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

Myles is hitting the boards!

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

    I just think you are learning more about my view, not that it's morphing. The evidence you go by is based on the NBA regular season when many players are either resting (see Kawhi) or coasting (because they're not Kawhi and therefore need to behave) or in the midst of a blow-out (see Bucks). That's on top of the fact you have already noted the small sample size. But let's take an example.

    Let's say the games with the Bucks were close. Isn't it common sense that Giannis would more likely go for the rim? Yes, that's speculative but it's no less speculative than relying on stats that don't reflect the fact the game was a blow-out or that Kawhi Leonard was in South Beach rather than BLF. The facts are that the Bucks exceeded their 3 point attempts in both of those blow-outs. You might claim they did that because Myles was in the paint. I would claim they did that because they were up and therefore they were more likely to launch 3's. For one, it's easier physically. Yes, it takes more work to drive and dish. The 3 is riskier but they were up so no biggie. If you've played basketball, especially as draining as NBA play has to be, you understand the temptation to launch 3's when you are way up...and not spend the energy on a drive to the bucket.

    So I just come at this from a different angle. I've seen this team look great in the regular season and then when it gets real they get swept. So, I don't put much stock in the regular season and especially many of the stats. I believe a player is good only when I can tell that teams are trying to stop him and they just can't or they barely do....or when a guy is able to defend with the opposition is clearly trying its best and he gets a stop. IOW, I believe my eyes in a league and era that doesn't get real until the playoffs.

    Edit: Just to crystalize this for you. The Bucks shot 28% and 34% from 3 in those two blow-outs. They average 36.3%. This tells me they weren't going to the 3 to beat the Pacers. They went to it because they were winning and didn't need to drive the bucket. So the negative 20 has to be viewed in this context.
    How can you say that the regular season doesn't count but use every game played as an attempt to validate your reasoning that Myles is not good?

    Also, are you serious about teams deciding to just shoot threes because they are tired and the score allows it? You come up with all these takes that you justify by saying if you ever played basketball this and that. This is not a correct way of presenting your point. You claim authority to validate your point and after that you use that point to serve authority.
    Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post

      How can you say that the regular season doesn't count but use every game played as an attempt to validate your reasoning that Myles is not good?

      Also, are you serious about teams deciding to just shoot threes because they are tired and the score allows it? You come up with all these takes that you justify by saying if you ever played basketball this and that. This is not a correct way of presenting your point. You claim authority to validate your point and after that you use that point to serve authority.
      I'm saying the stats people like to present on PD are almost never good enough to draw conclusions. To combat that, I normally give eye test opinion. I might push some of their stats back at them like the 3 point example where the Bucks crushed the Pacers but launched a bunch of innefficient 3's.. That doesn't mean I believe those stats but it does mean I think stat-lovers give some weight to stats, even those that might not square with the stats they are pushing.

      As for "am I serious about teams deciding to shoot threes because...the score allows it". Absolutely. The fact is, there have been many times in pickup games that I'm beating the tar out of someone, so I rested by just launching 3's. Why work to get to the rim when it's a lot easier to shoot 3's and it didn't matter if I hit because I was so far ahead. IDK. This is so common I'm surprised I'm explaining ti.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

        I have to give him props for grabbing 10 boards each of the last 3 games. That's a significant improvement. Much love.

        So no, I don't think tapping the ball is sufficient. A guy with his size has to be averaging close to 10 boards/game or I just don't have much use for him....unless of course he's hitting 40% from 3 instead of 33% like Myles...or unless he's able to punish guys posting them up, which Myles cannot do.
        Myles is at 34.1 percent from 3.

        And the difference between where he is now, and 40% is 12 made threes over the 50 games he has played. So, you would be a fan of his if he had made one more three-pointer every four games? Man, that is a thin line between “having no use for” and being a good player.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          So no, I don't think tapping the ball is sufficient.
          If it leads to a rebound by the Pacers - it's more than sufficient. It's like a rebound assist. Most often, it's the only way to take a rebound away from the other team. Sure, there are times the other team still gets the board, but it pays off often enough.

