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

Who is not the answer?

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

  • #76
    Re: Who is not the answer?

    Originally posted by Reginald View Post
    The turnover was Coach Vogel's fault. The game is in its final minute, and your main objective is to protect the ball. At what point in this scenario does having your power forward bring the ball up the court make sense?
    I think there is some truth to this.

    I am a Vogel fan, and I actually think this move was smart strategically in general. But not as an impromptu move in a playoff game with two minutes remaining. We haven't really done it before.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #77
      I think it's an indictment of our overall guard play that it's even an option for our PF to bring up the ball. That and the fact Josh is the best passer on the team.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Who is not the answer?

        I think it's Chicago's fault. They stole the ball.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Who is not the answer?

          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
          Josh is an excellent ball handler so having him bring the ball up against pressure isn't a bad thing. It actually makes a ton of sense in a lot cases because the player guarding him is usually not used to putting full court pressure on.

          Josh just made a terrible play. Other players should have made an effort to come towards him once he was nearing the half court line but it's not on them either. That play is all on Josh. He should have picked the ball up as soon as the trap came instead of trying to keep his dribble alive eventually losing the handle.

          If he brought the ball up 100 times in that situation I'd wager he wouldn't commit a turnover like that 99 of them. But he made a terrible mistake on that play and then compounded it with the clear path foul.

          In hindsight there are bunch of ways the other players and Vogel could have helped avoid that turnover but that one is all on Josh. He should be smarter than that.

          He played a great game before that play. Fortunately, it didn't cost us.
          Also, and I love Josh, but he does this on occasion..

          Josh started getting fancy with the dribbling, which made it easy for Rose to get a handle on. He should have picked the ball up.

          But our PG shouldn't have been staring at him from across the court.

          Josh is a great ball handler, for a power forward. Not a guard. He gets it stolen from him plenty. Especially when he gets doubled.

          Have him dribble the ball up the court against the other team's 4. Yea, okay, although it wasn't necessary. (and I'm not sure Vogel planned it. Quite frankly, Josh likes to bring the ball up the court. ) But the second he gets any more pressure he needs to give it up.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Who is not the answer?

            McRoberts is good at bringing the ball up on a fast break, not in a half court set.

            Anyways, I don't really think anyone can answer this question for sure about any of our players except for Danny. A lot of them are just at that point in their career where they are about to either take off or bust. We will know for sure next year.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Who is not the answer?

              The only lesson here is that people who have staked their position on players during the regular season are not going to change it during the playoffs.

              Saying that Josh has outplayed Tyler, or the inverse, is a pointless discussion. They both have been B level players that have been silent, absent game 1. There are subtleties to evaluating their performances, but not the kind that provide new light on this debate or that supply the key to this series.

              If either of them want to start on a contender they need to refine their game. Which, I thought, was the point of this whole 8th seed playoff experience. I think both of them have learned a few things and have been forced to abandon some familiar and comforting tactics that have run dry during the heightened atmosphere of the playoffs.

              If one of them would make a statement then this whole conversation would go a lot smoother. Alas, both are mired in the kind of mediocrity that young players find themselves in when they have to face superior and motivated enemies. But while they both learn and fail to impress, the PD show goes on.

              Personally, I find their playoff performances entirely consistent with their profiles: Tyler can provide the occasional lightning rod performance that changes the dynamic of the game. He also appears to be easily taken out of his game. Josh, on the other hand, while effervescent, manages to provide a slightly higher average level of irrelevance, but never inspires the other team to actually guard him or change their defensive scheme.

              You folks can keep your tabulations and statistical validation: I see the opportunity for both of these gentlemen to hone in on their failures and come out of this summer with new focus, hunger, and skill. While you hope to win this debate I hope for an entirely new debate next season.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Who is not the answer?

                Only george and granger have really made cases to raise their stock based solely on this series. It's pretty normal for the youngsters to struggle in their first playoff series (although I think collison would have been much, much better if he didn't get hurt).
                Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Who is not the answer?

                  I think Hans could become a good starter in the league. He's not one yet, but give him some time. This was basically a rookie season for him. Out of all our players, he's the one I'm most certain will reach his ceiling. It may not be the highest ceiling of the bunch, but I think it's high enough. His motivation and drive are crazy.

                  Regarding Roy, he has the potential to be a good starting C. I definitely think he'll be better for us than Rik was. He's got a better mentality, he wants to improve himself and is constantly developing, he takes responsibility, loves Indy and is one of the most likable guys on the team (good chemistry IS a big deal).
                  Besides, we're not in the 90's anymore and Roy doesn't have to face Shaq, Hakim or Ewing in their prime. There isn't a multitude of great bruising centers around.
                  If Divac was effective for the kings 10 years ago, and they were a great team, there's no reason for us to replace Roy just yet.

                  None of our guys except Danny are proven starting material, but none of them except Danny are finished products either, far from it.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Who is not the answer?

                    To the people who vote that we should build around this 5... what is yoru definition of success?

                    i believe the 5 we have now, if everyone reaches their full potential, can be competitive around the level that Atlanta has been at for awhile now.

                    I don't believe that the 5 we have now, even if everyone reaches their full potential (which to me includes Paul George becoming an absolute star) will ever win a championship as is, no matter how well we develop a bench to support them (limited, by logic, to how good these 5 are - as in you can't say just bring in dwight howard off the bench to try to argue that these starters could win a championship since dwight howard would never come off the bench for hibbert or hansbrough).

                    are the people voting to leave this 5 saying they think those 5 as starters could ever win a championship? Because if so I really don't see how that 5 will ever be even close to what Chicago, OKC, Miami, and possibly the knicks if they get another star are projecting to bring for the next 5+ years.

                    im not saying these 5 arent all potentially starting caliber players. (Although I have reservations about Tyler). I'm saying that lots of NBA teams have 5 starting caliber players who will never win a championship as is, and if thats teh case you could argue that they shouldn't build around those 5 players.
                    Last edited by SkipperZ; 04-26-2011, 07:08 AM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X