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

Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

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

  • #46
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

    Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
    Question, guys, as I don't have replay, only saw it once and didn't think much of it until after the game: on the final play of regulation, where PG24 missed the shot to win it, did the Pacers draw up the play for George and not try to get it to Granger, or did the Hornets just deny Granger?

    I only ask because the final shot should always be in the hands of Granger unless it's impossible to get him the ball. Say what you want about the man's other faults; he's undeniably clutch.
    I think it depends, if granger is open id want no one else but him takin the shot but if i want someone who can create for the gamewinner i want george to shoot it. Ive seen granger take some ugly lookin gamewinning attempts, i dont think hes as clutch as u think he is

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

      I think it was a perfect time for PG to take the shot. It let's teams know that we have another trigger and may keep teams from doubling up on Danny. It was a great opportunity for Paul and for the coaches. Paul got a ton of separation, had a perfect look and appeared to fall about 1" short hitting the front of the rim. He does that again and he would have hit the shot. It is a growing point for Paul.

      Great call Coach!
      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Regarding the game, yeah a win is a win but I don't think we win the game if they had either Okafor or Landry, we are not supposed to struggle againts a team that's that bad and has a bunch of young piece, once again the Pacers are proving to me that they are not as good as we thought.
        Sorry but I have to call on that.

        The Hornets are 3-2 without Okafor and 3-5 without Landry.

        They are 4-20 with both Okafor and Landry and 4-23 with Okafor but without Landry.

        And that's because Kaman and Ayon have stepped up. Belinelli being in a good form has also helped them a lot as I heard them saying on their feed.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

          [QUOTE=Saras;1379964]George wasnt good all game, he needed 20 shots for 20 points, his D wasnt amazing. If you hate collison which had 8-11 8reb 6ast game tonight, atleast stop worshipping George which is at best average nba player.

          Take off your pink glasses people.

          funny gifs... j/k i get your point.


          Originally posted by Dr. Hibbert View Post
          Question, guys, as I don't have replay, only saw it once and didn't think much of it until after the game: on the final play of regulation, where PG24 missed the shot to win it, did the Pacers draw up the play for George and not try to get it to Granger, or did the Hornets just deny Granger?

          I only ask because the final shot should always be in the hands of Granger unless it's impossible to get him the ball. Say what you want about the man's other faults; he's undeniably clutch.

          I disagree here. In that situation I'm sure whoever Belineli was guarding was going to get the last shot. I'm glad coach had the guts to make the call because it was the right one.

          Paul should be the guy taking the last shot every night in iso situations IMO anyway. Danny's proven time and time again isos are a weakness of his. He's just as likely to dribble the ball of his foot out of bounds as he is getting off a good shot. I know he's won a couple games for us, but I'm not confident in his ball handling during critical situations. Now if we run him off screens ala Reggie then Danny's a good option but please, no isos.

          Danny better get used to standing in a corner and playing off others because the better Paul gets, the more touches he's going to need. Danny's not going to have as many plays called for him as he's used to so he better suck it up and focus on other aspects of his game like he said he would. His effort and attitude last night was a terrible example for our young players.

          I was actually happy when Kaman popped him in the chin. He deserved a little pain for the way he was acting on the court last night.

          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
          He needs to hedge in order to give DC a chance to get through the screen. However, he wouldn't need to make so much contact if DC would put more of an effort into going over the top of the screen, rather than always going underneath and forcing Roy to commit so hard.
          Wouldn't this leave him in even worse position to get back to the point guard? Once Roy leaves, DC would be behind the pg leaving a wide open lane to drive thru.

          He's being coached to go under them for some reason. They'd have to switch there whole defensive rotations if they decided to go over the screens.

          I think the scheme is a good one, it's just the players running it are bad it.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
            I think it was a perfect time for PG to take the shot. It let's teams know that we have another trigger and may keep teams from doubling up on Danny. It was a great opportunity for Paul and for the coaches. Paul got a ton of separation, had a perfect look and appeared to fall about 1" short hitting the front of the rim. He does that again and he would have hit the shot. It is a growing point for Paul.

            Great call Coach!
            Watching it online with the NO announcers, it was interesting to hear them totally bash Vogel for choosing to "let a 21 year old" take the last shot instead of big shot West. Remember - these announcers had watched West (and Collinson, for that matter) play so well for NO for so many years, that they were biased.

            I thought it was a good opportunity in a tie game (rather than a game where they are behind) to find another 'go to' play or player. I prefer getting something actively going to the rim and/or involving more than one player in the play rather than an isolation fadeaway jumper, but the shot he got was a pretty darn good shot. He just missed it.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

              Originally posted by MTM View Post
              Watching it online with the NO announcers, it was interesting to hear them totally bash Vogel for choosing to "let a 21 year old" take the last shot instead of big shot West. Remember - these announcers had watched West (and Collinson, for that matter) play so well for NO for so many years, that they were biased.

