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

Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

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

  • #16
    Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

    Originally posted by spreedom View Post
    Steve Kerr's really blatant bias towards the Spurs is nauseating at times.. when I watch TNT, with one of the Spurs' division rivals playing, I just know Kerr is going to do color on it, and I know he's going to be talking about the Spurs the entire time. He's brutal.

    He did, however, print my e-mail in a column a few weeks ago, so that's pretty cool!
    i'm glad someone else sees it, i dont know if its still the case but it used to be that all of his yahoo articles were about the spurs

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      I don't think the All-Star game is as big a deal to JO as you make it out to be. He's opted out at least once.
      But he's complaining about being called a center whether he's effectively playing center or not.

      -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


      • #18
        Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

        I don't see how this move would make this team any better at all. David Harrison hasn't proven to be effective and he's not getting many minutes so far this year. He's averaged 16 a game for his career and alot of those came due to injuries. He may have an intriguing offensive game and some good size, but he lacks any discipline on the other end of the floor and hasn't shown he's willing to bang for boards consistently. He does get the occasional thunderous dunk or in your face block but there are a couple of guys ahead of him in the rotation because he's not as good as they are. While Josh Powell and Ben Wallace are the same height, I'm sure Powell would even roll his eyes if someone told him he could play center because Ben does. Powell hasn't even suited up yet and I think that speaks volumes as to what the coaching staff thinks about him. If they thought this guy could get off the bench he'd be active. He's not so therefore you have to assume they aren't just trying to keep him a secret until the playoffs.
        I'm in these bands
        The Humans
        Dr. Goldfoot
        The Bar Brawlers
        ME

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

          Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
          He wanted to be a PF before Shaq went East.

          Having seen JO break down the last two seasons playing bigger guys makes me agree with JO that it does matter.
          Same here!
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

            Following the season, Popovich and general manager R.C. Buford searched for a big man who could help them play their preferred defensive style. The league was going through a downsizing trend, with more and more teams playing smaller, quicker lineups, so the plodding Nesterovic and Mohammed were unloaded.

            Popovich and Buford went after the more agile Elson, a restricted free agent with the Nuggets. Their timing was right because Denver was in the midst of giving Nene Hilario a $60 million deal, and with a loaded frontcourt and huge salary-cap concerns, the Nuggets failed to match San Antonio's three-year, $7 million offer. Popovich was intrigued by Elson's combination of size and quickness, but admittedly, he wasn't sure what he was going to get.
            This is missleading. After Ben Wallace chose Chicago, the Spurs first attempted to resign Mohammad, then went after Pryzbilla. Both players would have commanded most or all of their MLE. It was only after those attempts failed that they landed on their current situation of splitting their MLE for Elson and Bonner (I think it was Bonner).

            As for Elson, I think a lot is being made about him for one game. Cro did well in that game as well and I think the reason both players did well is that everyone else was old hat. The new elements were the only ones that neither team had a playoff tested game plan as to how to counter. Since that game, the Spurs have been going with Oberto at C more than Elson, but thats only been 2 games and one was the 2nd of a back-to-back. Of course Dallas is a huge matchup for the Spurs and regardless of how he does against anyone else, if he produces against them he's worth the small price tag he came with.

            As for Steve Kerr's bias: My first reaction to the thread title was "How extrodinary that Kerr would write a positive article about the Spurs...."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

              Originally posted by Fool
              This is missleading. After Ben Wallace chose Chicago, the Spurs first attempted to resign Mohammad, then went after Pryzbilla. Both players would have commanded most or all of their MLE. It was only after those attempts failed that they landed on their current situation of splitting their MLE for Elson and Bonner (I think it was Bonner).
              There was bad blood between the Spurs & Nazr by the time last season ended so the Spurs were never really serious about re-signing Nazr, nor was Nazr ever serious about wanting to come back. The Spurs & Nazr put on the false happy face in case someone wanted to work an S&T which would have benefitted them both, but nothing materialized.

