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

Nets/Pacers postgame thread

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

  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

    As to the 'awesome in practice' thing, yeah that does sound a lot like Jonathan Bender.

    I still see some of the potential Lance has, but for now I'm in the camp of "it doesn't matter because it will never pan out, either at all or certain not while he's on this team". Just my current impressions when I consider all the factors that I've seen/am aware of with Lance. I'd prefer AJ Price play those minutes right now, but I understand it's still early and they want to give Lance a little bit of rope.

    Comment


    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      Tyler's bigger problem, and the team's for that matter, is learning how to move the ball. Sure, Collison, George, Granger and West could probably beat Tyler at a game of horse...but the game is more than shooting. There are fouls, drawing the defense, rebounding, etc. Also, it is probably very taxing having to guard Hans. I have nothing to back it up, but I suspect guys who have to guard him probably have to expend more energy and probably don't score as well. Of course, that's pure speculation...but quite frankly it's hard to put a price on energy.

      Edit: as an example, they need to be sure they block him out or he will be all over the offensive boards. That's the aggression part. There's a cost incurred there. Legs get tired. Players get slower. The lane opens up for Collison. Granger gets to the rack. West gets an open look. Etc., etc. Energy has value.
      Tyler absolutely has a long way to go in terms of ball movement. The things that give me a smidge of hope in this department are that for one I truly believe he values winning above all else and that will thus open his mind to coaches telling him to pass more, and beyond that he had 3 assists in the second Chicago pre-season game, and both then and as the regular season has gotten underway, there were times where I felt like he was making passes that either he wouldn't have last year or that he was doing so more quickly than before.

      That only means I think he's gone from 'terrible' to 'working on not being terrible, sometimes just not good', but at least there's hints of moving in the right direction.

      I wouldn't be shocked that if this coaching staff and the other players (West primarily, it would seem) keep on him about getting better at this, in the coming years I could see him 'graduating' from 'terrible' to 'not bad'. He'll certainly never be confused with McRoberts in this department, though.

      Comment


      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

        I'm not against Lance as the idea. I just haven't seen one single thing to buy into. I honestly don't get what you guys think you see in his game. It's very college level sloppy with the "every pass will involve me looking away to make it a no look highlight pass" touch.
        And this comes from the guy that loves Josh
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
          Wow. Seth, I take back everything I've ever said about you.

          You may be the only person I've ever come across that has noticed Lance's horrible handles. My God every time he comes up in conversation on here or with someone in person people act like he's Bob Cousy reborn. Even in the Summer League he was losing his dribble and getting the ball knocked out of his hand too much. I've really wondered what people are watching to come to that conclusion.
          I'm offended


          Comment


          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
            edit: Tyler, I love Tyler. His blackholeness doesn't even bother me. (Because in general, I like post players to go up with the shots.)
            I feel similarly. Dahntay Jones being a black hole bothers me a ton more, rightly or wrongly, because he's a guard, and I have a bias in that regard. Guards, I expect them to be much better at this than front court players, typically speaking. Drives me nuts.

            I'd also like to track his offensive rebounds, because I do suspect that a good percentage of his misses, he ends up getting the offensive rebounds for, and as long as he does that, I don't really care about his Field Goal percentage. (Although I'll hope it improves.)
            This is generally how I feel about this, too. I wish there was a separate stat from points per possession that would accurately measure this. I was thinking about this earlier today, and I think I might call it points per trip, with trip being defined as starting when the offensive team gains possession of the ball and not ending until live play is suspended (fouls, time outs, etc.) or until the other team has gained possession of the ball (turnovers, defensive rebounds, etc.), and then tell me what the team and players' % of success is in that scenario.

            Meaning with PPT, if you gain possession, miss twice, but rebound twice, and score on the third attempt, that all goes down as one "trip" and goes in the "scored" column instead of the "did not score" column. You could and should go deeper with this stat (2P FG, 3P FG, FTAs), but that's the gist of it, and I almost would suspect SOMEONE is measuring this already and I'm just ignorant of where to find it, but I don't recall ever seeing it, and I would love to be able to do that.

            Comment


            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              I'm offended
              Did you specify his handles? If so I missed it. I don't think I ever said anything about you to take back, so you can revel in that.

              Comment


              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                I think your wording here could be at least a little misleading. You make it sound like while Danny and West have a history of shooting better that Tyler does not. Well, by his rookie year that's true, but his second and most recent year, where he shot 46%, that isn't true, and I feel like the above comment could mislead people on that point.
                My mistake, but not my intent.

                The intent is that you have 3 guys shooting below 40% eFG. 2 NEVER DO THAT, 1 has done it in a season, and in 2 different months of his 2nd season.

                So if I'm going to bet on an outcome, it's going to be on the 49% guy improving from 40% back toward 47% than on the 37% guy doing better than he's ever shown and getting up to 47%.

                And lest Vnzla think its totally unfair to punish a guy by comparing him to an all-star, 47% isn't all-star. It was when West went to 51% that got him all-star talk. 47% is par for course for NBA PFs that even play 15 mpg. It just is.

