in the league to defend.
        Being a power post team is more than just the big's posting. It is being able to post 1 thru 5 if a guy is defended by a minus defender. Teams get away guarding Paul with guys that are 6 inches shorter all the time. Just remember Danny before his knee injury. Put an undersized guy on him and Danny instantly took him into the post. Paul either couldn't or wouldn't use his height advantage last season. Lance has good size at the 2, but didn't want to post either. He'd rather use his size off the bounce instead. GHill can post guys, but no one ever seemed to be able to get him the ball when he did. Being a power post team means posting all your guys, not just your bigs.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          By crashing the boards and getting extra possessions. The 12'-13' team proved that can be successful. Hibbert has never been an efficient post player. But you get extra possessions and keep hammering. That team led the league in points in the paint. Led the league in Rebounding.

          Don't you think we were the easiest team to defend in the league last year? All we did was settle for pull up long jumpers. Teams made us one-dimensional and the Pacers were all too happy to shoot the same shots we want to force our opponents into.. Long range 2's.

          Thats why Vogel is the most maddening of coaches in my opinion. Defense: Cover the paint and perimeter and force long 2's. Offense: settle for long 2's. Even Scola and West's bread and butter jumpers were long 2's toward the end of the season because defenses were forcing our PnR higher and higher.
          I was thinking the same thing all of last year, and it was infuriating. You'd watch our defense hold our opposition come down by shooting some insane 20-ft. fade away shot, then lance or pg would go down to the other end and do the same thing with 8 seconds left on the shotclock against Philly.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

            Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
            Just remember Danny before his knee injury. Put an undersized guy on him and Danny instantly took him into the post.
            I'd forgotten about that! It would get frustrating sometimes as he had a habit of not realizing when to pass out, but he was really good at posting up.

            Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
            GHill can post guys, but no one ever seemed to be able to get him the ball when he did. Being a power post team means posting all your guys, not just your bigs.
            Problem with Hill posting is if the other team is putting in the effort, they'll just come double team him. He's quite good at it, but he was just awful in the double team.

            Agree with you 100%, and it's not just about posting up either, it's about being physical with drives into the lane. I think Hill can do a good job of lane penetration if he becomes more aggressive. I'm still not sold on PG as his handles didn't improve nearly as much last year as I hoped. Still, to me, it all boils down to whether we get October - January Hibbert or February through May Hibbert. I still think we went inside less and less because Hibbert was so ineffective with his bad hands, bad shots, and inability to pass (for the last 4 months.)
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

              Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
              There's no replacing the rebounding (or rebound stealing, haha) and defense that the Pacers are losing with Lance gone but I definitely think the offense should be better than it was last year.
              The two most overrated parts of Lance's game. Lance was average to bad on defense last year, and most of Lance's rebounds were not of the kind where he is boxing his guy out and fighting for a rebound. There should be little to no drop off in both of those areas.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                The two most overrated parts of Lance's game. Lance was average to bad on defense last year, and most of Lance's rebounds were not of the kind where he is boxing his guy out and fighting for a rebound. There should be little to no drop off in both of those areas.
                If what you are saying is true that means a guy like Roy will average more because the Roy defenders Lance always stole his rebounds, right?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                  I'm going to assume Roy will average 14 rebounds next year since Lance stole all of his rebounds.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    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.
                    I'm sure getting Marc Gasol back helped. At least, I'd hate to watch a power post version of us without West.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                      If what you are saying is true that means a guy like Roy will average more because the Roy defenders Lance always stole his rebounds, right?
                      I expect Roy's rebounds go up by two per game to where it was the two seasons prior to last.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                        Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                        I disagree that Stuckey is a terrible ball handler. He's very good at creating his own offense off the dribble. It's actually what he does best.
                        All of the above is true.

                        Stuckey is not a terrible ballhandler at all. It's how he keeps is turnovers down despite being a horrendous passer.

                        As long as he has a spaced floor and is under no pressure at all to find the open man, he's fine. That's his wheelhouse.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                          Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                          I'm going to assume Roy will average 14 rebounds next year since Lance stole all of his rebounds.
                          Sarcasm is duly noted but the Pacers did rebound slightly better when Lance sat last year than when he played.
                          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                          -Lance Stephenson

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                            I am not ready to write off G Hill yet. From my point of view, Lance was mostly playing for a contract. His and Paul turnovers were mind boggling because of them trying to do too much. With Lance gone, I want to see more stability and cohesion and I think this could only help G Hill. However, Vogel needs to let G Hill know from the very beginning that he will not be afraid to bench him if nothing changes. I guess what I am saying, I dont think G Hill can be blamed for the entire offense stagnation. It was more two people trying to do too much and turning the ball over. We all have to admit when G Hill is playing at a high level, he can be one best players in the game. I would not trade Hibbert. I dont think we can make the playoffs with out him.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                              Originally posted by LazyDaze View Post
                              I am not ready to write off G Hill yet. From my point of view, Lance was mostly playing for a contract. His and Paul turnovers were mind boggling because of them trying to do too much. With Lance gone, I want to see more stability and cohesion and I think this could only help G Hill. However, Vogel needs to let G Hill know from the very beginning that he will not be afraid to bench him if nothing changes. I guess what I am saying, I dont think G Hill can be blamed for the entire offense stagnation. It was more two people trying to do too much and turning the ball over. We all have to admit when G Hill is playing at a high level, he can be one best players in the game. I would not trade Hibbert. I dont think we can make the playoffs with out him.
                              I agree with the idea of Vogel telling a player he will be benched if a, b, or c does or does not happen.

                              The problem is Vogel has had numerous opportunities to do this in the past, and has never done it. He needs to be tougher in this regard.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Zach Lowe on Lance and Pacer's loss

                                Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                                I'm going to assume Roy will average 14 rebounds next year since Lance stole all of his rebounds.
                                Even if Lance stole "all" his rebounds there is no reason Hibbert can't get 1 rebound. He is 7ft. He should get 5 rebounds a game by just standing there

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X