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

Today's version of the last three years article's

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

  • #16
    Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

    This kind of an offense reminds me of the triangle offense only in that most of the time it's not going to work out for your team unless your players are very talented and/or quick thinkers/decision-makers. And that talent must also fit the system.

    Personally, I've become more and more a fan of any offense that revolves around pick and rolls/dribble-penetration.

    Now, this roster doesn't have a lot of players capable of that, but all of our point guards can and should be doing this.

    It continues to boggle my mind that we traded for not one, but now two point guards (TJ, DC) meant for handling the ball, using their speed to dribble penetrate and run pick and rolls, and then we ask them to be a part of a passing offense. It drives, no, make that it has driven me insane. I'm sick of this. Completely. Don't acquire the exact opposite of what you need if this is your offense. It's stupid.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

      Who hired a coach that runs this system? Who continues to pick players ill suited for this system?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

        Originally posted by aaronb View Post
        Who hired a coach that runs this system? Who continues to pick players ill suited for this system?
        You have a point, but I could take this game further. Who isn't firing the guy who hired the coach that runs this system? Who isn't firing the guy who continues to pick players ill suited for this system?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

          The Pacers offense is unquestionably getting "bogged down".

          Their offense, as designed, is really no different than the principles used by advanced soccer teams or even the Colts receivers with Manning as the quarterback. It's all about players making the same collective reads about where space is, where it can be created and how to quickly take advantage of the opposiiton when dealing with space.

          For the Colts, one or two receivers and Manning make the same read as the play is being executed and break off of the primary play as it was designed in the playbook. It is a thing of beauty and often leads to a big gain when it works. On the few occassions that they do not make the same read, it has been known to lead to a pick-6.

          There are probably a number of reasons contributing to the bogged down offense. But I believe one thing is certain. On most possessions the offense appears to be running higher than it was earlier in the season. It is not uncommon to see Hibbert near or even above the free throw line along with 2-3 other players. It may be that Hibbert is simply not strong enough to hold lower position. At any rate, we end up settling for a perimeter shot rather than attempting to create and use space in or near the lane.

          I really don't see much facilitation in creating space to support the passing game, instead we seem to be relying more on players being open momentarily by simply moving away from their defenders rather than being open for a couple of seconds. As an example, a player generally leaves an area of the floor to create space for a teammate, but that teammate will not necessarily find himself open to receive a pass in the space that was created without being facilitated by a screen from a third player. Not everyone can be the player moving to space, someone has to be the facilitator to set the pick/screen that enables the player to be open in space more than just "momentarily".

          Dunleavy not only recognizes how and when to move to space, he is also a very good facilitator. Posey is not bad as a facilitator but does 100% of his facilitation 18 feet or more from the basket. You would think that Foster would be a great facilitator, but whether he is performing that function or not, I believe that we have less motion since Foster has been playing more minutes. Usually PFs help facilitate the creation of space in a motion offense, but I do not think that any of our frontcourt players are good facilitators.

          If we are not able to run our offense due to lack of facilitation and the ability to make appropriate reads, we may as well abandon the system and run set plays that are easier understood and executed by all players. That would probably lead to players like Collison being less confused and maybe even George getting more playing time.

          Or, before the trade deadline maybe we can just pick up a player, even a marginal one, whose only true gift is knowing how to set screens and play a little defense.
          Last edited by beast23; 12-31-2010, 03:25 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            ...It continues to boggle my mind that we traded for not one, but now two point guards (TJ, DC) meant for handling the ball, using their speed to dribble penetrate and run pick and rolls, and then we ask them to be a part of a passing offense. It drives, no, make that it has driven me insane. I'm sick of this. Completely. Don't acquire the exact opposite of what you need if this is your offense. It's stupid.
            Point well taken. However, I do remember both Bird and JOB stating that the acquisition of Collison would enable them to add PnR to our offense.

            Yet, we ran very little of it during the preseason and early on in the season. Is it a question of once again acquiring a player that does not fit our system, or is it a lack of commitment on the part of the coach to leverage the abilities of the newly acquired player. Or worse yet, is it that the coach does not trust the abilities of his other players to participate in PnR, therefore does not even include it in his offense?

            It makes no sense that you have a starting player that appears particularly gifted in one aspect of offense and that as a coach you ignore that talent.

            What we are seeing is almost as bad as telling Reggie Miller that he could only shoot free throws and layins and avoid taking a perimeter shot at all costs.

            Some or even many of our players may enjoy the freedom that JOB's offense allows. But I have a hunch that Collison is asking himself "Who am I and what the hell am I doing here?"

            But, as I've stated before, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I believe that your sanity will suddenly reappear in about five months.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

              I think Dunleavy may be the only player capable of running Jim's offense. Maybe the only one willing. It's made for a player like him in fact.

              It requires a lot of skill on the wing and great perimeter shooting by the bigs. We simply don't have that. It also requires a mobile C and we don't have that either.

              The system is actually not the worst problem. It's certainly not going to be why a team wins a championship though.

              The real problem is obviously a mismatch between the system and personnel. I blame Bird a little for extending Jim. I will torch his *** if Jim gets another extension. Bird best be drafting the pink slip...because he's next up.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                to be fair, the pacer bigs are not particularly good at either picking or rolling. not sure the guys with the ball are too far away from the pick or the pick is poorly set. one of the nice things about seeing more of jeff [& solo] are better picks.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  You have a point, but I could take this game further. Who isn't firing the guy who hired the coach that runs this system? Who isn't firing the guy who continues to pick players ill suited for this system?
                  I have mentioned multiple times that all the JOB should be fired bit**ing is actually criticism of Larry. I think its just easier for the winers to attack JOB so they avoid mentioning the person whose decision making the are truly criticizing. I still think this team is in good hands with Larry steering the ship.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                    Tonight's the night...or the afternoon. If we lose this game, Bird will start getting some heat on PD as well as the Indy Star. At this point, complaining about Jim's strategy is a lost cause.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Today's version of the last three years article's

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Tonight's the night...or the afternoon. If we lose this game, Bird will start getting some heat on PD as well as the Indy Star. At this point, complaining about Jim's strategy is a lost cause.
                      I think LB had a talk with JOB. He said "play Paul"

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X