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

Odd thoughts about losing to philly.... (special video reports added on post #20)

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

  • #16
    Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly....

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Tins has just played the backcourt too relaxed this year on both ends (lots of assists, but he hasn't been aggressive like you see DA, McLeod or even Greene when he controls his dribble at least). Add to this his horrible FG% and I'd say that it had a lot more to do with that then it did with low post sets.

    That's pretty much it. Outside of a few fullcourt passes and postups, Tinsley's done nothing on the offensive end to put pressure on the defense. Most of his assists come from handing the ball to another player and then they do the work to make the shot. I have to say though, Tinsley's effort on defense has been a lot better in the past five or so games. The results aren't much better, but there's a least a little fight through picks now, and his hands are up more.





    BTW, MDJ is now at 44.6 FG% with the Ps and 44.8 FG% on the year. His 3 numbers are still down, but I wouldn't call 44.6 bad shooting. Actually, he's tied for 39th out of 177 guards, so that puts him in the top 25%.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly....

      Bah. I made a youtube version, but the audio is so out of sync it's horrible and you miss the ending.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3srH1gwH50

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly....

        Originally posted by imawhat View Post





        BTW, MDJ is now at 44.6 FG% with the Ps and 44.8 FG% on the year. His 3 numbers are still down, but I wouldn't call 44.6 bad shooting. Actually, he's tied for 39th out of 177 guards, so that puts him in the top 25%.
        And for perspective, JO is 44.7 FG% this season with the Pacers.

        -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


        • #19
          Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly....

          HAHA at the youtube video.

          We need more of these.
          Super Bowl XLI Champions
          2000 Eastern Conference Champions




          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly....

            Finally! I got it to convert to divx. Shrunk that sucker from over 60MB to exactly 6MB.

            http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/pe...uck031007.divx

            And since we're on the subject, here is another earlier report from Peck, with a rebuttal from Roaming Gnome.

            http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/peck021007.divx 2MB

            http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/ro...ome021007.divx 500KB

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly.... (special video reports added on post #20)

              More! More!

              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly.... (special video reports added on post #20)

                I'm not even going to watch that

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly.... (special video reports added on post #20)

                  Most of his assists come from handing the ball to another player and then they do the work to make the shot.
                  I wouldn't go that far. I mean this is a guy that has made assists and his own layups by sending the ball through the legs of a big in the last couple of weeks (for the pass or his own dribble).

                  But it's just that in the last 2 years we saw a guy that often could put on an NBA Street clinic with his handles, and it led to something too. Now he's not nearly as flashy, which might sound good but in this sense I mean it more like he's showing less handles "firepower". He doesn't seem as skilled at attacking as he did in years past.

                  Two years ago I thought he was headed for certain tier 2 PG status. But he's fallen back to middle of the road, sometimes slightly below average even.


                  I think I counted five Dunleavy curls in the first half.
                  They did variations. That baseline cross screen (for DG to go corner using Dun) and then Dun up the lane using 2 downscreens to curl and catch was one. But then later they ran him from about 3-4 feet off the mid-post around a Jeff elbow screen for a similar catch and shoot (but not the same play, much simpler situation for that).

                  They ran a ton of sets and lots of motion, MORE plays than I think we've seen run with Tins out there. Maybe that's the reason why RC is constantly calling stuff, because maybe normally they aren't running through the playbook enough and he's trying to curb the plodding freelance crap.

                  See that's the irony of it all, people think letting players go on their own means MORE motion. It doesn't. That's because coordinating everyone freelance style doesn't work. That's why they have plays in the first place.

                  If the PG and PF just start working their own 2 man game, WTF am I doing on the other side as the SF? Do I cut now, later, do I set a screen, come out to pick for the PG? I have no idea what they want from me in those situations, so I end up standing and watching, trying to figure out how I can help.

                  Plays, even "read and react" plays give me something to do that will mesh with the other players and result in people getting the ball where they want it (like Dun's jumpers).


                  So people wanting Rick to "free up" Tinsley aren't thinking it all the way through. Rick is trying to ensure that EVERYONE is involved in each set, everyone is moving if possible before the ball finally reaches the attack point (the shooting option).

                  When Tins comes down and they just start winging it you might catch something early, but just as likely you take everyone out of it as they end up watching and trying to figure out what to do next.


                  Without the predominance of low post isolation ball....
                  Sure, except when they posted Ike, David and even Dunleavy. But otherwise this never happened in the game.

                  Freaking Ike took FOURTEEN shots, not a single one from outside the paint. Remind me again how many FGAs JO is taking per night? I'm thinking of a number around 16.5. And last I heard a lot of fans were actually complaining that too many of JO's shots are jumpers and fadeaways, so less shots in the low post.


                  BTW, they did LOSE THE GAME remember, to a non-playoff team at Conseco with Philly coming off a game the night before even.

                  Because JO wasn't in it's okay? Because I'm pretty sure that if JO DID play you and other non-JO fans would be using this as further proof that he's not good enough. Well WFT does it mean about the guys that DID play? It means that without JO this team is one of the worst teams in the NBA.

                  What draft pick is going to boost a bottom feeder to playoff caliber in his first season (what JO is doing for them right now)? Oden, maybe Durant. And just how will they do that if you don't want to see too much post offense?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly.... (special video reports added on post #20)

                    "Ooo, that's on tape!"

                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly.... (special video reports added on post #20)

                      Shareef Abdur-Rahim? Where does he come up with this stuff?
                      ...Still "flying casual"
                      @roaminggnome74

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly....

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        Finally! I got it to convert to divx. Shrunk that sucker from over 60MB to exactly 6MB.

                        http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/pe...uck031007.divx

                        And since we're on the subject, here is another earlier report from Peck, with a rebuttal from Roaming Gnome.

