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

(Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

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

  • #76
    Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

    FWIW, Tyson Chandler never had Myle's ability to face up and shoot especially from range. I am pretty excited about this young man. He may be just the big to open up the lane for our guards.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post

      And that's actually a good thing, because with CJ Miles and Chuck Ellis on the wing,
      Chuck Ellis.... Hahaha... It took me a minute to get it!
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

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

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        I'm asking cuz I have no idea....but do we even have the Players with the ability to properly implement a Zone defense?

        Given the likely lineup of Players ( most notably with Monta and Stuckey getting a good # of minutes at the Wing ) and a Weak side shot Blocker, what's the best type of defense that we should run?

        or

        Is Vogel going to have to work some magic and create some Hybrid type defense to minimize our defensive weaknesses while emphasizing our strengths on defense?
        Honestly, I have no clue either. It's one the many things I'm interested in watching develop this year. I'm not overly concerned about this years defense, though. I bet we'll still be pretty good. I just wonder why we never attempted zone in the past. Especially considering we were the longest team in the league at one point. Plus we had Roy, one of the leagues best rim protectors and a guy who struggles with mobility. He seems like an ideal fit for a zone. Can't really whine much when you have a top 5 defense, I just found it kind of odd. I think we probably still have the personnel for zone if coach wants to try it.

        Definitely answered none of your questions, my bad. But I guess the unknown is kind of why this upcoming season has peeked my interest so much.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          I don't really agree. Vogel always ran a matchup zone.
          Every coach has their version of man defense, but I wouldn't necessarily consider that a matchup zone. I thought a matchup zone was when a player stays in one area and matches up man to man on the player in his zone? We've never done that. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, though.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
            Vogel always ran a matchup zone.
            Please elaborate. While Vogel's defense has a big rotating to the front of the rim, I wouldn't say that is the zone CJ is requesting.
            A strong defensive help defense might look like a zone. But we always followed the opponent through zones (instead of sending them through the zone). So it isn't a real zone.

            A good man to man defense looks like a zone. We play the gaps like crazy, which helps for defensive rotations. But playing the gaps is not a traditional zone. You never help a pass away.

            Matchup zone is altogether different than what CJ was referring to. I think he is referring to what the Spurs ran against the heat and what the Mavs did against the Heat. We did not have the personnel last year to run this zone. We do now. Frank wanted to run more zones last year. But that didn't materialize, I think, because of the injuries. So we will see if we have a 2-1-2 standard zone. Or a 1-3-1. But no matter what I still can't see our defense abandoning the front of the rim. Turner, Ian, and whoever else will rotate to the rim and play the gap to get there.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

              Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
              Please elaborate. While Vogel's defense has a big rotating to the front of the rim, I wouldn't say that is the zone CJ is requesting.
              A strong defensive help defense might look like a zone. But we always followed the opponent through zones (instead of sending them through the zone). So it isn't a real zone.

              A good man to man defense looks like a zone. We play the gaps like crazy, which helps for defensive rotations. But playing the gaps is not a traditional zone. You never help a pass away.

              Matchup zone is altogether different than what CJ was referring to. I think he is referring to what the Spurs ran against the heat and what the Mavs did against the Heat. We did not have the personnel last year to run this zone. We do now. Frank wanted to run more zones last year. But that didn't materialize, I think, because of the injuries. So we will see if we have a 2-1-2 standard zone. Or a 1-3-1. But no matter what I still can't see our defense abandoning the front of the rim. Turner, Ian, and whoever else will rotate to the rim and play the gap to get there.
              By freezing ball screens we essentially played zone until penetration was contained and then matched up to recover.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                I'm curious where are reading 243. The last I read of his weight was 238. Whatever he is he looked skinny to me in the summer league. Next to PG he won't look skinny but I hope he can beef up in time to 250+. He's young so he should be able to but I expect that he'll get man handled by some of the bigger 4's and 5's next year. If he has put on 5 lbs. since the combine weigh ins that's a good sign.
                The second lines states Myles is 243 lbs. It's dated June 14, 2015.