          So, if Myles does nothing - it's pretty much the same as him tapping it out ?? And that's EXACTLY what your saying.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

            Myles is at 34.1 percent from 3.

            And the difference between where he is now, and 40% is 12 made threes over the 50 games he has played. So, you would be a fan of his if he had made one more three-pointer every four games? Man, that is a thin line between “having no use for” and being a good player.
            At the time I posted that last night his 3% was 33.8%. The fact it's 34% (34.1%) doesn't mean it's good. Yes, if he made more 3's his percentage would be better. But it isn't. Worse, he's not guarded because he doesn't score much. If he were guarded anything close to Domas (who is often doubled), he would be turning it over constantly.

            Also, never said Myles wasn't a good player. He's just not good enough and I cannot stand the way he moves on the floor and I see all kinds of flaws that will make it very difficult for the Pacers to ever contend with him a center piece.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

              At the time I posted that last night his 3% was 33.8%. The fact it's 34% (34.1%) doesn't mean it's good. Yes, if he made more 3's his percentage would be better. But it isn't. Worse, he's not guarded because he doesn't score much. If he were guarded anything close to Domas (who is often doubled), he would be turning it over constantly.

              Also, never said Myles wasn't a good player. He's just not good enough and I cannot stand the way he moves on the floor and I see all kinds of flaws that will make it very difficult for the Pacers to ever contend with him a center piece.
              If you hate someone it's very hard to admit anything good about Myles...hating much easier ...like if very stable genius would cure Corona virus...i would still hate him with a passion....Myles has his flaws like every player Domas included...he is our starting centre this season and he is playing harder and better...it's good enough for me...#KTTG
              Last edited by pimpis zajoba; 03-01-2020, 05:01 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by pimpis zajoba View Post

                If you hate someone it's very hard to admit anything good about Myles...hating much easier ...like if very stable genius would cure Corona virus...i would still hate him with a passion....Myles has his flaws like every player Domas included...he is our starting centre this season and he is playing harder and better...it's good enough for me...#KTTG
                I don't hate Myles. I even gave him props for his aggressiveness the last few games and he's gotten 10 boards the last several games. Much love. But 34.1% from 3 when you are wide open like him most of the time isn't good. His team mates do not leverage that. He's like a last ditch option because he isn't that good. People say he's not given enough touches but he isn't because if he started becoming a real serious threat he would get shut down and we just cannot rely on that when the team is preparing for the playoffs.

                That's not hate. That's just recognizing that Myles isn't a good offensive player. He's below average as a C offensively...and in today's game offense is king.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                  At the time I posted that last night his 3% was 33.8%. The fact it's 34% (34.1%) doesn't mean it's good. Yes, if he made more 3's his percentage would be better. But it isn't. Worse, he's not guarded because he doesn't score much. If he were guarded anything close to Domas (who is often doubled), he would be turning it over constantly.

                  Also, never said Myles wasn't a good player. He's just not good enough and I cannot stand the way he moves on the floor and I see all kinds of flaws that will make it very difficult for the Pacers to ever contend with him a center piece.
                  So you are rounding down to falsify stats to make your point look better?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                    I don't hate Myles. I even gave him props for his aggressiveness the last few games and he's gotten 10 boards the last several games. Much love. But 34.1% from 3 when you are wide open like him most of the time isn't good. His team mates do not leverage that. He's like a last ditch option because he isn't that good. People say he's not given enough touches but he isn't because if he started becoming a real serious threat he would get shut down and we just cannot rely on that when the team is preparing for the playoffs.

                    That's not hate. That's just recognizing that Myles isn't a good offensive player. He's below average as a C offensively...and in today's game offense is king.
                    Imagine that all your life you played at 5....you comfy and use to it...this year you are asked to play PF offensively....and you're getting no touches...it's not that easy....resent improvements shows that Myles is getting better and more comfortable...when he was strugling i was talking trade too...but he is doing better will be even better in the playoffs .... we can't get anyone else this season so lets be happy with resent improvement and hope for the best in the playoffs....

