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

What good would it do?

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

  • #91
    Re: What good would it do?

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    I think he kinda quit, actually.
    Ainge asked him to tank the season for a draft pick and he walked.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: What good would it do?

      Originally posted by nerveghost View Post
      Alright, chief - I'll bite. You are the coach. What system would work with this team?

      Personally, I see no low post scorers, lots of 3 point shooters and jump shooters, and some mediocre rebounders. I see no one on the Pacers that can create their own shot off the dribble. To me, this offense *is* a fit for this personnel, but the personnel just isn't good enough to win consistently.
      I agree with you 100%. This isn't a good offensive team.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: What good would it do?

        Originally posted by nerveghost View Post
        Alright, chief - I'll bite. You are the coach. What system would work with this team?

        Personally, I see no low post scorers, lots of 3 point shooters and jump shooters, and some mediocre rebounders. I see no one on the Pacers that can create their own shot off the dribble. To me, this offense *is* a fit for this personnel, but the personnel just isn't good enough to win consistently.
        I agree mostly with that.

        Pacers have some lowpost offense every now and then when Hibbert can get on a roll. But his ~45% FG shooting for a 7'2" center indicates that it really has been an "every now and then" type of thing this year.

        Collison can get to the rim and create, and he is more capable of finishing there than Ford, but he's a 6' PG. You can't rely on a guy his size to get to the rim all the time 82 games a year. It takes a beating on him.

        McBob and Hansbrough are good for some garbage points around the basket, but running plays for these guys is a pretty low percentage option.

        The main things I see you can go to are Rush, Dunleavy and Granger coming off screens, Collison darting in and out and trying to set up other guys and Hibbert scoring in the post when he's having a good night.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: What good would it do?

          If Hibbert was a legitimate offensive force in the middle, the Pacers are a different animal. That's why they had success in November.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: What good would it do?

            While I certainly will concede that we are not an overly talented offensive unit let's please not insult each other by pretending that this isn't Jim O'Briens preferred offense.

            I have no doubt in my mind that he positions his salt & pepper shakers on opposite ends of his plate so that the butter can easily advance to his rolls with out anyone getting in the way.

            Spacing the floor, driving the lanes, shooting the three none of this is out of his preferred system and he is not going to do anything else unless it works 100% of the time.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: What good would it do?

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              While I certainly will concede that we are not an overly talented offensive unit let's please not insult each other by pretending that this isn't Jim O'Briens preferred offense.

              I have no doubt in my mind that he positions his salt & pepper shakers on opposite ends of his plate so that the butter can easily advance to his rolls with out anyone getting in the way.

              Spacing the floor, driving the lanes, shooting the three none of this is out of his preferred system and he is not going to do anything else unless it works 100% of the time.
              When he coached the Celtics the system was different. Shooting threes is the same, but the system is different. The Celtics didn't run a read and react passing game type offense at all. . Nor did he run it in Philly. I know no one cares, but when the allegation is that Jim only runs this offense I just don't think that is a true statement.

              if you want to say Jim loves the three point shot? Yes I agree. Other than that I think he will adjust his offense to fit the player as I think he did in Boston and in Philly and as I have said several times I think this current offense is designed artound Mike and Danny. perfectly for Mike and I think pretty well for Danny.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: What good would it do?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                When he coached the Celtics the system was different. Shooting threes is the same, but the system is different. The Celtics didn't run a read and react passing game type offense at all. . Nor did he run it in Philly. I know no one cares, but when the allegation is that Jim only runs this offense I just don't think that is a true statement.

                if you want to say Jim loves the three point shot? Yes I agree. Other than that I think he will adjust his offense to fit the player as I think he did in Boston and in Philly and as I have said several times I think this current offense is designed artound Mike and Danny. perfectly for Mike and I think pretty well for Danny.
                Ok, I'll play along.

                What the hell did he run in Boston then if it wasn't a read and react offense?

                I can only talk about what I see and have seen now going on four years and that while there are variations of a theme they are all still the same theme.

                My guess is in both Philly & Boston he had the same basic concept but just threw in a few different sets.

                In both places did he

                A. position his big players outside the lanes on offense towards the elbow or top of the key to open up the driving lanes for his wings & guards?

                B. Did he try at all to find one of his bigs to shoot from beyond their comfort zone so that they could stretch the defense? (I've seen the interview with Grant Long so I know the anser to this)

                C. Did he use his point guard as just another shooting guard because he wanted the ball to move from player to player and not be in the hands of the pg? (btw I know the answer to this one as well)


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: What good would it do?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I agree with you 100%. This isn't a good offensive team.
                  This is the offense you get running Jim's system with these players...
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: What good would it do?

                    When O'Brien was first hired someone, possibly from Philly or Boston, described what we were getting with O'Brien. The thing that sticks out was a comment to the effect that he would drive basketball purists mad with his system.

                    Looking at the forum I'd say they were very correct. I wish I could find that thread/post...
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: What good would it do?

