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

1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

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

  • #46
    Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    Oh if this were only true. However you didn't even make it an hour before you were right back at it again.
    If my post gets misinterpreted I'm going to respond. Otherwise, I'm not and haven't started a new post about Frank. This was about Monta.
    Last edited by freddielewis14; 01-02-2017, 01:54 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      He has been playing around with that whole team so nobody knows who he is going to start or bench next.


      My starting unit in Orlando would be Payton, Fournier, Green, Gordon and Ibaka.
      You're really reaching here. Payton and Green are NBA backups. That whole roster is basically a collection of backups, shoddy prospects, and only a couple (Fournier, Ibaka) of mid-level gems. I'm struggling to understand how Frank can be blamed for any of that mess.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

        There's been a number of changes lately that I've been wanting.

        1) Mentality. Too much complaining to officials, not playing through the play, no communicating or helping. Paul seems to be that pulse, and when he's in a rut, it seems to affect the whole team. I was glad to hear him say he was going to get back to having fun, that's what he needed to do, and it seems to be going down through everyone.
        2) Moving Monta to the bench. Been wanting that since last year, but the problem was we didn't have anyone capable of allowing us to do that. GR3 is a decent 3-D guy, and he seems to finally be able to contribute in at least a satisfactory manner. I think he will still grow, too. He's still not my favorite SG, but he gets us closer to an ideal starting 5 that covers all the basics.
        3) Playing Kevin Seraphin. I've liked this guy, at least off the bench. I had no idea why Nate wasn't playing him. He needs to be in there with that 2nd unit.
        4) Benching Lavoy. He's just been awful. Lavoy, Niang, and Joe Young have no business getting off the bench unless it's garbage time.
        5) Teague and Turner have just been so impressive in the last month. Teague had that slow start but he's really coming around. Turner just impresses the hell out of me for a 20-year old. To me, even though PG is the leader and has the stats, it's Turner and Teague who have been playing at the highest levels.
        6) PG hasn't been impressing me this year. His scoring is inefficient, it feels like he's chucking at times, and it seems like he's blowing defensive assignments at times. Also, it feels like he sometimes is trying too hard to get everyone involved and not just asserting himself as the supposed best player on the floor, which he should be. When he is asserting, it's not applied correctly. He's just not in the right place at the moment. It's weird because I feel like most people on the team are finding their groove, but PG isn't. He's still putting up numbers, but it doesn't feel right yet. He's not locked in like I think he can be. The silver lining to that is to imagine how good we can be when he finally gets there.
        7) Thad is quietly doing a decent job. Who'da thunk he'd be our best 3pt shooter this far into the season? How'd that happen?
        8) Aaron Brooks is a shot-maker... he's one of the best on the team of creating/hitting something at the end of the clock. He has such high confidence.... I love that he's a run-buster. He doesn't care that the other team is on a 10-0 run. That's what you need, that's how you need to think.
        9) Big Al is rather large. I feel like there's games where he's just unstoppable in the paint, and other games where he looks his age. Still, we have a bench that causes a lot of problems for people when any one of those guys gets it going, and any one of those guys *can* get it going. Brooks, CJ, Monta, Ellis, Big Al... any of those guys can carry you through stretches.


        I like our current units and rotations. Teague/GR3/PG/Thad/Turner is the right starting unit, and being able to throw in some combination of Brooks/Monta/Stuckey/CJ/Seraphin/Al in the 2nd unit seems to be very strong. It was obvious at first they were getting used to each other, but it feels like it's happening finally.

        I feel like the personnel on this team is actually quite deep/strong.. the early struggles didn't make much sense except to think that maybe they just weren't on the same page yet. I had (and still do have) questions about Nate's decisions early on, but at least for the moment, he's doing some good things. I still don't have full confidence that he's going to out-coach the top coaches in head-to-heads when it matters, but there's always that chance he'll grow.

        Hoping this all sustains.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-02-2017, 02:34 PM.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

          Originally posted by JB24 View Post
          You're really reaching here. Payton and Green are NBA backups. That whole roster is basically a collection of backups, shoddy prospects, and only a couple (Fournier, Ibaka) of mid-level gems. I'm struggling to understand how Frank can be blamed for any of that mess.
          I was under the impression Frank was Pop 2.0? , let's not forget the previous coach had them winning 35 wins last year with middle of season trades and everything, anything less than that doesn't look good on the coach in my opinion (same with Nate here).
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Payton? you have Watson as the backup PG anyways.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic







              If this is the team clicking and players finding their roles like PG said, we may have something.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                In the past 11 games (since starting @GRIII), Pacers rank 4th in DEF RTG, 1st in OPP 3PT%, and T-1st in OPP FG%. Success by forcing misses. pic.twitter.com/0vEH9oLRJz
                — Grant Afseth (@GrantAfseth) January 2, 2017


                Monta Ellis isn't racking up stats (2 points, 3 assists, 3 rebounds), but making things happen for his teammates.
                — 8 Points, 9 Seconds (@8pts9secs) January 2, 2017


                If this is the team clicking and players finding their roles like PG said, we may have something.
                It should be noted that the 11 teams the Pacers faced have a collective offensive rating that is 1.4 points below the league average. They've only faced one top ten offense during that time, and that trend will continue for a while (their next game against a team currently in the top 10 is Minnesota 10 games from now). So their defense has been a little inflated by their competition, and the Pacers have still been below average offensively during that time.

