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

According to 82games, PF is our best position.

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

  • #61
    Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

    Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
    I agree. Tyler is not an a first-team defender, but he isn't bad. You know for sure he going to try and is pretty strong at the very least.
    He also moves very well for his size, and jumps well. He also has a huge motor. He needs some refinement in his technique, but he has all the makings to be a good defender. He's already decent.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      He also moves very well for his size, and jumps well. He also has a huge motor. He needs some refinement in his technique, but he has all the makings to be a good defender. He's already decent.
      Ya, I agree completely. He is not a guy you put in the game specifically for defense, but he is definitely capable, and like you said he has a huge motor, so you know he will always be doing his best.

      I just don't get how you could say "he doesn't play a lick of defense."

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Were do you get that Hansbrough doesn't play D? He is a pretty good defender, I've seen him guarding quicker guards off screens and everything.
        It depends on who you are comparing him too..

        No, he's not a good defender. Not at all. However, sometimes he can be effective because of how he plays, his physical play will drive opponents nuts.

        Is he better than players on our team. Uh..yea.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

          Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
          One could also argue that even though Tyler has a high motor and plays super tough....he doesn't play a lick of defense, does not rebound well, and is pretty much useless if he isn't knocking down that mid range jumper because no one respects his game around the basket.

          He was essentially a rookie last year and looked like one for most of the year, and you are over here saying he and McBob have the greatest impact on the team.
          Ok, I keep seeing the Hans can't play D argument. I just don't get it (or maybe I should say I only partly get it). Hans man on man D I though was actually very good. Hans team D (help defense, rotations etc...) were really bad. On the plus side he was a rookie, and I think it's easier for a player with very limited playing time to improve on his team D than his individual D. All in all, Hans was about an average defender on our team. Better than DC, Duns, Posey and Granger.
          Danger Zone

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

            To back this up statistically, check out the PERs of the opposing players against our PFs:

            Granger played 18% of those PF minutes we are talking about, 20.5 PER, 18.3 opponent PER
            McBob - 33%, 18.6, 18.7
            Tyler - 38%, 16.7, 14.6

            So for Pacer's players who played significant PF minutes, in statistical theory Hans played the best D, and frequently against the other teams starters.

            Not that I necessarily by the above as proof (insert statistical argument here), but it does back up what I saw on the court.
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
              He also moves very well for his size, and jumps well. He also has a huge motor. He needs some refinement in his technique, but he has all the makings to be a good defender. He's already decent.

              I agree, plus he has very good lateral quickness - better than Josh. And lateral quickness is very important in playing one-on-one defense. he does a really nice job staying with quicker players. I would put only Jeff Foster ahead of him in doing this at one of the big positions.

              Where Tyler has a lot to learn and get better at is team defense he often got lost. That is where Josh is much better. For example when Jeff and Josh were in the game against the Bulls the Pacers defensive IQ was much better than when Roy and tyler were in, in fact the Pacers were able to play a more complicated system with Jeff and Josh. The differences in the approach was significant.

              But there is no reason that Tyler cannot become a good team defender also - he just needs experience.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people on this forum are to misinterpret data and then assert, on the basis of their own misinterpretation, that the data are wrong. This time it's mostly Taterhead, but as King Tut says, Anthem starts the thread off with a misconstrual.


                Anthem: Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                  Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                  To back this up statistically, check out the PERs of the opposing players against our PFs:

                  Granger played 18% of those PF minutes we are talking about, 20.5 PER, 18.3 opponent PER
                  McBob - 33%, 18.6, 18.7
                  Tyler - 38%, 16.7, 14.6

                  So for Pacer's players who played significant PF minutes, in statistical theory Hans played the best D, and frequently against the other teams starters.

                  Not that I necessarily by the above as proof (insert statistical argument here), but it does back up what I saw on the court.
                  Okay I stand corrected, he doesn't play a lick of team D. Does boxing out count as Team D too?
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people on this forum are to misinterpret data and then assert, on the basis of their own misinterpretation, that the data are wrong. This time it's mostly Taterhead, but as King Tut says, Anthem starts the thread off with a misconstrual.


                    Anthem: Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos.

                    It never ceases to amaze me how many people jump into a thread and call out individuals as being dead wrong and then don't even bother to lay it out.