              I thought it was a good opportunity in a tie game (rather than a game where they are behind) to find another 'go to' play or player. I prefer getting something actively going to the rim and/or involving more than one player in the play rather than an isolation fadeaway jumper, but the shot he got was a pretty darn good shot. He just missed it.
              I thought we would go to West, too. I'm still perfectly fine with what we did, though. To be fair, I would have been okay with anyone on the floor taking the shot. DC was playing well, Danny is pretty clutch, Roy was playing great and DWest has proven to be clutch/had just knocked down a jumper.
              Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                Wouldn't this leave him in even worse position to get back to the point guard? Once Roy leaves, DC would be behind the pg leaving a wide open lane to drive thru.

                He's being coached to go under them for some reason. They'd have to switch there whole defensive rotations if they decided to go over the screens.

                I think the scheme is a good one, it's just the players running it are bad it.
                Collison has to make more of an attempt to "beat the screen".

                Being content to go under every screen is easier on Collison but it makes it tougher on everyone else. He's got to try to get over the top quickly so that it doesn't force the guy guarding the screener to hedge so aggressively.

                If Collison gets over the top decently, a simple "show" from the big is all that is needed to slow the ball handler enough for Collison the time to get back.

                But since he takes the easier path around the screen, he makes it easy on both the screener and ball handler.

                Our big is forced to "hard hedge" and frankly, Roy, West, and Hansbrough are not good at it. So while the scheme may be a good one, it is only a good one if you have the personnel to run it. We do not.

                Roy and West are both way, way too slow to react. The ball handler can easily get the edge and drive through their hips. Hansbrough generally doesn't do as he's supposed to and simply backs off leaving the ball handler a wide open shot.

                If the defending guard fights over the top of the screen it allows the big to stay further back while still defending the ball handler. This puts you slightly more susceptible to pick and pops but proper defensive rotation negates this further.

                Of course, this opens up a whole new can of worms because both our power forwards, Hansbrough in particular, are basically non-existent in rotation.

                However, if forced to choose, I'd rather take a pick and pop versus having the PG get an open look at the top of the key, the PG driving into the hips of the bigs and getting them in foul trouble, or having Collison switched off on the roller.

                There is no perfect scheme for defending the ball screen. This is why it is the absolute staple of every single pro offense. But the key is using the scheme which best matches your personnel. With the speed of our bigs, it would seem to me that the best method would be to have the guard try to get over the top of most screens. What I know is a bad idea, is having the guard go under every single screen. Unfortunately, this seems to be Collison's method.
                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                -Lance Stephenson

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                  I was totally fine with giving George that last shot. Hell, Paul showed us last year he could create and hit his own buzzer beaters. Granted, they were 3rd quarter not 4th, but he hit at least two or three of them, and they were from three point range. I think one was a home game vs MIN, and the most impressive one was @MIL where he made a sweet behind-the-back move to create space before flicking his wrist to drain a 3. Good stuff.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                    I think we are all okay with PG taking the final shot because the Pacers still won the game. If we had lost in overtime I think this board would of had its fair share of people upset that Granger or West didn't take the last shot.
                    Last edited by The Sleeze; 02-22-2012, 04:44 PM.
                    I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                      Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                      This is why I don't consider Danny a poor defender. He is actually quite good at help defense and stealing/bothering passes. He is also very good at man-to-man defense when he is square on his guy. He struggles in the transition between the two styles.
                      This is fair. But last night I don't think had anything to do with switching styles, Danny was just bad last night.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                        Shoot, we sucked and had a 5-game winning streak two seasons ago. Teams randomly get hot
                        It wasn't random. Murphy was injured.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                          Originally posted by MTM View Post
                          Watching it online with the NO announcers, it was interesting to hear them totally bash Vogel for choosing to "let a 21 year old" take the last shot instead of big shot West. Remember - these announcers had watched West (and Collinson, for that matter) play so well for NO for so many years, that they were biased.

                          I thought it was a good opportunity in a tie game (rather than a game where they are behind) to find another 'go to' play or player. I prefer getting something actively going to the rim and/or involving more than one player in the play rather than an isolation fadeaway jumper, but the shot he got was a pretty darn good shot. He just missed it.
                          Pretty sure about West and possibly Granger (not totally sure), but it looked liked they were laughing amiably at PG after he missed the shot. I got the feeling they were glad he got his opportunity, but enjoyed watching him take his medicine and the idea of razzing him a bit later on.
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Odd Thoughts: Fat Tuesday game

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I think one was a home game vs MIN, and the most impressive one was @MIL where he made a sweet behind-the-back move to create space before flicking his wrist to drain a 3. Good stuff.
                            What's more impressive is that it was on back-to-back nights.

                            BPump, El Pacero, myself, and others were actually in Milwaukee when he made that shot. The whole place went silent as that thing splashed in. It was awesome.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X