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

Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

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

  • #46
    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

    Jack is a much better fit for this offense. Ford likes to dominate theball and O'Brien clearly doesn't want that - so I think Jack needs to be the starter - he's a guy I called for a few seasons ago and went so far as to post on a Blazers forum asking if they would be willing to trade us Jack - at the time the fans cleary were not, but things change.

    But the bigger point that needs to be addressed is Ford or Jack good enough to be the point guards on a really good 50 plus win ECF type team. I say no, unless you have a player such as Wade, Kobe, Lebron. Granger needs someone who can get him the ball in good position - he isn't like Wade, Kobe, Lebron. So we need to upgrade the point guard position. Especially assuming Granger and Rush are inked in at the small forward and shooting guard for the next 8 years. Nice having those two positions filled with two way players. But we need to get a point guard that makes that combo work.

    I always think point guard is the most important defensive player on the team, so I would first look for a defensive player, then a guy who can run the Pacers offense. Really though I love a point guard who is tough physically and mentally.

    I'm just thinking through this, maybe jack is good enough for another year or so because I doyubt next season the Pacers are going to be ready for 50 wins

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Jack is a much better fit for this offense. Ford likes to dominate theball and O'Brien clearly doesn't want that - so I think Jack needs to be the starter - he's a guy I called for a few seasons ago and went so far as to post on a Blazers forum asking if they would be willing to trade us Jack - at the time the fans cleary were not, but things change.

      But the bigger point that needs to be addressed is Ford or Jack good enough to be the point guards on a really good 50 plus win ECF type team. I say no, unless you have a player such as Wade, Kobe, Lebron. Granger needs someone who can get him the ball in good position - he isn't like Wade, Kobe, Lebron. So we need to upgrade the point guard position. Especially assuming Granger and Rush are inked in at the small forward and shooting guard for the next 8 years. Nice having those two positions filled with two way players. But we need to get a point guard that makes that combo work.

      I always think point guard is the most important defensive player on the team, so I would first look for a defensive player, then a guy who can run the Pacers offense. Really though I love a point guard who is tough physically and mentally.

      I'm just thinking through this, maybe jack is good enough for another year or so because I doyubt next season the Pacers are going to be ready for 50 wins
      Though I agree with your analysis between Jack and Ford I still hold the view that, despite Murphy coming much more into his own, Power Forward not Point Guard is our area of greatest need at this point. JMHO.

      I also think we should sign Jack, but not going over 5miln a year. Diener, I like as a fan favorite and his character, but he's dispensable in the end to me. IF he exercises his option and that in the end allows us to resign Jack for no more then 5mln a year then I could live with Ford and him at PG for the coming year and a cheap third PG we pick up somewhere.

      Then, next summer, I think we are in a much better position to deal either one of them, should we decide it's not working out having both or it's too much of a (financial) burden on the team to have two well paid PG's, with neither of them being a top-tier PG, then is the time to deal one of them. Again JMHO.

      Regards,

      Mourning
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

        The key to this whole dilemma is actually Tinsley. The Pacers have to be very thoughtful this off-season. Do we realize there is NO takers for Tinsley? Or is there a market and you don't want to jeopardize any options by putting TJ on the market?

        The thing to do would be trade Tinsley ASAP. Right now another team would be most likely to take him to see what he has over a full off-season workout regiment. They can make sure he gets enough playing time and gets in shape and back in the flow of the game. (I wish the NBA would step in and allow us to showcase him on our summer league team). So with that in mind, we should get something in return for the guy, just to move forward. I would be ecstatic with a Brian Cardinal for Tinsley deal.

        If you can't get rid of Tinsley early in the off-season you just have to move forward IMO and begin trade talks for Ford because teams will be looking to the future around the draft and if they would rather have a veteran PG, it would be the ideal time to trade him instead of waiting until after the draft when teams invested in young PGs. I think if we deal Ford we absolutely draft a PG with our first rounder. I think there will be a terrific market for Ford. A team like Miami would love to have him. He can push the tempo and they have a good young PG in Chalmers who plays excellent defense to help off-set a little of what Ford would bring. Those two would allow Spoelstra to have a ton of flexibility in his rotations.

