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

Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

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

  • #46
    Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

    SF's AND PF's? LOL I can just picture jermaine o'neal chucking from 3 pt land. He has enough trouble hitting from 15 out...
    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

      With the talent we currently have, the '3' is not a viable weapon to rely upon. JOB is setting himself up to be a one-year coach. I'm constantly amazed at how NBA coaches think. It seems like too often they have a 'system' and expect the players, regardless of their talent, to play within that system. Great coaches, like UCLA's Johnny Wooden, adapted the 'system' to the talent. JW won with small teams who pressed throughout the game and then turned around and kept on winning with teams built around a dominant big man. Obviously, JOB doesn't plan to be a great coach if he thinks he can force a poor-percentage group of players such as the current Pacers to play '3' ball. And, for what it's worth, '3' ball doesn't work even if you have Reggie Miller (which he does not). I'm losing interest in this franchise, rapidly.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

        Many of his Celtic players shot above their career averages while playing in his system. I'll give him some benefit of the doubt.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

          Can we, like, at least reserve judgment on O'Brien's philosophy until after we actually watch a game? Is that possible?

          I for one won't make any judgments until 2008, minimum.

          If you are already unsatisfied with the coach, then you clearly have no interest in giving him a fair chance.
          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
          RSS Feed
          Subscribe via iTunes

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

            Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
            Can we, like, at least reserve judgment on O'Brien's philosophy until after we actually watch a game? Is that possible?

            I for one won't make any judgments until 2008, minimum.

            If you are already unsatisfied with the coach, then you clearly have no interest in giving him a fair chance.
            So we're not allowed to judge him on his previous jobs? Everything he's said jives with what he ran in Boston and Philly.

            If we're not supposed to talk about the coach until the games start, and we're not supposed to talk about the roster until the games start, then Hicks might as well close the Pacers board and we can all go hang out in the Shout Box.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

              I think that's a bit overreactive....

              *realizes this quote will later be thrown in my face*

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                So we're not allowed to judge him on his previous jobs? Everything he's said jives with what he ran in Boston and Philly.

                If we're not supposed to talk about the coach until the games start, and we're not supposed to talk about the roster until the games start, then Hicks might as well close the Pacers board and we can all go hang out in the Shout Box.

                I was refering to the poster that said a) O'Brien is preaching 3-ball and will refuse to adapt his system at all, b) that this will never work for the Pacers, and c) he is losing all interest in the Pacers because of this. I should have quoted him.

                Speculating about strategies and the effective of their strategies is exactly what PD seems to be about. Ripping a coach for what he is and isn't doing before he actually has done anything is a bit much, IMHO.


                It was kind of an offhand comment anyway; I wouldn't read too much into it.
                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                RSS Feed
                Subscribe via iTunes

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                  Who said that? I must've skimmed right past it.

                  I said back in T-bird's original JO'B thread that I thought JO'B was a good enough coach that he would adapt his gameplan to the players he had. I don't think he's a one-trick pony.

                  However, his Celtics teams DID rank #1 and #4 all-time at chucking up three pointers. And he's inherited the worst shooting team in the league. The Sixers didn't fire up the three as often, but way too often for my taste. And comments in today's article are scaring me.

                  Something's got to give, because this has all the makings of trying to force a square 2" peg into a round, 1/4" hole.

                  This team, as currently assembled, would be a below-average shooting team if the players all achieved career highs.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                    Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                    But that's not what we are discussing. You would have to factor out layups, dunks, post play, and mid range jumpers before you got an accurate picture. The only thing we are talking about is long range 2pt shots (ie, 19+ feet) vs. 3pt shots. You very, very rarely see a foul that far out, so you can basically chuck out FT%.
                    Fine. I don't really care. The 20-footer is still a much, much better shot than the 23'9" shot.

                    The extra point you get for occasionally hitting a shot you shouldn't be taking in the first place because you're out of your range is not worth it.

                    And we only have one player on the current roster that should ever take a three-point shot, and that's Murphy.

                    I won't disput the "toe on the line" shot is a bad shot. But one step inside the arc is usually a great shot.
                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                      Originally posted by Jay View Post
                      Found it (finally, now I've got to get back to work. )

                      http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...t=31412&page=2



                      (Note: the original post in the link above uses 2005-06 data.)

                      Which makes the breakeven point 37.6% 3-point shooting (or 41.6% 2-point shooting, depending on your viewpoint.)

