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

Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

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

  • #16
    Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

    Personally, I think Dunleavy's game is more dependent on the team playing cohesively, and therefore is hurt more than anyone else when things go off the rails. That being said, I also think he tends to deflect - a lot - and when he struggles, he takes it out on those around him. An understandable, but not particularly desirable, trait.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

      Originally posted by count55 View Post
      Personally, I think Dunleavy's game is more dependent on the team playing cohesively, and therefore is hurt more than anyone else when things go off the rails. That being said, I also think he tends to deflect - a lot - and when he struggles, he takes it out on those around him. An understandable, but not particularly desirable, trait.
      This is what I was going to say, except you said it better.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

        If it was a single specific player you would think things would get better when that player sat down.

        I don't think one guy is screwing everything up, I think everyone is off the mark a little bit but in such different directions that it leaves a gaping hole.

        Sorry, UB, but this part I kind of have to lay at JOB's feet. Not because of his substitution patterns or love for a particular player, but because the way to fix this is with a large palette of set plays that get everyone on the floor going in the same direction. If everyone is doing read-and-react then it is urgent everyone is on the same page - since they are not, they can't get coherent.

        It isn't because they mean to be selfish or dislike each other or even that there's some kind of locker room issue. It is that they aren't thinking the same way on the floor, which is vital for a free-flow offense.

        What I then think happens is that bad offense leads to desperation on defense, where it is also easy to knock guys off their timing because they aren't focusing on defending, they are focusing on what they have to do to get a score next time.
        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


        • #19
          Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          Personally, I think Dunleavy's game is more dependent on the team playing cohesively, and therefore is hurt more than anyone else when things go off the rails. That being said, I also think he tends to deflect - a lot - and when he struggles, he takes it out on those around him. An understandable, but not particularly desirable, trait.
          That maybe be true. But I also believe and trust Mike 100% on this issue which he is commenting on. Should he make it public (although he didn't name any names, but by not naming names he leaves everyone open for scrutiny) no, but I believe Mike 100% if he says it is a problem I will take his word on that 100%

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

            Danny sure seems to be supporting O'B, which is good as the leader of the team, and it is also good that he is being vocal about it.

            Dunleavy's statement is layered, and with a purpose. It seems that he is saying that there is a lack of effort, which is obvious to even casual observers. But, he is also saying something very seperate from that as well, which could reflect poorly on both some of the players basketball IQ as well as the ability of the coaching staff to communicate and teach what it is that they are trying to implement with yet another roster.

            Yes, the players have a difficult time with knowing where they are supposed to be. That changes every single time the lineup changes. Without full understanding of a system that they have never seen successfully implemented anywhere in professional basketball, and no template to follow, it would probably be mind boggling to make adjustments to as many lineup changes as have been required for either injury, chemistry, or performance issues while still trying to understand what it is, exactly, that O'B wants from them. Dunleavy being singled out by O'B as a genius previously probably shows that he is one of the players who does understand what O'B wants, but he probably also realizes, and is frustrated by, the fact that there continues to be issues that most teams are able to use training camp and preseason, and sometimes the early part of the regular season, to get squared away.

            Players are then left hanging and look bad, and very likely are dressed down by the coaching staff for not following the plan when, in their heart of hearts, they believe that they (as individuals) in fact are not only following the plan (whether they are or not), but are also doing what they can to make up for the deficiencies of other players not following the system. That would have to be extremely upsetting.

            So, do we continue to shake up the roster with trades before the deadline and then watch the rest of the season while we bull ahead on a foundation built on the "quick"sand of the 3 based offense that comes apart regularly due to fatigue and lack of effort, or do we get to the heart of the matter and begin to make the long term change required for the health of the franchise in the long term based on fundamental basketball with sustainable paced offense and a focus on defense predicated on keeping yourself between your man and the basket with weakside help as required, and then see what players can and cannot follow such a basic plan, and once isolated, trade them as opportunities arise with an eye toward assembling a team that can do so?

            My guess is that we will keep O'B, and try, yet fail, to make trades that do anything but accept salary dumps from other franchises that provide us with name players with additional bloated contracts that mesh OK with the gap that we have in place in future years, with the thinking being that names that are second tier yet recognizable players will attract casual fan interest and get people to come to Conseco between now and April, when the deadline for negotiations with the CIB for a major portion our financial future concludes.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

              Originally posted by able View Post
              First of all I would have highlighted the part done above, after removal of TJ one would think that few of those players were left.
              Since it is Granger saying it, I am pretty sure he is not thinking of himself, and we can exclude Hibbert and Rush as well I think, that leaves precious few players (in the starting line and on the bench)

              With Head and Watson as unlikely candidates as well, that leaves hmm let me see, Tyler, Dantay, Solo and Murphy.

              Shall I leave it to the reader what to make of that ??
              Can't be Ty or Solo...they don't play enough minutes to impact squat. TJ is in the doghouse.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                Sorry, UB, but this part I kind of have to lay at JOB's feet. Not because of his substitution patterns or love for a particular player, but because the way to fix this is with a large palette of set plays that get everyone on the floor going in the same direction. If everyone is doing read-and-react then it is urgent everyone is on the same page - since they are not, they can't get coherent.
                No problem, I didn't intend to try and keep O'Brien out of the discussion entirely, just didn't want the thread to turn into everything is JOB's fault. I'm more than willing to accept that the coaching staff deserves some blame as well

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  If it was a single specific player you would think things would get better when that player sat down.