                http://www.nbadraft.net/players/myles-turner
                I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                  Miles seems like he has a very thin base/lower body. I hope, more than any other area, he can put strength on here.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                    essentially played zone
                    which is not the zone that CJ was talking about.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                      Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
                      The second lines states Myles is 243 lbs. It's dated June 14, 2015.

                      http://www.nbadraft.net/players/myles-turner
                      You know, if he's 243 at the age of 19...with that shooting stroke...and with a shot blocker mentality...we are in a really good situation. Enjoy the ride.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        You know, if he's 243 at the age of 19...with that shooting stroke...and with a shot blocker mentality...we are in a really good situation. Enjoy the ride.
                        I think Turner might be JO2 for us, at least in shape, hopefully an mvp candidate. JO didn't have a great lower body, meaning weighty butt and huge calves, but he could shoot and was a shot blocker. JO weighed 255 the last year he played.

                        The thing is you don't want to rush putting weight on young bodies or they break down. A few pounds a year should be good.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          I think Turner might be JO2 for us, at least in shape, hopefully an mvp candidate. JO didn't have a great lower body, meaning weighty butt and huge calves, but he could shoot and was a shot blocker. JO weighed 255 the last year he played.

                          The thing is you don't want to rush putting weight on young bodies or they break down. A few pounds a year should be good.
                          JO was the same height, but only 226. Myles is hoss compared to that.

                          Edit: Also, Myles has the biggest feet in the NBA, right?

                          Edit2: BTW, JO's shooting stroke wasn't all that great.
                          Last edited by BlueNGold; 09-13-2015, 05:55 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                            I think Turner might be JO2 for us, at least in shape, hopefully an mvp candidate. JO didn't have a great lower body, meaning weighty butt and huge calves, but he could shoot and was a shot blocker. JO weighed 255 the last year he played.

                            The thing is you don't want to rush putting weight on young bodies or they break down. A few pounds a year should be good.
                            As much as I'd be happy to see Turner end up being as good as J.O. my expectations are much lower then that. The odds are so against any player reaching that level of play.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              Tyson's Chicken may not be the strongest or toughest guy around, but he has matured physically quite a bit since then.
                              http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...day-at-the-gym

                              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: (Good Stuff) Mark's Mailbag: On Roster Turnover, Youth Movement

                                Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                                Please elaborate. While Vogel's defense has a big rotating to the front of the rim, I wouldn't say that is the zone CJ is requesting.
                                A strong defensive help defense might look like a zone. But we always followed the opponent through zones (instead of sending them through the zone). So it isn't a real zone.

                                A good man to man defense looks like a zone. We play the gaps like crazy, which helps for defensive rotations. But playing the gaps is not a traditional zone. You never help a pass away.

                                Matchup zone is altogether different than what CJ was referring to. I think he is referring to what the Spurs ran against the heat and what the Mavs did against the Heat. We did not have the personnel last year to run this zone. We do now. Frank wanted to run more zones last year. But that didn't materialize, I think, because of the injuries. So we will see if we have a 2-1-2 standard zone. Or a 1-3-1. But no matter what I still can't see our defense abandoning the front of the rim. Turner, Ian, and whoever else will rotate to the rim and play the gap to get there.
                                I thought I typed out a response but it must have disappeared.

                                Even Bob Knight's man-to-man had zone elements to it. Strong side/ weakside are zone concepts. Line of the ball is a zone concept. What is really true is that very, very, very few basketball teams run a true man-to-man.

                                Vogel's defense (I'm talking 2011 thru 2014, ignore last year) was that the wings could crowd their man on the perimeter (to defend the three point line) knowing that if they were burned off the dribble they were passing off their defensive assignment to either Roy (bottom half of the paint) or David (top half of the paint.) That's how they simultaneously defended the three point line and the rim at a high level, which is rare. You're usually good at one or the other, not both. As you can guess, I expect next year's Pacers team to be much better at defending the three point line than the rim.

                                It obviously doesn't look anything like a Syracuse 2-3 zone because it has a number of man-to-man principles as well as the zone foundation.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X