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

Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

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

  • #31
    Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Ok throw the coach out of the discussion. The point I am making is that often times it is easier to get a good shot within 6 seconds than it is later in the shotclock. You all know that but because Jim says it you are critical.
    How easy is it to get the ball down the court in 6 secs and get a good look at the basket? Once in a while it is possible but not as much as the coach wants it.
    I'm not perfect and neither are you.

    Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
    Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      That is hardly the whole game plan - in fact that isn't a game plan at all. If it is the game plan then the players are doing a horrible job following it because rarely do the pacers shoot within 6 seconds
      Do you not read my post game comments?

      I constantly ***** about it. Hell, Cordobes and I had this very discussion a few weeks ago, when he tried telling me that Jim was closer to SVG than D'Antoni.

      I brought in all the stats from 82games.com.

      The Pacers shoot more jumpshots and shots before 17secs are off the clock than NYK. Are you going to tell me that it's not Mike's gameplan either?

      Jim just said it was their gameplan, and you still don't believe it. What else needs to happen before you can accept it?

      We've said it here. I've posted documented evidence. And now Jim has said it publically.

      What more do you need?
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Ok throw the coach out of the discussion. The point I am making is that often times it is easier to get a good shot within 6 seconds than it is later in the shotclock. You all know that but because Jim says it you are critical.
        Because the shots that you get within 6 seconds are transition baskets. That's okay, I don't think anyone is saying don't take those.

        However, a quick shot, is not a good shot. This is the NBA, players can get a wide open three anytime they want. A well executed offense can get a good shot. As I said, with less talanted teams you want to reduce possessions. Because a wide open quick missed jump shot is quite often a layup at the other end.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Do you not read my post game comments?

          I constantly ***** about it. Hell, Cordobes and I had this very discussion a few weeks ago, when he tried telling me that Jim was closer to SVG than D'Antoni.

          I brought in all the stats from 82games.com.

          The Pacers shoot more jumpshots and shots before 17secs are off the clock than NYK. Are you going to tell me that it's not Mike's gameplan either?

          Jim just said it was their gameplan, and you still don't believe it. What else needs to happen before you can accept it?

          We've said it here. I've posted documented evidence. And now Jim has said it publically.

          What more do you need?
          You are missing my point on the question of whether it is a "gameplan" I claim shooting within 6 seconds isn't and cannot be a game plan. It might be a goal to shoot within 6 seconds - that would mean the Pacers are getting a ton of fastbreaks. But that is not by definition a possible game plan. As in tomorrow night against the Blazers our gameplan is to shoot within 6 seconds. Ok, we are done guys go back to listening to your music and texting, as the coach I am done. A game plan changes from game to game. a game plan is for example running a lot of side pick and rolls when certain defenders are in the game a game plan to force the point guard to the baseline.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

            I was simply responding to your claim that "Unless it's a layup, it's a bad shot if it's within 6 secs"

            I wasn't getting off into all the other areas I quoted in this post

            In fact I agree with you in the other areas.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

              How is it not a gameplan?

              Gameplans have multiple bullet points. One of them is to shoot within 6secs if you have an open look. That happens multiple times a quarter for the Pacers team.

              A gameplan is simply points of emphasis, and clearly it is a point of emphasis if thats what your team does, and that's what you talk about in the media.

              This is why we argue about Jim. Because of things like this.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I was simply responding to your claim that "Unless it's a layup, it's a bad shot if it's within 6 secs"

                I wasn't getting off into all the other areas I quoted in this post

                In fact I agree with you in the other areas.
                90% of the time, it is. I didn't think I need to have a disclaimer that a last second heave from the opposite FT needed to be an exception.

                I threw that one in there, because I didn't have it in my other list. Making sure I get all my ducks in a row, or to be called out on it.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                  Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                  That seems like a really immature comment by Bucher.
                  Not only immature, but flat out wrong. I don't think anyone other than Roy, Collison, and George are really all that talented at all (Rush could play backup wing for a good team as well as Hansbrough at power forward), but Roy, Collison, and George are all pretty damn nice young pieces.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                    I'm not thrilled with their distributions, but 82games.com does keep track of team shot attempts/percentages. They separate into categories of 0-10 seconds, 11-15, 16-20, and 21+.

                    I picked the Pacers, Celtics, Heat, Lakers, and Blazers.

                    1) All of them shoot more shots in 0-10 seconds than any other amount of time.

                    2) All of them shoot their highest eFG% in 0-110 seconds than any other amount of time.

                    3) The Pacers shoot more of them (by %), and hit less of them, than any of the others I listed.

                    4) Except for the Pacers, each of these teams' eFG% drops as you add time onto the length of their possessions. The Pacers are the only ones to shoot better at 16-20 seconds than 11-15 seconds (by about 3%).

                    I'm left to question my beliefs....

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                      Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                      Not only immature, but flat out wrong. I don't think anyone other than Roy, Collison, and George are really all that talented at all (Rush could play backup wing for a good team as well as Hansbrough at power forward), but Roy, Collison, and George are all pretty damn nice young pieces.
                      I want to agree, but I'm really starting to have my doubts about Roy. Not his skill so much as what skill he is allowing himself to show us consistently because of his head. I'm worried.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                        Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
                        http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat...ith-ric-bucher

                        Ric Bucher's chat on ESPN:

                        Matt (Indy)

                        The Pacers have some expiring contracts, as well as young, talented pieces. What do you see them doing at the trade deadline? Who will they move and what kind of players will they be looking to receive?
                        Ric Bucher (1:19 PM)

                        What is this young talent that you speak of?


