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

All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    It would probably change my opinion of the basis for calculating a usage rate.

    Those stats still don't capture how the usage came into being. As I said before, I wouldn't have minded Paul and Lance with higher "usage rates" but not after the dribble away most of the shot clock. All of those guys, along with G. Hill, had an increase in beat-the-shotclock junk shots because the ball stopped on the wings. I'm harping on the transition to a ball-killing, motionless offense. I think we can all agree that Roy, David, Paul and George were all significantly worse when they would get the ball in a static offense vs. an active offense. I'm not sure Lance was worse in that situation, but the other four were.

    Tell me what stat measures a player's efficiency when the ball has been in motion vs. when the ball has been killed in an iso.? Doesn't exist, does it?

    Remember, I'm an eyeball-test guy. I rarely look at box scores except for long-after the fact and don't care much about advanced stats. Our family was a coaching family so scouting games (whether basketball or football) was a father-son activity -- that's how I work the eyeball test... what is the future opponent doing well that we will need to stop and what can we exploit.

    If I was an opposing coach in 2013-14, I'd want the Pacers to have the ball in PG's or LS's hands as much as possible and I'd go out of my way to talk about how they were budding/ emerging stars just to see if they'd take the bait and help my team keep the ball out of David's hands. And the Pacers fell for it.
    I just find it interesting "West could do no wrong, it was the ball hogs fault." West fg% dropped after All Star break even though he had the ball more often and was shooting more shots.

    The ENTIRE team collapsed. There is nobody free of blame and it cannot be singled down to one problem.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

      [QUOTE=freddielewis14;2031124]I just find it interesting "West could do no wrong, it was the ball hogs fault." West fg% dropped after All Star break even though he had the ball more often and was shooting more shots.

      The ENTIRE team collapsed. There is nobody free of blame and it cannot be singled down to one problem.[/QUOTE]

      Sorry that deserves to be re-stated more boldly.


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

      Comment


      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        West averaged 11.9 PPG in November, 14.0 PPG in December, 13.1 PPG in January , 16.6 PPG in February, 13.7 PPG in March, and 17.6 PPG in April. There is really no point at which we stopped going to David West and he was actually posting some really good numbers during the stretch where everything was going to hell. His usage rate was pretty much at the same point all season.

        PG and Lance were dominating the offense on a 33-7 team. Lance and West had phenomenal chemistry and it was fun to watch them play together. PG played out of his mind the first two months of the season. I agree that things got out of control in the second half of the season, but the offense in the first half of the season revolved around PG and Lance. It worked until they both took it a bit too far. Your post makes it seem like PG and Lance weren't playing a major role in the offense when the team was 33-7, but that's just not the case. They both started that season on a fury and it was very successful for a couple of months.
        Can't thank this enough. Our starters were doing the SAME things we were doing in the beginning of the season, shots stopped falling, losses added frustration and we couldn't handle it mentally.
        Last edited by freddielewis14; 07-30-2015, 04:01 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          Can't thank this enough. Our starters were doing the SAME things we were doing in the beginning of the season, shot stopped falling, loses added frustration and we couldn't handle it mentally.
          They were taking the same amount of shots, but how they got them changed.

          Lance is a good example of it. His FG% was very very good. But his shot selection caused his teammates to stand. So you have this tug of war going on between, well he's hitting shots but at the same time it's causing troubles. The chemistry completely changed.

          Everyone did have a hand in it though.

          EDIT: Or Roy and his forcing of shots. His shots attempts stayed somewhat normal, as his touches dropped. I thought he started forcing shots, taking bad ones, because he wasn't sure when he'd see the ball again.
          Last edited by Since86; 07-30-2015, 04:08 PM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            Can't thank this enough. Our starters were doing the SAME things we were doing in the beginning of the season, shots stopped falling, losses added frustration and we couldn't handle it mentally.
            I agree, and as someone who was a big fan of Lance I can easily admit that he took it too far with trying to be Magic Johnson, particularly after the all-star snub. This also unfortunately coincided with a period in which Paul George was shooting the ball like crap.

            Nevertheless, the offensive identity didn't go through some drastic mid-season change that year. It was the PG and Lance show on offense as soon as that season started, and for two months they were the best offensive players on a team that went 33-7. We didn't hit a rut because we changed styles......we hit a rut because we went a little too far with the type of offense we were running. Vogel gave them a lot of leeway because he saw with his own eyes that the very best this team ever looked was when it was 33-7 with those two dominating the ball on offense and setting up the other players. Lance and D-West always had amazing chemistry.

            Comment


            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              They were taking the same amount of shots, but how they got them changed.

              Lance is a good example of it. His FG% was very very good. But his shot selection caused his teammates to stand.
              The only thing that changed was Lance was missing shots after ASB, so he shot less and was used less. Everyone was missing shots.

              Comment


              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                The only thing that changed was Lance was missing shots after ASB, so he shot less and was used less. Everyone was missing shots.
                Frank and pretty much every player that had a microphone stuck in their face during the slide said their on-court chemistry changed, in one way or another.