                You know how many SF-C have played 3000 minutes and shot 43% or worse eFG% since 1990? 15. The top of the minutes list is Chris Dudley, Jason Collins, Eddie Griffin, Michael Ruffin, Vlad Stepania, and Joe Wolf. None of those guys took 10 FGA and most took less than 5 per.

                I just don't picture fans going bonkers for Jason Collins or Joe Wolf. And btw, Dudley was a better per minute rebounder than Tyler so far (comparing years 1 vs 1, etc).

                Comment


                • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Did you specify his handles? If so I missed it. I don't think I ever said anything about you to take back, so you can revel in that.
                  I don't if I have in this specific thread, but I've criticized his "I dribble at my chin" style more than once on here. It's a freaking abomination to even call him a point guard when he handles the ball like that.

                  *Deep breath*

                  But I am trying to give Lance the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time I think there's no reason not to play AJ, but I get it. Larry and Vogel want to see if they can polish the dirt and rock off this diamond, well all I can say is, I hope they have a big pick axe.

                  Everybody acts like Lance isn't playing that much, but 9-10 minutes per game which is currently what it looks like Lance will get isn't exactly chump change either.
                  Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-03-2012, 11:58 PM.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                    By the way, speaking of stats I want, I wish assist statistics would improve. I want to know what the play was that counted as an assist. Hollinger was taking on the NBA Today podcast that Chris Paul was sometimes given assists in New Orleans where he'd pass to David West, David would stop, dribble a few times, then score off that, and yet Paul would still get the assist. That's BS IMO and I would like to see assists separated by no dribble scores, drive scores, post scores, alley oops (dunks/layups), and maybe how many dribbles the receiver took before scoring.

                    Also, and this is more important, I want to know how many passes a player makes that immediately results in the receiver drawing a foul, separated by shooting fouls, non-shooting fouls, and the shooting fouls being further separated by and-one's and missed shots.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                      Assists are a very finicky stat and they are easily manipulated, just ask John Stockton and the Utah statisticians.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                        I think Tyler's another type of player that what he does doesn't always show up in the stat sheets. In a different way than Dun, Josh, Foster, Price, and Paul George (among others) do.

                        I think Frank Vogel's right. I think no one wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough. Not for the same reason that "no one wants to play against Lebron" obviously. But because he's strong and tough and is like the freaking energizer bunny. Hansbrough is like a rabbid dog on a steak with the basketball.

                        He has his inconsistencies, like every other young player on the roster. And he has his places where he needs to improve. But that "attack mode" is always there. And I can pretty much guarantee that it always irritates and wears down his opponents.

                        Yes, some players aren't called out on their inconsistencies, or just flat out sucking, and Tyler is one of them. But I really think most people just appreciate what he always brings to the table, and if he shoots a high percentage, that's gravy. (Similar to Josh's dirty work and scoring)

                        Comment


                        • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                          Why do I think the average NBA player hates playing against Hansbrough? You never get to take a break against him because that is when he makes you pay.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                            The reason people who love Tyler love Tyler is, I think, his relentlessness and toughness and how sometimes those things result in very exciting moments; it's admirable and that means more to some than to others (even amongst all who appreciate such a thing), and to some I think that also pumps them up because it is how he succeeds in times where he 'shouldn't'. It's an underdog-ish vibe, and some people love that a lot.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Yes, this is the issue.

                              More talented than Danny, West, DC, Hill, George, Hibbert and Tyler.

                              As in "if you had to start a team by drafting ONE Pacer, Larry Bird would take Lance first".

                              Seriously, are there people here that believe that crap? It can't be true. I don't buy that Larry would make that choice at all.


                              People throw out statements like this and act like it carries zero weight. But this is right there with "one of the best 3pt shooters" and "a point guard in the Mark Price mold". How are K Rush and Diener doing in the NBA just a few seasons later?

                              Do you know which NBA GM/Team gave those 2 players the MOST NBA minutes they ever saw? Bird/Pacers.

                              And of all fanbases to buy into "HE'S AWESOME IN PRACTICE", the fans of Bender's team should be the most wary of buying into that.
                              You act like talent is based solely on what they've done in the NBA or something. Whether you want to admit it or not, Lance was the #1 college prospect in the nation for a reason.

                              Lance's problems don't come from a lack of talent, they come from a lack of brain power.

                              You're not admitting Lance's "greatness" by recognizing his talent. I've been called a Lance hater by some, and now evidently I'm a Lance fan boy.

                              The truth is in the middle. I'm not emotionally wrapped up in whether or not Lance succeeds or if he fails. He is what he is.
                              Last edited by Since86; 01-04-2012, 10:04 AM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Nets/Pacers postgame thread

                                And I think AJ not getting any time is more of a backhanded compliment than anything else. AJ has always been ready to play. Whether it's a preseason game or the playoffs, you know what you're going to get from him.

                                He might not hit his shots, but he's a pretty steady player. He's a professional by every sense of the word.

                                I think he can handle sitting the bench, for now. If Lance doesn't start improving, I fully expect AJ to slide right back into the backup spot and start running like he never left.

                                No, Lance isn't better than AJ right now. Lance could be. He's a project plain and simple.

                                If it was at the end of the season, I know I would be calling for AJ to be playing. But it's game 6 of the season tonight. It's still a young season.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X