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

Some insight into our current problems?

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

  • Some insight into our current problems?

    No, this has nothing to do with Stephen Jackson.

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/ask_the_pacers.html

    Question for Donnie Walsh | Oct. 17, 2006

    Q. When putting a team together, the press focuses on the starting five and we don't hear much about the supporting cast. It seems the second five, when playing with focus and energy, can make or break your season. How much thought is put into the makeup of the second team? Will they be a mirror of the first five or will they have a different style and pace? (From Steve in Greenfield, Ind.)

    A. I never look at the team from the standpoint of first-team, second-team. I really don't think the starting lineup means anything in the NBA and I'm more concerned with having a team that is flexible both against other teams and flexible as to the style it can play. It is true you want players to be positioned at certain spots you have to have covered – one, two, three, four, five. Up until this year, I would've said you need five players who can defend the post at the four and five, and you need three point guards. The two and three positions are almost mirrors of each other and you want four athletes that are complete players, that can fill those positions. The league has changed so this year we're looking at players that can defend the post but aren't necessarily prototype fours or fives. That keeps us flexible. What you're really looking for now are guys that can come off the bench and play different positions. On this team, it hasn't shaken out yet who's going to start but it's clear you've got a number of guys that can play at least two positions.
    Does this not strike anyone else as a red flag as to why we have problems at PG and C? In both cases until now with JO as the C, we had a lot of decent backups, no one who can consistently hold down the starting spot for a top team. This suggests to me that Walsh may not value true starting-quality players highly enough. I know that may sound silly, but if he truly doesn't think starting positions are important, then how can I not feel at least some concern about reading this?

    Call me crazy, but I'd feel a lot better if my GM spelled out exactly what he wants in a team, and that includes what the starting 5 should look like. Not "I really don't think the starting lineup means anything". That definitely concerns me. I'm just not sure if it concerns me a little or if it concerns me a lot.

  • #2
    Re: Some insight into our current problems?

    I agree with DW except on the starting team stuff.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Some insight into our current problems?

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I agree with DW except on the starting team stuff.
      The "starting team stuff" is the reason I made this thread to begin with. What are your thoughts/feelings/concerns on that?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Some insight into our current problems?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        The "starting team stuff" is the reason I made this thread to begin with. What are your thoughts/feelings/concerns on that?
        I like having a set starting lineup and I like having what I call an "obvious starting lineup" I like having a starting lineup that is obviously the best lineup. The best example of what I'm talking about is the Pistons, the last few years, there was never any doubt who was going to start and there was never any doubt what their best lineup was.

        I'm a firm believer that at winning time you need the same lineup on the court every game.

        Of course that is not always possible to have such an obvious best lineup, but that is what should be worked toward.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Some insight into our current problems?

          It's not who starts, it's who finishes that's important. Your starters just need to get you off to a good start. Too much is made of who starts.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Some insight into our current problems?

            OK JO was complaining for the last 2 years about playing C, so now you are going to say we don't have starting caliber players at C. NO.

            Whats been our problem the last 2 years is we have lacked scoring, particularly in the post. Whether thats a sympton of less perimeter scoring. Or vice versa who knows. And also effort.

            But from what I have seen our problems stem from A) we let a team get off to a quick start and then expend so much energy trying to get back into the game they walk all over us. B) We get a lead and then quit trying and allow the team to catch up and surpass us and then A takes place.

            We need effort on D(Thats like 90% of what D is ) and more scoring. Personally to do that I would take the defensive liability that is Harrison. We need scoring and his D should improve relatively quickly.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Some insight into our current problems?

              Can you take what DW says at face value? Hicks, I'm inclined to agree with you on your point but I'm totally unsure whether DW means what he says or if he's just spinning our current situation a little.

              -Bball
              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


              • #8
                Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                Maybe DW is being a little vague, so as to not step on Birds and RC's toes...depending on who has last say on personnel decisions.

                The starting lineup does matter... its what sets the tone of the game. But ideally you would have the personnel where you could adjust your lineup depending on matchups... while still dictating your style of play. Although that is idealistic because most players can't seperate a defined consistant roll, the skills they bring, and the timeframe in which its required. Not to mention the ego -stroking factor that is involved in todays game.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                  Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I think Hicks has the concern that once we reach the playoffs and the rotation shortens it's better to have defined roles and the best starting caliber players rather than this amazing bench that will not get any playing time.
                  You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                    Originally posted by RWB View Post
                    Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I think Hicks has the concern that once we reach the playoffs and the rotation shortens it's better to have defined roles and the best starting caliber players rather than this amazing bench that will not get any playing time.
                    Basically. I'm convinced you need a ton of consistency to win anything important, and a "it doesn't matter who starts" mindset will never achieve that. Look at the Pacers that went to the ECF or the Finals, you knew who would start every night. The same was true for Detroit in 2004. The closest exception I can think of was Miami last year with switching between Posey and Walker, so I'll grant the other side that but I do consider them to be weak champions so I don't take as much from that personally. Dallas would have broken the mold if they'd not choked the Finals away I suppose. So maybe the lesson there would be it depends on the style you play.