                      Also let me go one step further and take some of the heat off of O'Brien for a moment.

                      If everyone concedes that this team is not good enough talent wise, why are we not making moves? Obviously they may be working behind the scense but this team has hit an iceburg. We have lost 11 of our last 16 games, that is every bit as bad as last season and we have really only had a couple of bad stretches of schedule, just wait till next week.

                      These expiring contract are only assets for a little more than a month after that they are just players playing out thier time with the team.

                      To me the best way to use these is to make moves now, not hope and pray for a team wanting to dump a player and be able to absorb his salary in a lopsided trade and yes if your going to keep O'Brien around then for God's sake get him the players that will work in his system.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • Re: What good would it do?

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Ok, I'll play along.

                        What the hell did he run in Boston then if it wasn't a read and react offense?

                        I can only talk about what I see and have seen now going on four years and that while there are variations of a theme they are all still the same theme.

                        My guess is in both Philly & Boston he had the same basic concept but just threw in a few different sets.

                        In both places did he

                        A. position his big players outside the lanes on offense towards the elbow or top of the key to open up the driving lanes for his wings & guards?

                        B. Did he try at all to find one of his bigs to shoot from beyond their comfort zone so that they could stretch the defense? (I've seen the interview with Grant Long so I know the anser to this)


                        C. Did he use his point guard as just another shooting guard because he wanted the ball to move from player to player and not be in the hands of the pg? (btw I know the answer to this one as well)
                        In Boston he ran set plays geared towards Walker and Pierce. In Philly he ran a ton of pick and rolls with Iverson and he played Iverson at point guard.

                        A. Yes in Boston and Philly he didn't have a lot of good low post players. Although Pierce and Walker posted up quite often. So yes he did like to bring the center out of the lane to open it up for Pierce and Walker.

                        B. yes as i said he did want to open up the lane for P and W. But if you look at the centers and power forwards (besides Walker) it makes sense to move them outside the lane you really don't want an offense built on posting those other guys up. Keep in mind Grant Long only played 41 games for the Celtics was only on the roster for half a season and he took 3 threes but for his entire career he took 293.

                        C. Jim's never had what I call a pure point guard. Kenny Anderson was used pretty much as a point guard. He ran a lot of pick and rolls. Kenny Played pretty well under Jim. But again Pierce and Walker were heavily involved in starting, runing, controlling the offense. Iverson was used as both point and shooting guard.

                        OK,. I looked up some stats. The centers on the ECF team was Blunt, Battie and Potapenko - all three are midrange shooters. None are post up players.

                        Kenny Anderson played a 1000 fewer minutes than did Walker and only had 4 fewer assists than Walker did. Kenny Anderson took 33 threes the entire season. Battie took 2, Potapenko took none, Blount took none.
                        Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-05-2011, 12:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What good would it do?

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          AlsoIf everyone concedes that this team is not good enough talent wise, why are we not making moves? Obviously they may be working behind the scense but this team has hit an iceburg. We have lost 11 of our last 16 games, that is every bit as bad as last season and we have really only had a couple of bad stretches of schedule, just wait till next week.
                          I am sure they have been trying to get a power forward for months and months. Plus it takes a long time to "make moves"

                          Comment


                          • Re: What good would it do?

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I am sure they have been trying to get a power forward for months and months. Plus it takes a long time to "make moves"
                            Indeed it does and I agree they probably have been.

                            But time is now running short, not out by any means but short. We may be three to four weeks away from this season being lost as far as playoffs go. Still a lot of time to correct the issues at hand but just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic is not the answer either.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • Re: What good would it do?

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Indeed it does and I agree they probably have been.

                              But time is now running short, not out by any means but short. We may be three to four weeks away from this season being lost as far as playoffs go. Still a lot of time to correct the issues at hand but just re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic is not the answer either.
                              what you don't expect the team to play well in March again? I am half joking.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What good would it do?

                                There is two examples that show why this offense is designed to fail with the players he has trying to execute it.

                                Darren Collison and Josh McRoberts. Both are so blantantly poorly used, it's not even funny. Both of them are asked to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of their strengths.

                                Some of you need to actually take a step back and look at the situation without attaching emotion with it.

                                I'm tired of discussing Jim too. I'm just as frustrated with these types of conversations. But they aren't going to stop until Jim is gone. Sorry, but that's how it's going to be. If you don't like it, then I dunno what to tell ya.

                                But the point of the matter is quit arguing with people that annoy you, just because you're annoyed. Actually take a look with your eyes and use common sense and see why people are pissed off.

                                Outside of Dunleavy, there isn't a single player on the Pacers roster that fits this type of offense.

                                Will changing the offense lead to more wins and a more efficient offense? I don't know, I left my crystal ball in Memphis, but I do know it will put the team in a much better position to win and to be more efficient. And that is the job of the coach. To put them in the best position possible.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X