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: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

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

  • #46
    Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I am not saying I agree with the coahcing decision. But it was made for defense and specifically because Roy was getting killed in the pick and rolls.
    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    Yes, but the very next two plays Lebron just went straight to the hole without any concern of having his shot affected.
    I did not think it was horrible, but we really cold not do anything to stop Lebron. I think Vogel was hoping this smaller/quicker lineup would have a better chance to force turnovers especially if we were planning on trapping and recovering from beaten traps, like the case when GH got the steal.
    Why so SERIOUS

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I need to look up what Roy and George's cap holds are to have a clearer picture here, but I know that they are not nearly as large as what their new contracts will be (particularly for Roy), so a good chunk of that 22m in cap space is still in play even if we plan to keep both of them.

      That having been said, I hope we offer a contract to Nash. I think that unless he just does not want to play in/for Indiana, or otherwise he just feels like there's a better choice for him to make, you can get him for a couple of years. And I believe we can potentially get hom and keep Roy and Hill.

      If so, you are initially looking at something like this for a rotation:

      Nash/Collison
      George/Hill
      Granger/George
      West/Hansbrough
      Hibbert/Fesenko(?)

      What I like about this is besides the tremendous offensive improvement, you keep DC and Hill, which makes things very adaptable at the PG position, and I really think Hill is at his best at the backup SG position.

      Now, Tyler is a guy where if I think what we saw this year is all we're going to get, then I pray there's at least one GM that feels differently and see what I can get in a trade. I'm not totally convinced that is his fate (I can conceive of him coming back with a much better season), but I think it's the more probably outcome right now.

      I'm still intrigued by Fesenko. I'd never project him to become anything greater than a backup center at this point, but if that is the case, I would rather have him than Lou in the long term because I like his size, I think he'll contribute defensively, eat up space in general, and I think he can give us a little something offensively in the post. So obviously I'm hoping we re-sign him, and he should not be expensive.

      If we're going to stay cheap at the backup PF, then if you think it's time to trade Tyler, I still think Pendergraph can fill that role at a respectable level. I liked what I saw from him on Synergy when he was a Blazer, and I think what he showed the night he started for us is a taste of what he can do if he is fed consistent minutes. He is longer and more athletic than Tyler, he has a hint of a post game and a jumper, and I think he could help alter some shots defensively with his length. Nothing special, but frankly it looks better to me than what Tyler was giving us.

      Alternatively, you could re-sign Lou and play hi, at what would be a more natural position for him. I think it might allow him to give us a little more when he's not oversized so often.

      Honestly, if I think Pendergraph can do what I've described, I'd just as soon go with Jeff than Lou. If Lou can accept being our 5th big, great, if not on well.

      Now, here's the other thing: I'd be very curious to know what DC could fetch in a trade. He's a good player. I wonder if he and Tyler could fetch someone like Paul Milsap, who would be a great 3rd big man to have. It'd be sad to see him go, but if that happens, don't forget we very well may have Dahntay Jones back, too, and you could go with this rotation:

      Nash/Hill
      George/Jones
      Granger/George
      West/Milsap
      Hibbert/Fesenko

      I don't know if that is a title contender or night, but damn I would love to find out!
      Yet when I suggested this very trade to you last night you said you thought we would be over paying? Did you change your mind?

      I've thought for a few weeks that is the one trade that I would really try pushing for. I think Utah would love to have Darren and they would probably take Tyler as a spare part.


      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

        Just a few things, Vogel did a good job this season, I think learning how to maximize everyone's abilities and keep their confidence high will be one of those things that continues to grow with time.

        I personally think Hill should have drove to the hole more, our offense seemed so stagnant at times because there was little movement, I think this would have helped create open guys. Also, PG has to become more aggressive, he is still young, but sometimes he needed to just go at it.

        Dahntay Jones to me seemed like the excellent defensive matchup for Wade, with the way Wade was killing us I would have had to put him in to try to slow him down, let someone else kill us.

        Speaking of other people killing us, I am surprised how often we did not get out on 3 point shooters, they were able to get a ton of wide open 3's, but I guess West also is not used to having to defend 3 point shooters on the regular (there were others who did not get out as well).

        Good season, we will improve, not to worried, valuable playoff experience, now time to rest up and then work hard in the off-season.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

          re Milsap for DC+Tyler trade, I think that's not realistic.
          DC has settled as a marginal starter / backup PG, and those guys hardly ever bring you more than a late first pick.
          And I think Tyler is worth next to nothing at this point.
          While Milsap had arguably his best season and played like a marginal All Star. And he's severely underpaid. The Jazz will be asking for much more if they were to trade Milsap.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Yet when I suggested this very trade to you last night you said you thought we would be over paying? Did you change your mind?

            I've thought for a few weeks that is the one trade that I would really try pushing for. I think Utah would love to have Darren and they would probably take Tyler as a spare part.
            I did change my mind.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              Now before I go any further let me make sure this point is loud and clear. I believe in Frank Vogel. I think he is one of the best coach’s in the NBA and honestly believe that he was the result of divine intervention saving our team from the clutches of evil.