              Pryzbilla they were serious about signing, and they offered their full MLE for 4 years, but Portland offered that 5th year and Pryz took the money. The Spurs were firm on not going 5 years because they're setting up for capspace in 2010 when Duncan & Ginobili's deals come off the books.

              The Spurs ended up splitting their MLE on Butler & Elson, not Bonner. They got Bonner as part of the Rasho deal.

              As for Steve Kerr's bias: My first reaction to the thread title was "How extrodinary that Kerr would write a positive article about the Spurs...."
              What do you mean? I find Kerr to be a great analyst who's always completely objective and never shows any bias whatsoever.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

                Yeah, my only complaint is that the article makes it sound like Pop and RC were visionaries for going with such an untested player as their C, when in reality they prefered several different options prior to landing on Elson. That said, they still did go with Elson so they deserve credit for that.

                As for Nazr, I was aware that the Spurs relationship with him and his with the Spurs wasn't the best but I thought the Spurs did give him an official offer of at least 3/4 of their MLE. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if not I don't think you can say the Spurs were "never really serious" about signing him.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Apparently JO thinks it matters... Tho for the life of me I don't know why he cares so much whether he's announced as a center or power forward.

                  -Bball
                  I thought this was fairly obvious? He wants to go to the All-Star game, and his best opportunity is as a PF.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    Isn't Ben Wallace 6'9"?

                    EDIT: This shouldn't be about classification, we're not talking about a fantasy league. I think JO matches up well with strong, athletic inside men. And I'm pointing to how Duncan has been paired up with similar players to suggest that it's worth a shot.

                    I do think Powell is a good compliment to JO, just as I thought Dale Davis would have worked well in that role also.

                    As for wether or not these guys are classified as Centers or Power Forwards, I don't think that matters.
                    Isn't Ben Wallace a physical rock compared to someone like JO or Powell? Powell is not a big brawny guy. To me his game is a JO clone and he is more of a back-up PF than a C.

                    Foster and Harrison are both much more imposing as a physical center than Powell is. Powell is SMALLER than Granger and Harrington. He looks to be a really solid PF, don't get me wrong, but he's not some magic "big" that helps at center all that much.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

                      Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                      Having seen JO break down the last two seasons playing bigger guys makes me agree with JO that it does matter.

                      Whether or not he likes it, he's been our starting center for a while now. Or maybe you could argue that we haven't been starting a center. Neither Jeff Foster nor Al Harrington was more of a center than JO.

                      I was half joking about the All Star thing, but I do believe it matters to him a good deal to be continually voted in as a starter.

                      But I think the biggest reason he is still classified as PF internally within the Pacers offense anyway is because the offense is structured with respect to a number system (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). For JO to be re-classified as the 5, he would have to initiate his offense from a different starting location than the 4 spot he's been playing since Rick and company put their sets together. Either that or Rick would have to switch things around to cater to an offense that utilizes the 5 in a way that is better suited to having your best offensive player there.

                      It's a lot easier just to throw Al into the 5 since he's new and has to learn new positioning/rotation/spacing anyway, rather than disrupt the flow on offense by having two guys trying to remember where to set up each time down the floor during set schemes.

                      This way, Tins stays 1, Jax stays 2, Granger stays 3, JO stays 4 and only the outsider Al needs to adjust, as he would have to regardless of his official position.

                      So, from the team's perspective, I believe it's really more about offensive continuity than bowing to the whim of Jermaine O'Neal. It's just easier this way.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Kerr gives good analysis of the Spurs' use of a "two center" defensive system

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Isn't Ben Wallace a physical rock compared to someone like JO or Powell? Powell is not a big brawny guy. To me his game is a JO clone and he is more of a back-up PF than a C.

                        Foster and Harrison are both much more imposing as a physical center than Powell is. Powell is SMALLER than Granger and Harrington. He looks to be a really solid PF, don't get me wrong, but he's not some magic "big" that helps at center all that much.
                        Powell looks a heck of a lot stronger and bigger than the 225 he's listed at.

                        Anyway, let's forget about Powell. How about Harrison?
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X