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

Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

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

  • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Stats aren't the be all end all of a discussion. That's certain. But they often present a more objective point of view than opinions do. That's why they are used within the context of a basketball discussion.

    The problem is when people apply their own biases to statistics in order to make their points seem true. That's what leads to fallacies.

    Statistics are tools. The problem is how some people use those tools.
    This should be inscribed somewhere on the PD masthead. Nice description of the misuse of stats.

    Stats in general should be used to discover truths. Not to prove a point.

    All to often, posters take a position and use stats to prove the point is correct. The weakness there is they only use stats that agree with them. Most of the time there is a stat that supports pretty much any position you or I take.

    Comment


    • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

      Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
      Sorry to butt in. Danny's style is different from Manu or Crawford, but Danny, if he was given the job, would be a very effective scorer off the bench. Manu and Crawford score the way they do because that is their skill set. Guys with a different skill set would score another way.

      BTW, I agree the discussion is moot. [As opposed to mute, Graham :bow:] Unless he his still hurt, Danny will be starting.
      Yeah, I certainly agree. Danny would be an effective scorer off the bench. As I said earlier I'd expect him to do what Kevin Martin did last season (mid 10s in high efficiency) offensively.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        i.7 pts more makes one a good bench scorer over the other. That's all it takes! LOL!
        You asked if scoring 8.7 points was better than scoring 7 points. I'm not sure why you asked it but you did. The answer will always be yes, especially when the guy who scores 8.7 points does it in less time than it takes the other guy to score 7.

        Comment


        • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
          Efficiency. Copeland's a much more efficient scorer than Tyler.

          True Shooting % (2's, 3's, & FT's)
          Copeland: .583
          Hansbrough: .527

          Effective Field Goal % (2's & 3's)
          Copeland: .557
          Hansbrough: .432(!!!)

          I can't find the league averages for TS% and eFG%, but to put things into perspective:

          Miami lead the league in eFG% at .552 -- 0.5% lower than Copeland's.
          Indiana was 22nd in eFG% at .479 -- a whopping 7.8% lower than Copeland's.

          George Hill led the Pacers in TS% at .558 -- Copeland's .583 easily surpasses that.
          George Hill led the Pacers in eFG% at .518 -- Copeland's .557 trounces that.

          Tyler Hansbrough was a well below average scorer in terms of efficiency. I hate to say, as I like the guy, but his AWOL jump shot pretty much turned him into an offensive liability. The only thing he has going for him, offensively, is his ability to draw free throws, and even that as partially nullified by his decreased FT%.

          Chris Copeland, on the other hand, is a significantly-above-average scorer in terms of efficiency. He not only scores a lot (20.3 points per 36 minutes), he does so very effectively, which is exactly what the Pacers' mediocre offense needed.


          For those interested, here's a detailed breakdown: Tyler Hansbrough vs. Chris Copeland - Basketball Reference
          You left out one efficiency stat, Points Per Shot. Where Tyler scored 1.396 while Copeland scored 1.279, which would still be good for second on the Pacers just after Tyler.

          Some other stats that might be useful for this convo. They both had an Ortg of 110. Tyler also had a usage rating of 20.6% while Cope was 25.3%. Tyler had an Offensive Win Share (OWS) of 2.1 while Cope had an OWS of 1.5.

          This might be a little more complex than just FG%. I think ultimately it comes down to needs, fit, and system.

          Comment


          • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Seriously I think is time to come up with a better joke, funny that I just unblocked you to see if you were coming up with better material, I think I was wrong...
            It's less of a joke than a snide jab. I just don't get the fascination with undersized chucking 2 guards. What's the point?
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              It's less of a joke than a snide jab. I just don't get the fascination with undersized chucking 2 guards. What's the point?
              He likes selfish players who don't help the team win. I mean why do you like players who aren't selfish and help the team win? Who knows right, we just like what we like, and we can't really put a finger on why.