                It was much more than just missing shots. You don't have multiple team meetings over missing shots.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Frank and pretty much every player that had a microphone stuck in their face during the slide said their on-court chemistry changed, in one way or another.

                  It was much more than just missing shots. You don't have multiple team meetings over missing shots.
                  You have meeting when your under performing center(mishandling passes, taking bad falling shots) is whining about touches and calling out his teammates in the media.

                  This is not the only reason to have a meeting, but it is a reason.

                  Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Frank and pretty much every player that had a microphone stuck in their face during the slide said their on-court chemistry changed, in one way or another.

                    It was much more than just missing shots. You don't have multiple team meetings over missing shots.
                    Oh I agree Lance was a chemistry issue. One of the many issues.

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                      I am still a believer that the on-court issues stemmed from locker room issues, and not the other way around.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                        You have meeting when your under performing center(mishandling passes, taking bad falling shots) is whining about touches and calling out his teammates in the media.

                        This is not the only reason to have a meeting, but it is a reason.

                        Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
                        Or when your player thinks he got snubbed for an All-Star appearance and decides to pound nails with the ball. That's another reason.

                        One of those two players actually participated in said team meetings though.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          The ENTIRE team collapsed. There is nobody free of blame and it cannot be singled down to one problem.
                          While I agree, that means (1) we should see the same venom toward all the players and coaches. I actually won't object if the wing players and Vogel took as much of the **** that PD lays onto Hibbert. I think the only guy that might get a pass is GHill, because he was clearly doing what the coaches told him to do (stand in the corner, defer to everyone else) without complaining and worked his butt off to prove he was capable of much more the next season when we needed more from him.

                          And (2) some problems were causes and some were symptoms of the problem.

                          So none of us out here in the interwebs know if Roy's sulking was the cause or the symptom. There's lots of conjecture. Everybody has their mind made up. I believe it was symptom of a newfangled plan that was not working, but others believe differently and the point here is not to convince each other that only one story is correct. There is more than one plausible explanation and we're all on the outside of the insiders. The tell-all book will be fascinating. And probably full of more spin than a Kenmore dryer so probably not to be trusted either.

                          My lack of enthusiasm for rebuilding this team around Paul George is that the last 2-3 months of 2013-14 showed that is not a recipe for success. At least not yet. He's got a lot of growing and developing to do. And now he's had a major injury and is likely to be changing positions (not entirely by his own choosing.) So we on the outside don't have any visibility to whether he's matured or not.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                            I am still a believer that the on-court issues stemmed from locker room issues, and not the other way around.
                            I think in this example it worked in both directions. Even with David's leadership, this team was far too immature for its own success both off and on the court. How many scandalous off-court things was PG's name attached to? I don't think the on-court chemistry gets a free pass even though the off-court issues got more attention. 3-way gone bad! PG and the pregnant Miami stripper! Everyone hates Evan Turner (although that seemed to be evidence that Lance was a good judge of character. )! PG with the $1 million all-NBA bonus (reminding me again why I don't like incentive-laden contracts.)
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Or when your player thinks he got snubbed for an All-Star appearance and decides to pound nails with the ball. That's another reason.

                              One of those two players actually participated in said team meetings though.
                              I have never seen the sign in sheet from the partial team meeting.

                              Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Roy Hibbert for the next year or so....

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                While I agree, that means (1) we should see the same venom toward all the players and coaches. I actually won't object if the wing players and Vogel took as much of the **** that PD lays onto Hibbert. I think the only guy that might get a pass is GHill, because he was clearly doing what the coaches told him to do (stand in the corner, defer to everyone else) without complaining and worked his butt off to prove he was capable of much more the next season when we needed more from him.

                                And (2) some problems were causes and some were symptoms of the problem.

                                So none of us out here in the interwebs know if Roy's sulking was the cause or the symptom. There's lots of conjecture. Everybody has their mind made up. I believe it was symptom of a newfangled plan that was not working, but others believe differently and the point here is not to convince each other that only one story is correct. There is more than one plausible explanation and we're all on the outside of the insiders. The tell-all book will be fascinating. And probably full of more spin than a Kenmore dryer so probably not to be trusted either.

                                My lack of enthusiasm for rebuilding this team around Paul George is that the last 2-3 months of 2013-14 showed that is not a recipe for success. At least not yet. He's got a lot of growing and developing to do. And now he's had a major injury and is likely to be changing positions (not entirely by his own choosing.) So we on the outside don't have any visibility to whether he's matured or not.
                                Roy got it the most of it because he was playing the worst last season. At the time, Lance took the most hear. This past season, Ghill stepped up, PG was injured, and although West gets a pass from the board, most people acknowledge he either lost a step, was injured or didn't care last season.

                                We don't really know if building a team around PG is or isn't a successful strategy, but we know building a team around Roy or even making him a main piece is not a good strategy at this point. I think we all can agree you cannot depend on Hibbert.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X