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

  • #61
    Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

    Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
    It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
    Last night Roy's touches were a lot closer to "nothing" than "all."

    Do you prefer that, do you think he should get the ball more often than he did last night in the low block, or do you think he should get even less looks down there?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

      I think Roy needs to play more, he is our center of the future! He has grown so much this year and will continue to do so... If he is making mistakes now and then, it's ok, it is only his second year in the league. Obviously I am high on Hibbert now, because of his play of late, it seems like JOB pulls him too early sometimes. Leave him in there, and let him continue to grow. He has shown he can pass the ball to open players and is becoming a consistant threat in the post.

      I could careless if he is making mistakes, being out of position or what have you. He needs to be on the floor. I know we need to be small sometimes depending on matchups. But when I would prefer he be out there in as many game situations as possible going forward.
      Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Last night Roy's touches were a lot closer to "nothing" than "all."

        Do you prefer that, do you think he should get the ball more often than he did last night in the low block, or do you think he should get even less looks down there?
        No I don't believe the Pacers should go into a game with any preconcieved number of looks that Roy should get. Nor do I believe that Danny should be looking to shoot 25 times a game. Each game is different and should be treated that way. If Roy shows that he can score on his man than yes he should get all of the touches he can handle, however if it is obvious he is getting eaten alive than yes the bench is the right place for him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

          Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
          No I don't believe the Pacers should go into a game with any preconcieved number of looks that Roy should get. Nor do I believe that Danny should be looking to shoot 25 times a game. Each game is different and should be treated that way. If Roy shows that he can score on his man than yes he should get all of the touches he can handle, however if it is obvious he is getting eaten alive than yes the bench is the right place for him.
          Just wondering who has eaten him alive of late? Again remembering that he is only in his second year. Yes, Howard played well against him last game, but Howard is argubly the best center in the league, it's hard for anyone to guard him. Roy has handled himself pretty well against opposing BIGS of late. I actual like that we can throw it to him and count on him making a good decision, whether to pass or shoot.
          Last edited by odeez; 01-21-2010, 03:34 PM.
          Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            OK I feel like I'm being pulled back into the same type of thing as the 5 games in November thing.
            Good, because they are related.

            In answer to your question, Roy should be getting 30+ minutes a game, every game, regardless of his particular performance that night.

            He should be getting lots of touches down low, early and often, every game, all game, regardless of his particular performance that night.

            Roy has demonstrated his effectiveness down low. He has earned the right to have a bad night. After, say, five bad nights in a row, then maybe you can start yanking him around and jacking with his confidence.

            In a game against the best center in the league where he recently showed him up, it is unconscionable from a basketball perspective and from a human decency perspective not to let him give it a go the entire game to see if he can be effective against him again.

            JOS plays favorites, has double standards, talks out of both sides of his mouth, reads stats instead of people, and refuses to bow to common sense.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

              Best locker room ever. Or one of the best, or one of the best in years.

              They told us something like that. Remember that was one point a lot of us brought up when Jack and Ford got into it.

              Comment


              • #67
                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.
                Yes, and I actually think Danny has been the same way.

                Maybe they are pointing fingers at each other. I mean Danny looked pretty poor in recent games and Dun has just been a wreck mostly. Neither are exactly burning up the defense.

                I do think that DJones does not appear to be playing in sync with either of them right now, and previously he, Danny and Rush did seem to have a connection going.



                I wish I could remember, but there was a defensive breakdown where Dun appeared to be upset with someone in the last 2 games. I noticed kinda at the time, but obviously not close enough to remember who it was.


                I also agree with Putty, keep it in house. I'm fine with the quotes as they are, but don't go any further. We don't need to know, and frankly some of the problems should be evident on the court.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  In our victory over Orlando, Hibbert pwned Howard. In our loss, Howard pwned Hibbert.
                  Yep

                  Both owned each other at home

                  refs favor home teams
                  Sittin on top of the world!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Best locker room ever. Or one of the best, or one of the best in years.

                    They told us something like that. Remember that was one point a lot of us brought up when Jack and Ford got into it.
                    Best locker room in that no one hates each other, no one fights regularly, etc. That's a fair and true statement to the best of my knowledge.

                    Doesn't mean the basketball chemistry is there.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Best locker room ever. Or one of the best, or one of the best in years.

                      They told us something like that. Remember that was one point a lot of us brought up when Jack and Ford got into it.
                      I think you are still conflating all of the different meanings of "chemistry" and "locker room atmosphere".

                      Teammates having a heated discussion does not mean they hate each other and can't play together. Similarly, teammates liking each other doesn't mean they are on the same page on the court. Teammates can say what they think without it being a way to get under someone else's skin, but that varies from year to year and person to person.