        Depending on what happens in those two scenarios we can figure out what to do with Jack. How much money do we have? How many PGs still? Those two questions will determine how much of a priority we make re-signing Jack. With Jack, it will be very difficult for me to envision a sign and trade. I feel that if we can afford what he is asking for we will just re-sign him. In order to do a s&t we would be bringing back salary roughly equivalent to money we aren't willing to sign Jack for. Therefore we are spending money that would put us over the LT for players we covet less than Jack. The team's cap situation would benefit more from just letting Jack go. So in my mind we either are re-signing him or letting him walk.

        I prefer Jack because he is more controlled. And I foresee him maturing as a PG more than Ford will. Just my opinion.

        Ideally this is my off-season PG scenario:
        Trade Tinsley for Cardinal.
        Trade Ford for K. Thomas and Kings #23 or #31 overall pick
        Draft T. Williams, Lawson, Maynor, or Flynn at 13.
        Draft best available at #23/31
        Draft J. Pendergraph, T. Gibson, or any of the plethora of projected second round PF's that will be available.
        Re-sign Jack
        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

          Pacergod

          Tinsley has an arbitration hearing on 06/01/2009. Does the organization have to wait to after the hearing to trade him or can they move him @ anytime?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

            Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
            Pacergod

            Tinsley has an arbitration hearing on 06/01/2009. Does the organization have to wait to after the hearing to trade him or can they move him @ anytime?
            Since either trading him or waiving/buying him out would resolve the issue that the arbitration is supposed to cover, probably in Tinsley's favor, I don't think there is a restriction.

            However, it's extremely unlikely that any deal is completed before the playoffs are over.

            EDIT: Comments from the Herb Simon interview seem to think the Pacers are not expecting anything to happen before the arbitration.

            Q: Was there any thought of just cutting Jamaal Tinsley a check so both parties could move forward?

            Simon: Let's leave that for arbitration, but we've thought of everything. It takes two parties to agree. Right now, let's leave it up to arbitration and not talk about it. The thing is it was good for both parties to sever the relationship. With his talent, we thought someone would have picked him by now. We don't want to hurt the guy, but certainly the franchise has been hurt. Let's put it that way.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

              Count is the hearing open to the public?

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                Count is the hearing open to the public?
                I doubt it, but I can't say definitively.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                  It looks like I've missed the boat on this thread and much of what I wanted to say has already been said. I'm going to throw my two cents any way.

                  I do not view either Jack or Ford as "the answer" at the PG position. I would certainly listen to trade offers for either one. If a player like Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holliday, or Tyreke Evans fell to us on draft night, I would love for us to snap them up.

                  That being said, resigning Jarrett Jack would be my first priority if I were Larry Bird. It depends on the price, of course, but I think that Count is much closer in his estimation than T-Bird is. If T-Bird is right and we're going to have to pay Jack $6-7 million, then we need to let him go. I consider Jack in the same category of player as Delonte West, Derek Fisher, Charlie Bell, and Willie Green. All those guys make $3-5 million per year and were all signed in more lucrative FA markets than this year's will be.

                  I believe that you can keep both players, keep them happy, and be successful. I'm an optimist, but I really liked the rotation at the end of the season. I think Ford does an excellent job as a scoring guard off the bench, much the same way Jason Terry does in Dallas. Also, say what you will about the +/- stat, but the Ford/Jack guard combo was only a -1 per 48 minutes for the entire season, according to 82games.com. You may not like what you see out of them as a pair (I'm don't love it, but I think we can live with it), but the statistics do not show them as an ineffective pairing.

                  Now onto the reasons why I'd keep Jack instead of Ford.