                    I think the style it already looks like we're regressing back to (holding the ball too long with JO and Jackson) needs consistency to execute, or else it's crap. If you don't play uptempo or quick, you need a ton of consistency to get the timings down to where even when the defense knows exactly what you're doing, they can't stop it anyway. This team hasn't had that in years, and with this bunch it still might not get it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                      I read Hicks' concern as Donnie Walsh still believes the key is the quality of players 4-9 in the rotation, not the top 1-3 players.

                      I'm not sure that's what Donnie is saying though.

                      Donnie continues to overvalue "depth" vs. elite players.

                      I think the 1998 ECFs and 2000 NBA Finals should go a long way toward discrediting that approach. We were "deeper" than the Bulls and Lakers, but had no answer for their top two players. And we lost. It was competitive. But we lost.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                        I think the 1998 ECFs and 2000 NBA Finals should go a long way toward discrediting that approach. We were "deeper" than the Bulls and Lakers, but had no answer for their top two players. And we lost. It was competitive. But we lost.
                        This is a really good point if it is not a case of "fighting the last war." Donnie Walsh seems to have a strong sense of significant changes in the NBA, and his statements need to be viewed as preparing for something we've not seen yet.

                        Originally posted by Donnie Walsh
                        Up until this year, I would've said you need five players . . .

                        . . . .The league has changed so this year we're looking . . . .


                        . . . What you're really looking for now are . . . .

                        But, other than disallowing several kinds of contact that used to be routine, prohibiting back-talk to the refs, and giving Dwayne Wade all the foul shots he needs, I don't know what those changes are.

                        Does anyone have a better sense than me of why Donnie thinks depth and interchangeability matter more in the new NBA?
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                          First of all, nice thread and thoughts.

                          For some of us who've had a problem with Donnie over the years, this kinda encapsulates the problems I've had with him. Now, granted, we're interpreting his words eher, but Donnie has always had the mentality of fielding a really good team, then taking the attitude of "Let's see what happens. It's the playoffs, anything can happen. Let's just get there."

                          He eschews the blockbuster/gamble trade in leiu of staying the course. He's made some moves that have surprised and pleased me the past few years that show some balls, but overall, for me, he strives for "good" and not "great"

                          I'm not trying to make this a Donnie bashing session and I know some of you will rush to his defense, but this kind of points out the problem I've had with him. I like what Jay said:

                          I read Hicks' concern as Donnie Walsh still believes the key is the quality of players 4-9 in the rotation, not the top 1-3 players.

                          I'm not sure that's what Donnie is saying though.

                          Donnie continues to overvalue "depth" vs. elite players.

                          I think the 1998 ECFs and 2000 NBA Finals should go a long way toward discrediting that approach. We were "deeper" than the Bulls and Lakers, but had no answer for their top two players. And we lost. It was competitive. But we lo
                          I also agree with Hicks and I think RWB's interpretation..

                          Hicks has the concern that once we reach the playoffs and the rotation shortens it's better to have defined roles and the best starting caliber players rather than this amazing bench that will not get any playing time.
                          ..seems on the mark.

                          Will G, I'm gonna disagree with you. I personally think who starts is EXTREMELY important, because more than likely, whomever starts....finishes, with rare exceptions. Look at the title teams from the past decade. Most of those team's starters were there at the finish.

                          Here's the quote that sums it up for me about Donnie:

                          I never look at the team from the standpoint of first-team, second-team. I really don't think the starting lineup means anything in the NBA and I'm more concerned with having a team that is flexible both against other teams and flexible as to the style it can play. It is true you want players to be positioned at certain spots you have to have covered – one, two, three, four, five.
                          What's been my arguement for years? Donnie build teams for the regular season, but not for titles. A true chamionship team doesn't adapt, so much as force the other team to play THEIR style of basketball.

                          Now, this is just some stream of consciousness on my part with no filtering of what I'm saying. Right now we have a team with the stregth of personality and impact of the Grizzlies. We have for years, now.

                          I'll stop myself before talk about how I think this points even more glaringly to the impact that Larry Brown had on this franchise. Old discussion and we've hashed ti to death, but it comes to mind.

                          I'll shut up now.
                          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                            I think Phoenix is making the entire league rethink things, but the entire league doesn't have Steve Nash.

                            I keep going back to Isiah being right (begrudgingly) when he was here, philosophically. You want basketball players, interchangeable parts, I'm not saying I agree in a pure sense of 10 average ability 6'9" guys, but it is interesting to see that the Suns are the style du jour, and the NBA rules support that now.

                            Phoenix doesn't allow you to play a true big lumbering old school prototypical Center, they would run them off the court.

                            I do think Granger is the player of the future though, can play 2/3/4, rebound, shoot, defend. The Pacers are trying to go there with Shawne, White, and Marquis, too.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Some insight into our current problems?

                              Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                              I'll stop myself before talk about how I think this points even more glaringly to the impact that Larry Brown had on this franchise. Old discussion and we've hashed ti to death, but it comes to mind.
                              Yeah, I read that part and I wanted to puke.
                              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