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

Zach Lowe likes this Pacer team

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

  • Zach Lowe likes this Pacer team

    http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...-territory-nba


    1. The Pacers, rock solid

    Thaddeus Young's blue-collar handsiness has come to symbolize the gritty, underappreciated Pacers, but Bojan Bogdanovic might work better in this sense: He does everything pretty well. Bogdanovic is a shooter by trade, and he's lighting it up from deep. Close out hard, and he slithers into the paint with a calm and decisiveness that surprise if you hold the outdated conception of Bogdanovic as one-dimensional gunner.

    Hide weaker defenders on him, and Bogdanovic can work in the post. He's a physical, smart defender; he made LeBron James earn it in last season's seven-game bloodbath against the Cavaliers.

    There are no holes in his game. There are no holes anywhere on the Pacers. Every rotation player brings something on both ends. They don't have a single great passer, but everyone happily makes simple passes until they cascade into an open look.

    They all compete on every possession. Superstars drive winning at the highest level, but there is power in playing good (or at least non-bad) players 100 percent of your minutes.

    Myles Turner has cleaned up his timing and footwork on defense. Opponent shooting at the rim drops more than 7 percent with Turner on the floor, one of the fattest marks in the league, per Cleaning The Glass. He has improved his rebounding, though the Pacers are still vulnerable when Turner plays without Domantas Sabonis.

    Turner is smarter at what coaches call ignoring the "fluff"-- sussing out when he can take half an eye off his guy to focus on the rim. You can't trick him into caring about Miles freaking Plumlee in the corner.

    I'm pretty sure Sabonis is shooting 100 percent. Tyreke Evans is rounding into form. Aaron Holiday can't even get on the court.

    You can nitpick. Indiana ranks 17th in points per possession; more 3-pointers would help. They're No. 2 on the other end, but they might be getting a little lucky. Only the Bucks yield more 3s as a portion of opponent shots. No team has allowed a lower hit rate on midrange jumpers. Indiana opponents have an effective field-goal mark 2 percent below what we would expect based on the location of each shot and nearby defenders -- the league's second-largest negative differential, per Second Spectrum.

    They won't have the best player against Boston, Philadelphia, Milwaukee or Toronto. (It would be close between Kyrie Irving and last season's Oladipo, but Irving can carry an offense in a way Oladipo can't quite manage. Oladipo hasn't yet found last season's All-NBA level.)


    But these guys are damned good. They have a lot to do with those low opponent shooting percentages. They give absolutely no quarter.

  • #2
    This is the most accurate reflection of this Pacers team Ive seen in the press so far this year.

    Clear that Zach Lowe actually watches the team, and also clear that he sees our strengths and weaknesses.

    To me the real questions are:

    1) When it becomes playoff time, and things inevitably move towards iso-heavy possessions, shortened rotations, and stacked defense, will our winning by committee approach continue to prosper?

    2) Will we find antidotes for teams that defend us with the zone?

    3) Do we have a secondary offensive option if we need to iso in Evans?
    Last edited by docpaul; 01-04-2019, 11:00 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      No great passers? I think Sabonis could qualify.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        No great passers? I think Sabonis could qualify.
        Yeah I quibble with that quite a bit. Though Domas still has his turnover issues. Collison is also a pretty good passer even if he's not at all flashy. Turner is definitely good for the center position. Overall though pretty solid rundown of the Pacers at nearly the half way point of the season.


        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

          Yeah I quibble with that quite a bit. Though Domas still has his turnover issues. Collison is also a pretty good passer even if he's not at all flashy. Turner is definitely good for the center position. Overall though pretty solid rundown of the Pacers at nearly the half way point of the season.
          For a big, Sabonis’ passing is notable for sure. I think increasingly the same could be said for Turner as well. But we have far from a Rondo level passer on the team. It could be argued that it’s not even necessary, because we have a bunch of willing passers that make simple yet effective passes that ultimately lead to the same outcome.

          Nothing truly elite, but more than competent. I think that’s his core point: we are solid and have very few holes.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by docpaul View Post

            For a big, Sabonis’ passing is notable for sure. I think increasingly the same could be said for Turner as well. But we have far from a Rondo level passer on the team. It could be argued that it’s not even necessary, because we have a bunch of willing passers that make simple yet effective passes that ultimately lead to the same outcome.

            Nothing truly elite, but more than competent. I think that’s his core point: we are solid and have very few holes.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
            Fair enough. I'll say this: Sabonis is elite for a center-facilitator. Good passer, excellent scorer himself, sees the floor, understands the offense, makes the right play.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #7
              Apologies if I’m hijacking this thread.

              Given that LA seems fine without him, would anyone agree with a Rondo trade at the deadline? Does anyone think such a move propels the Pacers closer to a finals berth? You lose DC’s shooting percentage but gain defensively.