                        http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/peck021007.divx 2MB

                        http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/ro...ome021007.divx 500KB

                        Techies out there -


                        I cannot hear the audio and when I click on the link, the video starts in Windows media player but no audio.

                        anything I need to download?
                        ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly....

                          Originally posted by pacerwaala View Post
                          Techies out there -


                          I cannot hear the audio and when I click on the link, the video starts in Windows media player but no audio.

                          anything I need to download?
                          never mind.

                          saved the files and watched them in a Divx player!
                          ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly.... (special video reports added on post #20)

                            On the Rick calling or not calling plays. Rick let the point guard call the plays quite a bit last night. It isn't like when Rick doesn't tell the point guard what to run - that they just not run a play at all. They do run a play, one of the plays Rick has taught them, one of the plays in Rick's playbook - the only difference is the point guard chooses the play.
                            I understand the point here from you and Peck, and I agree. In fact that was my point as well. Meaning that Rick was running the show, just that in this case he didn't have to constantly remind guys of the system.

                            Maybe the question should be why is he normally having to be up "reminding them" of what to run next. Why do you think he was apparently comfortable with MCLEOD calling out sets but isn't okay with Tins doing it?

                            Maybe he doesn't have to fight with McLeod to get him to buy into a system.

                            I mean let's be analytical here. Normally RC can be seen calling out plays. Suddenly Tins sits and JO is out and RC doesn't have to do any of that, but the team still runs modestly complex sets involving all sorts of secondary screens, screen the screener and plays where the PG has an option of where to pass the ball.

                            And on top of that they still put Ike, David and Dun in the low post, so they didn't give up on scoring in the paint (in fact they led the Sixers in paint scoring, at least at halftime). Meanwhile they were getting thier butts kicked in transition offense (again at halftime, something like 16-6 despite the Pacers leading in TOs created at that point).


                            I'm coming off so defensive because I hear stuff that sounds critical of Rick's "slog ball". You (Peck) yourself rip on this. Do you guys REALLY think that the playbook was totally overhauled in one freaking day? Oh, JO is gone, let's learn by heart 10 new sets that our new PG can call out without me reminding him, that should run smooth as silk.

                            Not bloody likely. More like these were Rick's plays from all along, part of his "slog ball" style of play, and they were just being run better.

                            Teams do not change their style in 3-4 days. They just don't.


                            And I also strongly suggest that it is in the eye of the beholder because of this very fact (that quick change is hard to pull off). I went back to closely watch for some of the problem areas, and frankly they were still there.

                            Those terrible TO's by Tinsley - DA had them, so did Keith. Bad passes right to Dre on a PnR, Army gambles for a charge, gets one, then gets burned the next 4 times either for easy scores in the lane or a foul. Dunleavy gets torched by Green in the first, gets switched onto Iggy for the early 3rd and gets torched by him too (Quinn didn't ID him, but he complained about Iggy being allowed to go to the lane so freely right after Dun let it happen).

                            My point is this, it really didn't look all that great. It still was a home loss to Philly, and it came with a plus 50% night of shooting for Indy. I don't buy into looking good while losing. Losing to a great team that just beats you, okay, but Philly is still only a .500 club since the trade.

                            The game was lost by those bad passes, that bad defense, and all the other usual suspects that PD posters rant about when they are done by different uniform numbers.


                            Ultimately my posts in this thread and most of my other argumentative posts in the last 6 months is simply this - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Enough of "I liked that pass so I'll ignore the next 2 that end in turnovers".

                            17 turnovers, they gave up 4 more points despite taking 9 more shots and shooting 50% with those extra shots.

                            It wasn't BS calls by the refs, it was things like McLeod having to chase down a TO breakaway and foul someone to save the easy layup. Over and over that stuff happened, or a guy got beat on the perimeter and resulted in a help defender getting called for a foul.

                            Isn't that why people didn't like watching the Tins\Jack\JO Pacers? Still happening, and then called better basketball no less.


                            The Positive:
                            I saw signs of improvement in player identity. Dunleavy's offensive role is being figured out and adjusted. That's good. Greene is a STRONG defender, though we knew that. That works when he's the helper out there rather than the main PG. Murph has adjusted to driving to the basket with his 3 off and on, turning into more of Croshere role.

                            They need that, they need to figure out what they have and what they can be to the team. But they also need JO and Quis back, and old Tins too. They need TALENT to go with all that. And they need RC's playbook and a commitment to it so he doesn't have to call stuff out every 5 seconds in order to be sure a full set will get run.

                            What we saw vs Philly clearly is not enough to win games, it's enough to keep fans happy for 3-4 games because it seems new, and then they realize it's going nowhere and get sick of it too.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly....

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Finally! I got it to convert to divx. Shrunk that sucker from over 60MB to exactly 6MB.

                              http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/peck_unclebuck031007.divx

                              And since we're on the subject, here is another earlier report from Peck, with a rebuttal from Roaming Gnome.

                              http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/peck021007.divx 2MB

                              http://www.able-towers.com/~hicks/roaminggnome021007.divx 500KB
                              See Buck. See Buck Run. Run, Buck, Run.

                              You had better bring that to the forum party. There are sure to be many, many classic quotes this time around.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Odd thoughts about losing to philly.... (special video reports added on post #20)

                                Meanwhile, Peck, what are you doing to Buck and Gnome.

                                Foster = Harrison? Oh brother. You shouldn't be allowed near those 2 anymore. If I'd known that this is what was going on at BW3s when Gnome called me I would have grabbed a cab and rushed over to put a stop to it.

                                I can only assume blackmail or drugs were involved.



                                Also, kidding and rants aside, as I review some of the debate I don't think we are that far apart on most of our views from the Philly game.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X