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

                      So you are rounding down to falsify stats to make your point look better?
                      I wasn't attempting to dminish his numbers. To be honest, whether it was 32, 33 or 34% it doesn't matter because it's bad. If it was sub .300 I might even be more specific. If he can get back to say 36% I would say he was OK. If he hit 38% he'd be a good shooter. If he hit 40% or higher I'd be calling him a sniper and not joking about it.

                      But the fact is, Myles isn't being guarded and he still shoots poorly. For centers that shoot 4 or more 3's per game, he is 10th out 14 in 3 point percentage. That's well below average.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                        I wasn't attempting to dminish his numbers. To be honest, whether it was 32, 33 or 34% it doesn't matter because it's bad. If it was sub .300 I might even be more specific. If he can get back to say 36% I would say he was OK. If he hit 38% he'd be a good shooter. If he hit 40% or higher I'd be calling him a sniper and not joking about it.

                        But the fact is, Myles isn't being guarded and he still shoots poorly. For centers that shoot 4 or more 3's per game, he is 10th out 14 in 3 point percentage. That's well below average.
                        but you must admit 2 clutch 3's in the last 2 games....was not so bad was it?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                          I wasn't attempting to dminish his numbers. To be honest, whether it was 32, 33 or 34% it doesn't matter because it's bad. If it was sub .300 I might even be more specific. If he can get back to say 36% I would say he was OK. If he hit 38% he'd be a good shooter. If he hit 40% or higher I'd be calling him a sniper and not joking about it.

                          But the fact is, Myles isn't being guarded and he still shoots poorly. For centers that shoot 4 or more 3's per game, he is 10th out 14 in 3 point percentage. That's well below average.
                          For someone that claims to not be all about stats, you certainly are putting a lot of stock into 3 point percentage. The difference between 34 percent and 36 percent is 4 made three pointers, over 50 games. That is 12 points over the course of the season so far. That is the difference between well-below average and okay? Another 8 and he’d be a sniper?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by pimpis zajoba View Post

                            but you must admit 2 clutch 3's in the last 2 games....was not so bad was it?
                            Myles has been playing better. I liked the shots as well. But consider this: The Cavs are the worst team in the east. The opposing C, Drummond, was far more productive beating Myles on the boards even when Myles was far above his average. And of course Drummond scored almost 3 times as many points.

                            As for Portland, they are only ahead of 4 teams in the western conference, with Dame out Portland didn't even have their best player available and Myles was totally dominated by the opposing C on the boards and with scoring...for the second game in a row. Hassan even had twice the blocks, Myles calling card as the big rim protector.

                            So sure, props for those shots. But I would take either Whiteside or Drummond in trade.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                              Myles has been playing better. I liked the shots as well. But consider this: The Cavs are the worst team in the east. The opposing C, Drummond, was far more productive beating Myles on the boards even when Myles was far above his average. And of course Drummond scored almost 3 times as many points.

                              As for Portland, they are only ahead of 4 teams in the western conference, with Dame out Portland didn't even have their best player available and Myles was totally dominated by the opposing C on the boards and with scoring...for the second game in a row. Hassan even had twice the blocks, Myles calling card as the big rim protector.

                              So sure, props for those shots. But I would take either Whiteside or Drummond in trade.
                              I would take Myles over Whiteside (really hate that a**hole) everyday and twice on Sunday...Drummond is a good player but a bad fit...according to a lot of lists Myles is a top 10 centre in the NBA....you just dislike him so much...i disliked Aaron like a lot at the begging of the season...now... i am happy how he dose't call his own number anymore and all dislikes are gone...
                              Last edited by pimpis zajoba; 03-01-2020, 05:42 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                                Myles has been playing better. I liked the shots as well. But consider this: The Cavs are the worst team in the east. The opposing C, Drummond, was far more productive beating Myles on the boards even when Myles was far above his average. And of course Drummond scored almost 3 times as many points.

                                As for Portland, they are only ahead of 4 teams in the western conference, with Dame out Portland didn't even have their best player available and Myles was totally dominated by the opposing C on the boards and with scoring...for the second game in a row. Hassan even had twice the blocks, Myles calling card as the big rim protector.

                                So sure, props for those shots. But I would take either Whiteside or Drummond in trade.
                                Pritch wouldn’t

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X