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

1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

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

  • 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

    To paraphrase Andrew Jackson if Myles Turner goes back to playing 6 min a half so we can rotate C.J. Miles at the 4 I will hang the first person I see to the first tree I can find.

    Only and I mean only out of respect to how Ian Mahinmi has played this season am I okay with Myles Turner not starting, however every single minute Ian is on the bench Myles Turner needs to be in there.

    I know we do not like doing mid season trades but I'm sorry, we have to thin the heard. I think Joe Young has earned playing time until he doesn't. Sorry but I do not miss Rodney Stucky at all. I don't normally like guards but man there is something about Young that I like. It's not his shooting or driving but his ability to make solid passes. His defense will come but I just like the way we play when he is in there.

    Okay I know I'm not talking about the game. Look I'm just thrilled we didn't get blown out by 40, they were going to beat us and there just wasn't much we were going to do about it and I think in fact we actually competed better because we were missing players who normally play more. Turner was an absolute God out there and IMO I liked what Young brought over what Stucky would have.

    I've come to the conclusion that if a team could actually combine size with some speed that this is the way to beat the Warrior, not trying to out pace them because you aren't going to beat them at their game.

    Anyway, discuss.


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

  • #2
    Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

    "You know, Tinsley had a 30 point game as a rookie..."

    ~slowly backs out of the room before someone blindly reaches for their old, dusty Darren Collison bobble head on top of the spare fridge in the garage to use as a throwing star~

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

      If I am not mistaken, Turner posted the second most points in a game from a rookie this year only behind Booker, who had 32 against us. I may have missed some though, I only really looked up Porz, Okafor, and KAT.


      Also, I dont know if BRushWithDeath will see this or not, but if he does pop in here:

      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
      Rookies I'd trade Turner for right now:

      Towns
      Porzingis
      Okafor
      Russell
      Booker
      Winslow

      Rookies you'd at least have to think about:

      S. Johnson
      Lyles
      Mudiay
      Portis
      Jokic
      Has this list changed at all?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

        Originally posted by Phree Refill View Post
        "You know, Tinsley had a 30 point game as a rookie..."

        ~slowly backs out of the room before someone blindly reaches for their old, dusty Darren Collison bobble head on top of the spare fridge in the garage to use as a throwing star~
        Pretty sure he had 23 assists in a game too. Damn, he could have been so good...

        Coulda, woulda, shoulda...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

          From that list, I'd only for sure trade Turner for KAT and Porzingis. Okafor is a maybe but remember he gets all the minutes in the world in Philly, I could be convinced either way. No way with Russell or Winslow atm, and Booker is great if you want a SG but obviously the Pacers didn't want that.
          "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

          ----------------- Reggie Miller

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

            Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
            From that list, I'd only for sure trade Turner for KAT and Porzingis. Okafor is a maybe but remember he gets all the minutes in the world in Philly, I could be convinced either way. No way with Russell or Winslow atm, and Booker is great if you want a SG but obviously the Pacers didn't want that.
            I would only do KAT and maybe Booker.

            I wouldn't trade Turner for Porz or Okafor.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

              Porz has been had some great games, but he also has greatly benefited from the NY media. I wouldn't even consider a Turner for Porgz swap.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

                Wait, did Turner have 16 forth quarter points!?!?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

                  That truly was the definition of a moral victory, feel good, LOSS.

                  I'm actually happier tonight than I have been recently during our wins.

                  Our future is BRIGHT. But I totally agree, we need to thin the herd. Some choices are easy, and some aren't.

                  Chase shouldn't see the floor. Solo should be very situational, defensive purposes only. I can get behind continuing to start Ian *IF* we play Myles and Joe together off the bench for big chunks of minutes.

                  But there is zero doubt that between G Hill, Monta, Young, Stuckey and Third... We have some tough rotation (and possibly trade) decisions.

                  Glad I'm not Frank or Larry.

                  Edit: One other thought... Why not reduce or eliminate Lavoy's minutes and play Turner as a stretch 4 alongside Ian or J Hill for longer stretches?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

                    Just got back from the game. Here are my impressions:

                    - At no point in the game was I thinking to myself that we could win this game. As I said in the game thread....our 2nd unit was better than theirs ( hence why we were able to chip away at the huge lead ). But their Starting lineup is way better than ours. Once Curry, Klay and Draymond were on the floor at the same time....they were unstoppable.

                    - I wasn't expecting to win.....but I at least got what I wanted to see....Buckets and Myles play together . Seriously, I hope that once Mahinmi returns....that we don't play Small Ball anymore, Myles gets all of the backup Big Minutes ( that CJ is taking in the Frontcourt ), that CJ moves over and takes all of Budinger's minutes. As for Buckets, I'd find some way to move Stuckey...cuz I really want to find him some minutes in the Guard rotation.