              Comment


              • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                It's less of a joke than a snide jab. I just don't get the fascination with undersized chucking 2 guards. What's the point?
                Hey...at least OJ Mayo and JR Smith arent that undersized....but yea...guys who throw up a million shots and shoot a low percentage...the attraction is exactly what????? Makes no friggen sense...at all. The world is full of MJ wannabes. Now we got MJ wannabe groupies. I bet you a million bucks vnzl was a huge Milli Vanilli fan.
                The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                Comment


                • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  He likes selfish players who don't help the team win. I mean why do you like players who aren't selfish and help the team win? Who knows right, we just like what we like, and we can't really put a finger on why.
                  He likes selfish players that put up a ton of shots...AND MISS!!!!!!
                  The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                  Comment


                  • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    You left out one efficiency stat, Points Per Shot. Where Tyler scored 1.396 while Copeland scored 1.279, which would still be good for second on the Pacers just after Tyler.
                    Points per shot is a misleading statistic, IMO. Really, what we should care about is Points per Possession Consumed. When Tyler draws a foul and knocks down a couple free throws, he gets Points but didn't have to add anything to the denominator (Shots), so it looks better than when a player just makes a FG.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                      Originally posted by binarysolo View Post
                      Points per shot is a misleading statistic, IMO. Really, what we should care about is Points per Possession Consumed. When Tyler draws a foul and knocks down a couple free throws, he gets Points but didn't have to add anything to the denominator (Shots), so it looks better than when a player just makes a FG.
                      Exactly. Cope will be a much more efficient scorer than Tyler.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                        At this point in time.....I don't know why everyone always have to argue that Copeland isn't a good fit on the Pacers roster.

                        I was in the "Traditional PF" camp before.....but now that I realize that the ONLY Backup PF option that we could signed that I may have been remotely been happy with is Maresse Speights or AK47 ( cuz Landry was TOO expensive ) and after listening to most of the "Pro-Copeland talking points"......I am more than willing to simply "wait and see".

                        I get that he may not be what many of us are looking for in a backup PF; but I have come to the conclusion that ( for now )...complaining about a Player BEFORE even seeing him play on the floor for a second in a Pacers uniform ( much less what adjustments that Vogel will make to accomodate the type of Backup PF that he is ) is pointless.

                        Complain about whether Copeland is a bad fit or not after seeing him play step onto the floor as a Pacer...not 4 months before that has even happened.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                          Originally posted by binarysolo View Post
                          Points per shot is a misleading statistic, IMO. Really, what we should care about is Points per Possession Consumed. When Tyler draws a foul and knocks down a couple free throws, he gets Points but didn't have to add anything to the denominator (Shots), so it looks better than when a player just makes a FG.
                          I was bringing those stats up to show a more complete picture, and that there is more to the story than just shooting percentages.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                            Stretch 4's work if there are enough other guys to take up the rebounding slack, especially on the offensive end.

                            Besides a very inexperienced Plumlee, who do the Pacers have with the second unit to either rebound themselves without someone else blocking out for them or to block out so that the wings can come in and grab an inordinate amount of boards as Lance and Paul did with the starters last year?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                              Stretch 4's work if there are enough other guys to take up the rebounding slack, especially on the offensive end.

                              Besides a very inexperienced Plumlee, who do the Pacers have with the second unit to either rebound themselves without someone else blocking out for them or to block out so that the wings can come in and grab an inordinate amount of boards as Lance and Paul did with the starters last year?
                              Hit a higher percentage of shots on the offensive end and you won't need as many boards.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Dan Burke praises Solomon Hill, says Chris Copeland is a power forward, stretch four, not a small foward

                                I will say this about the guy, he didn't suddenly become a rookie at age 29 by NOT improving his game along the way, and into his late 20s I might add.

                                This isn't some European star who decided to give the NBA a try after a successful run of being a star in that part of the world like Sarunas was, this is a guy who wanted to be here from day one, is from here, and had to bust his *** year after year to get better to the point when he finally had another shot to get back in the league. He strikes me as a hard worker.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X