              Now having said that I will say this, I think he probably cost us this game. That may be harsh and it may not even be completely accurate but once again tonight our starters built a lead and like clockwork (orange in this case) in comes the bench and the lead not only dissipates but is now a deficit that the starters have to come back in and try and get back. But of course by this time they are cold and Miami has grown in confidence from seeing the ball go through the hoop so often.
              I love Vogel's enthusiasm and approach to the game, but I'm not so ready to delcare him one of the best coaches in the NBA. No I'm not saying I want a different coach. But he has a lot of improving to do over the off-season, just as much as the players I think. He deffinitely cost us this game. Spolestra is a terrible coach, but he out-coached Vogel as far as making adjustments. Probably throughout this entire series.

              Our best offense in the series came when we were running it through Roy and D. West. Everyone knew this, but everyone also knew we struggled when the the post players are fronted. This was a problem in the Orlando series as well. In fact I would say this was a problem all season. Vogel has had more than enough time to fix this. I think Seth was the one saying Vogel had finally figured out how to deal with the post-fronting in the second half of game 5. Well in the first half last night it looked like indeed Vogel had figured it out. We were running some new plays and Hibbert and West were getting open looks. Why in the second half did we not go back to these plays?? That is on Vogel.

              Peck was right about the Heat figuring out our defensive scheme. Funnelling the driver into Roy was clearly not working from Game 4 on as Wade, Lebron, and even Chalmers were nailing the floater in the lane. As vnlza pointed out, the solution to this would have been for Paul and Danny to go under the screen and cut off the lane and give them the open jumper instead of relying on Roy to stop the driver. It was so obvious yet Vogel never made the adjustment.

              And why didn't they trap Lebron and Wade more? Danny pointed out before half time that was something they might try. They tried it once on Wade in the 3rd quarter, and it worked beautifully, they forced a turnover! You would have thought they might want to go back to that as Wade and Lebron were single-handedly dismantling our defense. Throughout the whole playoffs Vogel never really made these sort of adjustments, while both Spolestra and SVG were contstantly throwing double-teams and traps at us that kept our players out of there comfort zones.

              Finally there's the passing. I've been harping on this problem all year long and it really came back to bite us in the butt in the playoffs. The turnovers in this game are what killed us. Vogel needs to dedicate a lot of time to passing drills in the off-season if our team is going to improve any next year.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

                How about Varejao instead of Milsap for DC, Hans and maybe pick? His defence, rebounding, screen setting and versatility would be more useful than Milsap's offensive production. This is assuming Cleveland want to go young and stockpile assets.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

                  Originally posted by Team Indy View Post
                  How about Varejao instead of Milsap for DC, Hans and maybe pick? His defence, rebounding, screen setting and versatility would be more useful than Milsap's offensive production. This is assuming Cleveland want to go young and stockpile assets.
                  a nobrainer for us, but i don't think it makes any sense for the Cavs.
                  They just gave away JJ Hickson and Sessions for a couple late picks and Omri Casspi. Backups at 4 and 1 bring very little value to that team.

                  Also, the Cavs aren't far from the playoffs, and Varejao is a very good starter on a very good long contract and still pretty young. If they are going to trade him, it will be for a better piece, and they can afford to take a few years to find that piece.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    Now here is a question for everyone. Do we care that Danny Granger & David West left the floor without shaking the Heat's hand? Everybody else on the bench and the starters congratulated the Heat but West immediately bolted the floor as soon as the buzzer sounded followed quickly by Granger. Probably not a big deal either way but these are the two leaders of the team so I guess some might have a problem with it. God knows Isiah and the Pistons got a ton of crap for not shaking hands with the Bulls when they finally beat them.
                    I have little problem with this...the behavior of the entire Heat Team throughout the series really gave me a different perspective of them. This doesn't mean that I'm going to overlook or ignore what Lance did....I actually thought that it was stupid and immature.....but the whole way that the Team reacted and their subsequent actions in Game 4 is what defined what the Heat is all about.

                    I can see this spinned into a "they were cry babies that were pouting at the end cuz they didn't win", but I'm guessing that it was more of a personal thing for either of them where respect ( in the form of a series ending handshake ) is earned...not given.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      So basically it was pick your poison. And Roy was pretty gassed, and West was the one between the two who had been going offensively, too.
                      Not really. Vogel could have left Roy in the game and instructed the perimeter defender to go under the screen, rather than attempt to slide through with the dribbler. That way, Roy would not have been hung out to dry 18-20 feet from the basket.

                      Of course, that would have required a complete character change on Vogel's part. Vogel has to learn that using variation to handle opposing screens is a far more useful tool defensively than always doing one thing that enables the opponent to always know what to do when using the PnR/PnP.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 2 game 6 of 2012 NBA playoffs

                        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                        Not really. Vogel could have left Roy in the game and instructed the perimeter defender to go under the screen, rather than attempt to slide through with the dribbler. That way, Roy would not have been hung out to dry 18-20 feet from the basket.

                        Of course, that would have required a complete character change on Vogel's part. Vogel has to learn that using variation to handle opposing screens is a far more useful tool defensively than always doing one thing that enables the opponent to always know what to do when using the PnR/PnP.
                        Well, yeah, I would have preferred that too, but I was speaking of what was actually likely to happen.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X