                  I don't think one guy is screwing everything up, I think everyone is off the mark a little bit but in such different directions that it leaves a gaping hole.

                  Sorry, UB, but this part I kind of have to lay at JOB's feet. Not because of his substitution patterns or love for a particular player, but because the way to fix this is with a large palette of set plays that get everyone on the floor going in the same direction. If everyone is doing read-and-react then it is urgent everyone is on the same page - since they are not, they can't get coherent.

                  It isn't because they mean to be selfish or dislike each other or even that there's some kind of locker room issue. It is that they aren't thinking the same way on the floor, which is vital for a free-flow offense.

                  What I then think happens is that bad offense leads to desperation on defense, where it is also easy to knock guys off their timing because they aren't focusing on defending, they are focusing on what they have to do to get a score next time.
                  I think this is all valid, and I think more set plays could settle things down, offensively, for a short while. However, I don't think it's a long term solution (nor am I sure that there is a long term solution with this roster.)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    That maybe be true. But I also believe and trust Mike 100% on this issue which he is commenting on. Should he make it public (although he didn't name any names, but by not naming names he leaves everyone open for scrutiny) no, but I believe Mike 100% if he says it is a problem I will take his word on that 100%
                    I agree that it is a problem. It often seems as if these guys just met each other when they got to the arena.

                    However, I also think that Dunleavy is playing horribly right now. Part of that is due to what other guys are doing (or not doing right), but a lot of that is on him. My basic point is that he's a part of the problem, (at times, a very large part of the problem).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                      Originally posted by count55 View Post
                      I agree that it is a problem. It often seems as if these guys just met each other when they got to the arena.

                      However, I also think that Dunleavy is playing horribly right now. Part of that is due to what other guys are doing (or not doing right), but a lot of that is on him. My basic point is that he's a part of the problem, (at times, a very large part of the problem).
                      Sure he's part of the problem he isn't playing well, but I don't think his problem is not knowing where he needs to be offensively or defensively.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                        Originally posted by able View Post
                        First of all I would have highlighted the part done above, after removal of TJ one would think that few of those players were left.
                        Since it is Granger saying it, I am pretty sure he is not thinking of himself, and we can exclude Hibbert and Rush as well I think, that leaves precious few players (in the starting line and on the bench)

                        With Head and Watson as unlikely candidates as well, that leaves hmm let me see, Tyler, Dantay, Solo and Murphy.

                        Shall I leave it to the reader what to make of that ??
                        To be fair......of course Granger isn't going to think of himself as being selfish. But to everyone else....who I'd guess ( in some way ) think the same way, I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the Team thought the same of Granger himself. How many times have we seen the 5 Players on the floor moving, cutting, setting screens....and then all of a sudden, Granger get the ball and all that movement stops and everyone stands and wait for him to shoot the ball?

                        The most logical choices of who'd likely be considered "selfish" on the offensive end would be Granger, Murphy and Inferno. I wouldn't be surprised if Granger was referring to Inferno....cuz we have seen them bicker on the floor...on top of that...we have seen that JO'B and the rest of the Team has been p*ssed off at him for not looking to make that extra pass. But I wouldn't be surprised ( as well ) if the rest of the Team sees Granger as equally selfish on the offensive end.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 01-21-2010, 11:26 AM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                          Losing team grumbling about losing, that's my take away. Sad that it's turning into finger pointing. I'm pretty sure most of these guys won't be around in two years, so I'm not too worried about it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                            if players are being selfish or don't know where they are...then they are just not giving a damn about the system...and if players don't care about the system - it pretty much makes it sound like they tuned out the coach...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                              What I can't understand is what is the big change from last year? This current team has no resemblence to last years.

                              Last Year every game was exciting. Win or lose we were in it to the end. I am convinced that Daniels, Rasho and Jack are NOT the main reason.

                              I think Obie has clearly lost the team. I also think Bird is being a little hypocritical. He fires Rick Carslyle after three years (and a hell of a job with a winning record)because "Players tune out the coach after 3 years" yet he gives Obie (whos record has been below average each year) an extension after his 3rd year

                              This is making me physically ill. I can not find (at current time) one single positive thing about this team.

                              The worst is the games now suck, and its painful to watch a team that looks as disinterested as this one.
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                First of all I would have highlighted the part done above, after removal of TJ one would think that few of those players were left.
                                Since it is Granger saying it, I am pretty sure he is not thinking of himself, and we can exclude Hibbert and Rush as well I think, that leaves precious few players (in the starting line and on the bench)

                                With Head and Watson as unlikely candidates as well, that leaves hmm let me see, Tyler, Dantay, Solo and Murphy.

                                Shall I leave it to the reader what to make of that ??
                                Or he's including himself.

                                It's hard to play this way. Because a shot is supposed to go up fast, but at the same time..how do you play a team game when that happens?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X