              Name-calling signature removed

              Comment


              • #8
                "Oladipo hasn't yet found last season's All-NBA level."

                Good article, and this is the only point I take issue with. Oladipo was All-NBA level last year due to need and usage rate. This year his shooting numbers are down, but everything else looks great. Assists and rebounds are both up. Minutes and turnovers are down. My only qualm is his defense seems to have regressed a bit. If anything this year just shows that he is a team player and he doesn't feel the need to push the issue 100% of the time when we have so many weapons. We don't need him going rogue to "find" his All-NBA level. Overall I think Vic is playing great.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Banta View Post
                  Apologies if I’m hijacking this thread.

                  Given that LA seems fine without him, would anyone agree with a Rondo trade at the deadline? Does anyone think such a move propels the Pacers closer to a finals berth? You lose DC’s shooting percentage but gain defensively.
                  Kinda enticing, but I don't know that I'd take that risk. If you get him after a trade and for a short run, maybe he's focused and determined and doesn't have time to screw up chemistry, and you just get his best effort and production. If you could be certain that would work out, then yeah, sign me up. But I can't be certain that would work out. Too many red flags for me to be comfortable with it.

                  But if it doesn't work out, he's an expiring contract and you wash your hands of it and move on, figuring you were going to replace DC anyways this offseason. And the upside is pretty considerable if it works. Could he be our Rasheed Wallace? Or another Andrew Bynum?
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Banta View Post
                    Apologies if I’m hijacking this thread.

                    Given that LA seems fine without him, would anyone agree with a Rondo trade at the deadline? Does anyone think such a move propels the Pacers closer to a finals berth? You lose DC’s shooting percentage but gain defensively.
                    Just on pure numbers it seems like trying to scrape a few more percentage points on defense - where we rank at the top of the league - by giving up offense - where we ... um ... don't - seems like moving the wrong direction.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                      "Oladipo hasn't yet found last season's All-NBA level."

                      Good article, and this is the only point I take issue with. Oladipo was All-NBA level last year due to need and usage rate. This year his shooting numbers are down, but everything else looks great. Assists and rebounds are both up. Minutes and turnovers are down. My only qualm is his defense seems to have regressed a bit. If anything this year just shows that he is a team player and he doesn't feel the need to push the issue 100% of the time when we have so many weapons. We don't need him going rogue to "find" his All-NBA level. Overall I think Vic is playing great.
                      I think that would be a good argument if Oladipo's scoring production was down, but the problem is that his shooting efficiency is well down. If he was picking his spots, his efficiency should be better, but instead it's way worse. I'm not panicking about that yet especially with the knee injury and as you point out his A/TO ratio and his rebounding percentage are both better. But the small drop in his usage rate is not the reason he's having a worse season, he's just not scoring as well as he was last year.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Banta View Post
                        Apologies if I’m hijacking this thread.

                        Given that LA seems fine without him, would anyone agree with a Rondo trade at the deadline? Does anyone think such a move propels the Pacers closer to a finals berth? You lose DC’s shooting percentage but gain defensively.
                        I was thinking about this before reading your post. I would have to think about doing this. Yes you would give up DC's scoring, but if I remember correctly DC doesn't score much in playoff situation games and turns the ball over when heavily pressured. Rondo has the ability to control the pace and set up teammates. Plus his defense is better. My only issue is Rondo seems to be hurt more often as he ages, just like me lol.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The team has a good chemistry right now and seems to be getting better with each passing week. I don't think it makes sense to do a move like that to get Rondo given the circumstances. If they were struggling, had depth problems, that would be a much different situation. We're in a position that unless it looks to be an obvious upgrade and asset to the roster, the font office likely isn't making any moves with players in the starting lineup.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No matter what, it just seems like the Pacers are perpetual underdogs. They probably feel the same way in Denver though. It all boils down to playoffs success because a lot of the media only watch poster dunk and buzzer beater highlights during the regular season. Not Zach Lowe. He's always had good things to say about the Pacers going back at least 4-5 seasons.

                            The Pacers have climbed up to #4 in the Bleacher Report Power Rankings. Others are starting to notice too. The Pacers just need to keep winning and they'll garner more props. They still have a few good nationally televised games ahead and with more wins against the top teams, the NBA slackers in the media will finally catch up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Banta View Post
                              Apologies if I’m hijacking this thread.

                              Given that LA seems fine without him, would anyone agree with a Rondo trade at the deadline? Does anyone think such a move propels the Pacers closer to a finals berth? You lose DC’s shooting percentage but gain defensively.
                              No.

                              Rondo is injured all the time plus right now we have the 3rd best record in the league. Why fix something that isn't broken?

                              As BenR1990 stated, if we were sure Rondo would be healthy and not hurt the chemistry, then yes we should do it. Unfortunately I think that is highly unlikely.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X