                    "NO! You're wrong!"
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      Okay I stand corrected, he doesn't play a lick of team D. Does boxing out count as Team D too?
                      Probably not. It would probably fall under rebounding, something Hans is average at. Or maybe it would. Who cares? I don't think Hans will ever be a really good rebounder, but he should be adequate. Few people are great rebounders (likeTroy Murphy, we'll always miss his rebounding!). If our wings decide to box out, then Hans won't be left trying to box out two people, which should make him look decidedly better to you.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        It never ceases to amaze me how quick some people on this forum are to misinterpret data and then assert, on the basis of their own misinterpretation, that the data are wrong. This time it's mostly Taterhead, but as King Tut says, Anthem starts the thread off with a misconstrual.


                        Anthem: Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos ne forte conculcent eas pedibus suis et conversi disrumpant vos.
                        I never gave my interpretation of any data. My argument was that people misrepresent the data and what it really means. So I am not sure what you are talking about exactly.

                        I think my wording choice was very poor in a few of my points and some took statements I made the wrong way.

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Coach damn well better evaluate the roster so he can effectively use its strengths and compensate for its weaknesses.

                        I'll give a couple of hypothetical examples about why evaluations might be seen differently at different levels. PF could be a strong position but if it is one easily made stronger that would be a good reason to look to upgrade. PG could be weak but if there's nothing on the table to allow it to be made stronger you'd better do the best with what you have.
                        Like this for example.

                        He made a point about Vogel saying PF was a big strength for us last year.

                        I made a counter point that Larry Bird has been openly shopping for a PF for awhile now, and that is more telling than PER anyday if you want to know how good our PF position is. I then said the line you quoted. I was speaking in reference to his comment about Vogel claiming PF was one of our strengths.
                        Last edited by Taterhead; 07-13-2011, 06:54 PM.
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                          I think PF is a strength not because McBob and Hans are better players than Hibbert, Collision, George, etc., but because there is really no drop-off between the two just different styles. When players were getting consistent minutes (i.e. beginning of the year, and under Vogel) PF was consistently the most consistent position in my opinion. I think this attributes to the high PER. That doesn't mean we have a bigger need to upgrade over Hibbert, Collison, or George it just means there was more stability at that position. If compared to the C position Hibbert is a better player than both of them, but he is also a more inconsistent player. While I think Foster is still just as good as them in limited minutes, it is in limited minutes and not 24+ minutes per game. I think that is true with every position. Every position last year had at least one player if not two players (or more) who has a higher ceiling than McBob and Hans, but they also had at least one or more players who had a lower ceiling.

                          In any sport consistency goes a long way. Just look at how good the team is when JOB was consistent with his playing time, then look at how bad the team was when he was inconsistent. You could easily make an argument that the team played better at the beginning of the season, than they did under Vogel. You can't really argue that the Collison, Dunleavy, Granger, McBob, Hibbert line-up wasn't a good line-up. Every statistic I have found says it was one of the best line-ups in the whole league. It was only once he started to try and fix what wasn't broken that everything came crashing down.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                            The problem with stats is that people use them to conclude something very general like: PF is our best position. I don't think you can do that. Sure, stats are accurate mathematically. The problem is when people go down the road of attempting to draw conclusions. Life is almost always too complicated to do that.

                            As for our best position, a better measure might be the open market. Who here believes that Tyler Hansborough (obviously I am a fan) is more valuable than Danny Granger? No one should believe that. Just look at Danny's playoff performance. Danny is much better than Tyler right now. IMO, it is a closer call between Tyler and Roy and I'd probably give Tyler the short term edge and Roy the long term edge purely on his potential. Collison might also be a better player but it's not entirely clear how good Darren will be. I would probably draft Tyler before I would draft Collison...and that might turn out to be a mistake. I'd pick Paul George before any of them though...

                            In any event, regardless of the stats, our best position is SF. Granger remains clearly our best player and best playoff performer. Everyone else except Tyler and Collison pretty much disappeared against the Bulls.

                            Edit: to Tyler's credit, he did defend Boozer well and has played better defensively than Danny. However, Tyler was very inconsistent throughout the year and people forget that Danny is often doubled and is always the #1 focus of the opposing defense...yet he delivered in the playoffs. Will PF be out best position at some point. Maybe so, but not yet.

                            Also, if the bench is the issue, I consider Dahntay Jones to be as good as Josh...and I'd play Dunleavy or Rush before I would play Posey.
                            Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-13-2011, 11:42 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                              Putnam!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: According to 82games, PF is our best position.

                                I think PER is a good place to start when looking to see if a player does his job well while on the floor.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X