                  1. Jack's Brain

                  When I say this, I'm talking about the sum-total of all the non-physical aspects of the game. When you look at these categories, I believe that Jack compares very favorably to TJ Ford. Over the course of the season, Jack showed a superior understanding of both the offensive and defensive concepts that O'Brien tried to instill in the team. On offense he generally made quick decisions either to attack quickly or get the ball out of his hands and run the offense. We've also read countless reports from live game attenders who attest to Jack's "quarterbacking" of the defense, always communicating verbally with other players, and getting everybody in position.

                  Jack has also shown himself to be a high-character player with a lot of leadership qualities. His teammates seem to like him, and nearly all the players (and fans) in Portland seemed genuinely happy to have him back in town when the Pacers visited. I doubt you could say the same for Ford in Toronto.

                  Ford is not bereft of positive mental attributes, but he has certainly demonstrated fewer of them over the course of this season than Jack. For most of the season (prior to his benching, especially) he either did not understand, or chose to not run, the offense. He also suffers frequent mental lapses on defense. Defensively he was most effective guarding constant motion players like Rip Hamilton and Ray Allen. Their motion forced him to maintain his defensive focus. Unfortunately, he's not big enough to really guard those guys and and they'd often shoot over him (Allen) or post him up (Hamilton). Ford also seems to be plagued by inconsistency far more than Jack does. Statistically speaking, neither player was all that consistent this season, but I think that Jack brings a lot more to the floor when his shot's not falling. There were times this season when Ford reminded me a lot of bad Tinsley, continually looking for his own offense even while he was not having success. I never saw that out of Jack.

                  2. Jack is a better shooter than TJ Ford. Though their percentages are similar, Jack shot twice as many 3 pointers as Ford did. Jack's shooting ability is a definite plus in O'Brien's offense. Also, if Danny's really going to improve on his passing, having a PG who can hit a kick-out 3 is a huge positive. That being said, I think that TJ Ford needs to spend this offseason improving his shooting. A good outside shot would make him even tougher to depend.

                  3. Jack is a better defender than Ford. I'll agree that Ford's lateral quickness gives him more defensive potential than Jack, but for this season he was a less effective defender than Jack. Defense at the PG position is a dicey proposition to begin with, as there are a number of PG's who can be unstoppable when they choose. Rajon Rondo is considered to be an elite defender at the position and Derek Rose hung 36 and 11 on him over the weekend. Good PG's can only truly be stopped by good team defense, and I think Jack is far superior to Ford in that aspect of his defensive game. He also lacks the obvious manner of attack (post him up) that Ford does.

                  3. Jack's durability. If I'm going to give a guy money, I want him on the court.

                  There are certainly more reasons that I can't think of right now, but those are certainly the major ones. As I said above, I don't think the Pacers have found the answer at PG, but I think what Jack brings to the table is something I want on my team if I'm a coach or a GM.

                  As for FA's, I think Millsap is too expensive for us even if we don't resign Jack and Diener opts out. Ariza will probably resign with the Lakers after they let Lamar Odom go. I like Bass, a lot. Choosing between Jack and Bass would be very tough for me. The difference, and I'm not sold one way or the other, is that Jack is going to be paid for previous production, and Bass is going to get paid for projected production.
                  "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                  - Salman Rushdie

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                    For those that thinks that Ford's defense can improve.....can you explain to me why you think his defense can continue to improve?

                    Although this isn't true of all players, I am of the impression that Veteran players tend to be get stuck in "old habits" where it's difficult to break out of them. This doesn't mean that a Player cannot improve or "learn new tricks"....I'm just saying that what you see from a Player ( at this stage of his career ) is pretty much what you're gonna get from him.

                    I understand that that JO'Bs defensive Team Defensive System isn't easy to learn.....but is your belief that Ford can continue to improve because you have seen consistent improvement in what he has done on the other end of the court towards the end of the season that leads you to believe this?

                    One more thing, I think that there will be some interest in a Starting Quality PG like Ford this offseason. It's just a matter of what price that Bird sets for him and what they take back in such a trade.
                    Last edited by CableKC; 04-20-2009, 02:22 PM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X