                On the positive side, they've held those opponents to 1.6 points below that deflated average. That would rank 9th in the league if the Pacers did that to all their opponents. And because of that, they've had a positive point differential of 1.7 during that time, which still isn't great but is quite a bit better than early in the season.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                  Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                  It should be noted that the 11 teams the Pacers faced have a collective offensive rating that is 1.4 points below the league average. They've only faced one top ten offense during that time, and that trend will continue for a while (their next game against a team currently in the top 10 is Minnesota 10 games from now). So their defense has been a little inflated by their competition, and the Pacers have still been below average offensively during that time.

                  On the positive side, they've held those opponents to 1.6 points below that deflated average. That would rank 9th in the league if the Pacers did that to all their opponents. And because of that, they've had a positive point differential of 1.7 during that time, which still isn't great but is quite a bit better than early in the season.


                  Pretty much all this, let's see what they do vs better competition.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Anyway, I'm glad we're finally playing Seraphin at PF which is what I think his natural position is actually is. Seeing him finish two reverse layups that Lavoy would have probably somehow bounced off the rim and into his own dick was so nice and refreshing.
                    This made me LOL.
                    https://twitter.com/DrogsNavan

                    Change is neither good or bad, it simply is.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                      Playing against lower competition is a pretty good opportunity to gain comfort with a new lineup. That said I think the defensive numbers are still impressive since it's better than the average like Cubs posted.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        Playing against lower competition is a pretty good opportunity to gain comfort with a new lineup. That said I think the defensive numbers are still impressive since it's better than the average like Cubs posted.
                        Sure but playing GS twice in a short amount of time can make your defensive numbers look like ****.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                          Teague/GRIII/PG/Thad/Turner is +10.1 over 213 minutes

                          Teague/Monta/PG/Thad/Turner is -5.8 over 320 minutes

                          ^ 2 most used lineups

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            Sure but playing GS twice in a short amount of time can make your defensive numbers look like ****.
                            I agree, but I think the starting unit defensively is clearly a lot better with GRIII.

                            However, if he can't hit open shots, his defensive upgrade over Monta becomes negligible.
                            Last edited by freddielewis14; 01-02-2017, 06:13 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                              For all of those who are now excited about Monta to the bench and have somehow deduced that Monta has voluntarily exited the starting unit and is happily coming off of the bench I want to remind you of one thing. He was injured and out of the lineup for a few games. He did not volunteer anything, injury forced both his and Nate's hand. As of right now he is still on a minute restriction and both of them have agreed he will come off of the bench in the meanwhile. He additionally rolled his ankle in practice on Monday. Right now he is not healed, he still looks very slow and injured to me which honestly is a testament to his will to play. Other players would have taken a lot more time to recover from this injury and this would have been a career ending injury for Jon Bender so he deserves a lot of credit for wanting to be out there.

                              We have won two games in a row, before that we had lost 3. So for now GR3 is in an ideal role and as long as he can produce it will be hard to justify making that change back.

                              But that being said, we have no idea what will happen once Monta is fully healed.

                              All I'm trying to say here is that it would be foolish to believe that Monta has been altruistic and requested or relented to going to the bench. This chance was forced by injury and time will tell if Nate makes this permanent. It would be really overly hard to blame him if it wasn't because a lot of coach's (Larry Brown being the most prominent one here) believe that you don't lose your starting spot due to injury.

                              All of that being said, Monta has stated he is willing to do this if it works. So I'm willing to give him the chance to see if he will.


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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: 1-1-17 Pacers pummel the Magic

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                For all of those who are now excited about Monta to the bench and have somehow deduced that Monta has voluntarily exited the starting unit and is happily coming off of the bench I want to remind you of one thing. He was injured and out of the lineup for a few games. He did not volunteer anything, injury forced both his and Nate's hand. As of right now he is still on a minute restriction and both of them have agreed he will come off of the bench in the meanwhile. He additionally rolled his ankle in practice on Monday. Right now he is not healed, he still looks very slow and injured to me which honestly is a testament to his will to play. Other players would have taken a lot more time to recover from this injury and this would have been a career ending injury for Jon Bender so he deserves a lot of credit for wanting to be out there.

                                We have won two games in a row, before that we had lost 3. So for now GR3 is in an ideal role and as long as he can produce it will be hard to justify making that change back.

                                But that being said, we have no idea what will happen once Monta is fully healed.

                                All I'm trying to say here is that it would be foolish to believe that Monta has been altruistic and requested or relented to going to the bench. This chance was forced by injury and time will tell if Nate makes this permanent. It would be really overly hard to blame him if it wasn't because a lot of coach's (Larry Brown being the most prominent one here) believe that you don't lose your starting spot due to injury.

                                All of that being said, Monta has stated he is willing to do this if it works. So I'm willing to give him the chance to see if he will.
                                Basically you're saying it's foolish to believe Monta. He says he is fine going to the bench moving forward. He is close with PG and PG says that Monta is good for the bench.

                                If you truly are willing to give him a chance, then why are you saying it's "foolish" to think he has "relented to going to the bench?"

                                The bolded contradicts each other.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X