                        Ouch.
                        I don't think the comment is immature and I don't think it is a comment by a national follower that our talent is not as good as we think it is.

                        I think the comment was virtually a cop-out. I think he just as easily could have said "I consider the Pacers to be irrelevant, and therefore I no longer take the time to keep myself familiar with their players and talent."

                        The comment as stated basically slams the Pacers. The comment as I think it should have been stated basically makes Bucher look like an arse.

                        Now if you were Bucher, would you rather appear as a jerk or an arse? I think that in today's society, being a jerk in his position is almost expected. However being a lazy arse is not.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          Here's the thing, less talanted teams equalize the game by reducing (let me say that again) REDUCING the amount of possessions in a game.
                          I know it is a different sport, but you can't watch a Colts game without the announcers saying that exact same thing. Every team, I mean every team, tries to limit that amount of possessions when playing the Colts because they all know that is the only way they can compete with the Colts.

                          This is something that is true for every sport. If you are outmatched in talent you slow down the game, reduce the amount of touches the other team has, and you run your offense to be as efficient as possible. If you don't have the talent the only way to stand a chance is to control the tempo, and every team at the professional level has the talent too control the tempo.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I want to agree, but I'm really starting to have my doubts about Roy. Not his skill so much as what skill he is allowing himself to show us consistently because of his head. I'm worried.
                            I'm worried too, but it would still be silly to deny that he has value around the league, which is what Bucher is implying. He is denying that George, Collison, Hibbert, Rush, AJ, Hansbrough, and Josh are decent-to-good young players. I specifically remember Bucher licking his chops every time he mentioned Collison when he got hot last year with the Hornets FWIW.

                            About Roy, I have no clue what will happen to him.. He's at a crossroads. Will he get it together or will he feel sorry for himself? It worries me that he won't ever "feel" dominant again. Admittedly he was never dominant, but he had the confidence that he was. Hibbert reminded me of how Garnett would act during the game (Without the bullyish and douchebag stuff), meaning that he would get hyped over every game and took every little thing personal.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                              1.) I think all teams shoot a higher volume of shots in the 0-10sec range, to be honest. The difference between Boston and Indiana, for example, shows the real difference in the numbers.

                              Boston shoots 33% of their fg attempts in that time range, compared to 41% of the Pacers. When I compared it last time when Cordobes and I were discussing it, I used a known offensive philsophy in NYK with D'Antoni to show where the Pacers ranked. They also shoot 41% of their shots in that time span.

                              2) All efg% in that time period, should be higher. There are going to be a big chunk of those attempts in the 0-10 time span that are layups. Even if you only get, say 12, fast break points per game, that's still shooting 6-6 on those attempts. That's really going to bump up the percentages when you split the clock into 5 divisions.

                              Also, the lowest fg% is going to be the 20+ section, because those are broken plays where you can't get a good shot off in time.

                              3) The Pacers shoot the worst fg% out of all of them, because more shots during that time are jumpshots. They purposely shoot long jumpshots quickly.

                              4) That one is kind of hard to explain. I wonder if scouting reports have much to do with it, and opponents knowing that the Pacers want to shoot quickly, so the longer you make them play defense the more likely they are to breakdown.

                              The Knicks also shoot a better % in the 16-20 range. Albeit, only 1%.


                              I think in order to really make heads or tails out of those numbers, you also need to factor in the shot type breakdown. I know they are two seperate categories, but I wish they had them combined showing 0-10 overall, then broken down into jumpshots, close, dunks, tips and then repeated for the rest of the shot clock usage.

                              That would be ideal.

                              EDIT: And as I look closer at 82games.com's numbers, I'm wondering the accuracy.

                              Under the shooting details for example, it's supposed to cover 100% of the shots they take in the game for both teams. But if you go by that it would mean the Pacers average giving up 77.9pts per game. That clearly isn't right.

                              Says Boston's 100% total is 73.1.

                              It's not making sense to me, but then again it is 4pm on a friday.
                              Last edited by Since86; 01-21-2011, 04:06 PM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Time for Pacers to Embrace Youth?

                                Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                                I don't think the comment is immature and I don't think it is a comment by a national follower that our talent is not as good as we think it is.

                                I think the comment was virtually a cop-out. I think he just as easily could have said "I consider the Pacers to be irrelevant, and therefore I no longer take the time to keep myself familiar with their players and talent."

                                The comment as stated basically slams the Pacers. The comment as I think it should have been stated basically makes Bucher look like an arse.

                                Now if you were Bucher, would you rather appear as a jerk or an arse? I think that in today's society, being a jerk in his position is almost expected. However being a lazy arse is not.
                                He could have avoided both by saying something along the lines of, "I don't see any teams that would be interested in the talent that the young players bring to the floor, but the expiring contracts could bring back some nice young talent" or "I don't believe the Pacers have that much young talent, and no one really seems interested in the expiring contracts." There are a million ways that a professional reporter could say that would seem polite and honest. By saying it the way he did says a lot about him.

                                1: It says that he doesn't care about those sending him questions. The person didn't ask if he thought the Pacers had young talented players. He was asked what the Pacers could do with their assets at the trade deadline.

                                2: He is an amateur, and not a professional. A professional would never respond to that question in that way.

                                3: He is a terrible sports reporter. He showed that he doesn't care to pay attention to the Pacers. No matter what his opinion of the Pacers talent is he would have shown more respect for the Pacers if he cared and actually payed attention to the Pacers.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X