                      I get really tired of the idea that the only good locker room is one where all players and coaches respond to reporters with "no comment", because their teammates are too fragile to have anyone talk about it when things are going badly.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                        Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                        My bad, I thought Carsyle was here for 3.

                        Buck, do you remeber Bird saying something like the players tune out the coach after the 3rd year?

                        By the way though big difference between obie and RC , RC actually won games and showed promise
                        Carlisle had an ECF, 2nd round, first round, and then a missed playoffs.

                        The bad season that got him fired featured the team at .500 and playing well enough to get into the playoffs. This wasn't good enough so management caved to sponsers and did the GSW deal to get Jackson out of here in a panic.

                        The team finished out the rest of the year well below .500 and Rick was blamed. He couldn't have "lost them after 3 years" because a good portion of the key players hadn't been coached by him for 3 years. Dun and Troy just showed up in fact.

                        So we were told Rick was to blame and that the GSW deal was sound, yet the W-L since then tells the story, as does the W-L before and after out in Oakland.

                        If Rick was fired for losing for half a season with a core much like this one, then certainly it's a joke to let JOB lose at a similar rate for 3 of them. Rick had top 5 COY finishes twice in Indy, he had a history that said he just might know what he's doing.

                        JOB has earned none of that and done nothing more than what Rick did to warrant more tolerance.


                        BTW, which players can tune JOB out after 3 years: Danny, Dun, Troy, Foster.

                        The 3 year window was just a cheap excuse for Bird to move back to FLA and get away from coaching. Jerry Sloan, Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich laugh at the 3 year plan. Lots of coaches have won a lot of games in their 4th or 5th year with a team.

                        You lose players when they stop buying what you are selling. This is why Tim Floyd could lose a team in 3 months rather than 3 years.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Best locker room ever. Or one of the best, or one of the best in years.

                          They told us something like that.
                          Oh man, I wish we could go back and pull that thread up.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                            You know what disturbes me.

                            The three guys who are supposedly the leaders, Danny, Dahntay,and Murphy, are pointing fingers instead of looking at themselves.

                            Dunleavy was upset about the defense breaking down! Dunleavy was..how often is it him that is responsible for it?

                            I remember last year, Uconn played Pitt and lost. A.J. came out and said it was his fault. That he should have done more. He took the blame.

                            And that's what good leaders are supposed to do. You take the blame when your team fails, and you give credit to your teammates when you win.

                            And we have Dun, Danny, and Dahntay pointing fingers. Great. Maybe if those three showed the effort and intensity (Which to Dahntay's credit, he tries to most of the time) and teamwork that good teams should have, the rest of the players would follow. You know like leaders are supposed to do.

                            And that goes to the coach too. Maybe he should stop his scapegoat stuff (cough Roy and Rush cough) and take a good look in the mirror. Instead of blaming the team, look at himself first.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                              Well it sounds like they are not pleased with each other and that there's got to be a little cold shoulder stuff going on somewhere.

                              If I have a really good friend, I don't say the things that Dun or Danny did. Not only that, but my friendship and comfort level would make me MORE open to name him.

                              "Bob" really couldn't find his shot tonight, he was struggling and I felt like he and I weren't on the same page. But "Bob" is sharp and I trust him, so we'll get it worked out. We have to if we are going to win, and there's no reason why we can't get on the same page.

                              That's the kind of criticism a friend might make. I mean how much can you like a guy if you think of him as SELFISH, or unable to follow directions? I've been on a lot of teams and I didn't really like the guys that I thought those kinds of things about. People tend to like people who think a bit like them, follow similar logic and ideals. Different sure, but not radically so in terms of logical thinking. So how can I like a guy who doesn't see the sport anywhere close to how I do?

                              Maybe I didn't fight with them, but I didn't get along with them. I didn't like their game and I thought they were hurting the team. I would grumble with my teammates when we had a team killer like that playing with us.

                              That's not the same as playing with guys that just weren't as good. I felt sympathy for them or appreciated their desire to play regardless; I tried to work with them, and trusted them to at least bring what they could to the game. I could adjust my play to accomodate them and it wouldn't bug me too much. I usually wouldn't even think of them as the reason we lost because all teams have different talent levels.

                              But the dumb a** OF that insists on throwing to the plate with a runner coming to 2nd because he's so great, no use for that guy ever. No respect, and if there are too many of them then the clubhouse sucks because guys don't like dealing with that crap.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-21-2010, 04:40 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Dunleavy: players don't know where they are supposed to be

                                As I mull over it, I'm thinking maybe Dun was talking about Danny.

                                Danny knew it, and he gave some "we" comments about missing assignments on BOTH sides of the floor.

                                Hmmmmmm.
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X