                      Using the 2005-06 data, you break even at 40% from behind the arc, and keep in mind the Pacers only hit 72% of their FTs that season, a higher FT% or higher 2FG% raises the breakeven point. (The breakeven point was lower in 2006-07 because the Pacers only hit 46% of their 2pt FGAs. Which is awful. No wonder we were dead last in shooting percent.)

                      (Since I already did the research before I realized I was using the 05-06 stats, I'll leave this in anyway...)

                      Only two teams in league history have hit 40% as a team from behind the arc - the 2000-01 SA Spurs, who only attempted 1094 3FGAs but had excellent shooters such as Kerr, Ferry, Elliott, and even Antonio Daniels, Terry Porter, and Derek Anderson shooting >= 40%.

                      http://www.basketballreference.com/t...S&lg=n&yr=2000

                      And the 03-04 Kings with Peja (they shot 1498 as a team and Peja's 43% was about 1/3 of their total attempts.)

                      http://www.basketballreference.com/t...C&lg=n&yr=2003

                      While I'm playing around with the stat searcher at basketball reference, the all-time leader in 3FGAs was Jim O'Brien's 02-03 Celtics and the #4 alltime 3FGA team was JOB's 01-02 Celtics. (The 04-05 Sixers were only #42 all-time. Slackers.)

                      This scares me.
                      Are these stats accurate? My understanding has always been that you don't get counted for a missed FG if you are fouled. This means that in that analysis, Free throw attempts are only earned on FGA's that aren't recorded as such. FGA's are basically only missed shots, and are basically not connected to FTA in any way. The only time you get credited with a FGA and also shoot free throws is if you make the shot.

                      While I certainly agree that attacking the basket will yield more free throws, this train of thought is flawed in that the two stats are very hard to corrolate, and also that the discussion is about long 2 vs. 3. Most free throws are earned on drives to the basket and post play.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                        Wow the tempers, pessimism, and bad sarcasm really come out in the offseason. i would hate to see some of you if the Pacers were a cellar dweller for awhile

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                          Wow the tempers, pessimism, and bad sarcasm really come out in the offseason. i would hate to see some of you if the Pacers were a cellar dweller for awhile
                          I often wonder how some fans of this mold get enough joy or fun out of this to even bother.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                            I should also point out that I'm a huge fan of drawing fouls. The late '90s teams were great at getting other teams into foul trouble. In some ways, you can make your "defense" better if you can get one of their best players/scorers in foul trouble and force them to the bench. I think, more than anything, this is what made us, statistically speaking, a good defensive squad during that period.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                              Am I the only one concerned that we are one of the worst shooting teams in the league that is going to have an offense that emphasizes shooting behind the 3pt line?

                              I'm lost...have we acquired that shooter that Bird said that we were going to get?

                              Sorry.......Rush doesn't count in my book.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 07-07-2007, 02:24 AM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Bird tells Shawne not to shoot threes, O'Brien tells him to shoot the three

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                Am I the only one concerned that we are one of the worst shooting teams in the league that is going to have an offense that emphasizes shooting behind the 3pt line?

                                I'm lost...have we acquired that shooter that Bird said that we were going to get?

                                Sorry.......Rush doesn't count in my book.
                                I think the FG% might be a little misleading, due to how poorly we finish inside. I'm too lazy/busy right now, but is there a ranking for 3P%, and where do we rank there?

                                In all honesty, Murphy, Granger, and Williams are all solid three point shooters. Rush should be as well. Really, that's 4 guys who could shoot 40% for the season. Assuming Tinsley continues working on it, he could actually hit 35%, as long as he doesn't get injured and get rusty like most seasons. My main concern is what happens if Tinsley goes south and Marquis is in the game? We have a lot of lineup combinations where our only credible three point shooter is our center or PF/SF. In O'Brien's system, I think you really need 3 solid threats and a real slashing threat for it to work, and I'm not sure we can keep 3 on the floor at all times. Getting Mo Williams would really help, but I think he's going to want too much money.

                                EDIT: We tied for 15th in the league in 3P% according to ESPN at 35% (they have us at 22nd, but they don't give enough decimal places to verify it). That's not great, but it's not horrible either, and Shawne and Danny, and probably Dunleavy will improve this season in that regard, not to mention that upgrading from Rawle Marshall to Kareem Rush will help. I think it's a little concerning, but it's not the nightmare it looks like on first glance.
                                Last edited by Eindar; 07-07-2007, 06:33 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X