                    - About Myles, I got my money's worth just seeing Myles' best game of his career. Offensively, he was really active on the offensive end and the Warriors had no answer for him. Now, if he could rebound....he'd be more of a dominant Player. He was the longest Player out there and couldn't dominate the boards. Someone who really pay attention will have to tell me, but why isn't he able to rebound better? Is it cuz he doesn't box out or is out of position?

                    - About Buckets, I'm glad that he was able to contribute on a high level. I was really surprised that Vogel had Buckets ( not Monta ) defend Curry at times. Right now, I think that he tries to hard to create for others. He's not quite at the same level as Monta....but I think that he really reminds me of a Monta-like Player but with better range.

                    - About Monte. He seemed non-existent in the 1st half.....but really came alive in the 2nd Half. He was able to hit a lot of mid-range jumpshots, was attacking the basket and get to the FT line. I don't think that he tried creating for others, but he was hot from the field...so I guess I don't blame him. But not much more to say.....just typical Monta.

                    - I still question why Budinger is out there. At least with CJ, the guy has no problem jacking up 3s or taking stupid shots...but there's a chance that he'll get streaky and contribute. With Solo....he defends well, doesn't mind scrapping inside the paint, rebounds and attacks the basket. But when it comes to Budinger.......I really have no clue what he does out there. Someone really has to explain to me why he gets minutes over Solo. Solo did what he always does, not too noticeable on offensive end, but he attacked the basket and IMHO provided good energy/defense off the bench.

                    - About everyone else, at the start of the 2nd half....we came out playing some good defense.....but in the end, no one had an answer for Curry. We stuck PG13 and Solo on him and we couldn't slow him down. The guy is near automatic from anywhere.

                    Overall, the only Players that showed up from an offensive end was Monta, Buckets and ( of course ) Myles. Our other scorers.... PG13 and Myles put in pedestrian-like #s. Another thing.....our FT shooting was PATHETIC.
                    Last edited by CableKC; 01-23-2016, 03:33 AM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post

                      I'm glad that Buckets was able to contribute on a high level. I was really surprised that Vogel had Buckets ( not Monta ) defend Curry at times. Right now, I think that he tries to hard to create for others. He's not quite at the same level as Monta...
                      Wait, what? You must be kidding? Young has done a much better job at creating for others.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

                        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                        Wait, what? You must be kidding? Young has done a much better job at creating for others.
                        There were at least 3 instances I can recall where he dribbled underneath the basket, tried to dish the ball to someone under the basket, pass it out to someone or even jumped in the air looking for someone to pass to...and ended up turning the ball over. I'm just saying that he's not at the point where Monta is. This doesn't mean that he can't improve....I just think that he makes mistakes and tries too hard. But I chalk that up more to inexperience than anything.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 01-23-2016, 03:33 AM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          I don't think that he has the experience. There were at least 3 instances I can recall where he dribbled underneath the basket, tried to dish the ball to someone under the basket, pass it out to someone or even jumped in the air looking for someone to pass to...and ended up turning the ball over. I'm just saying that he's not at the point where Monta is. This doesn't mean that he can't improve....I just think that he makes mistakes and tries too hard. But I chalk that up more to inexperience than anything.
                          I understand that we have a very small sample size to work with here, but considering its the only sample size we have...

                          In 3 games with significant minutes: 22 MPG, 7 APG, 2 TOPG.

                          Ellis on the season averages 33 MPG, 5 APG, 3 TOPG.

                          Young has made some rookie mistakes, but in terms of running the offense, I don't even see how it is debatable.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

                            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                            I understand that we have a very small sample size to work with here, but considering its the only sample size we have...

                            In 3 games with significant minutes: 22 MPG, 7 APG, 2 TOPG.

                            Ellis on the season averages 33 MPG, 5 APG, 3 TOPG.

                            Young has made some rookie mistakes, but in terms of running the offense, I don't even see how it is debatable.
                            IMHO....It's debatable cuz of the small sample size. I'm not saying that he can't be better...I'm just saying that he made ( as both of us agree ) some rookie mistakes.

                            The more important question is....where will we find minutes for Buckets once Stuckey and GH return
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 1-22-16 Pacers vs Warriors post game show.

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              IMHO....It's debatable cuz of the small sample size. I'm not saying that he can't be better...I'm just saying that he made ( as both of us agree ) some rookie mistakes.

                              The more important question is....where will we find minutes for Buckets once Stuckey and GH return
                              Ellis has made quite a lot of mistakes too and he doesn't run the offense near as good as Young has shown to be capable of.

                              I'm really worried about this. Vogel is too stubborn to bench one of those guys for a rookie.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X