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

Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

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

  • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

    It's amazing how everyone gets so riled up over the Reggie debate, and even more amazing that a thirteen year old is the first one to defend him. I don't care who starts. I care who finishes. And if I'm the coach, I play the best five players based on how they are playing. Though I may consider keeping Reggie in the game because he has been clutch over his career including last year when he made the game winner against Detroit in the ECF, a game the Pacers probably would have lost had most people on here been coaching because most people on here would have left him on the bench.

    Reggie clearly is not the player that he was, but he is clearly still dangerous (witness the 20+ point explosions early in the season when he took more than five shots) and clearly still feared by coaches (they still rarely leave him open). It is the front office all the way who want him to defer to Oneal so that Oneal can rack up the box scores and become a bona fide superstar. The players and the coach need to do a better job of getting the old man involved. There's plenty of room for both he and Fred Jones to do their damage.

    Also, you can't trust Kstat on the issue because deep down he's afraid that #31 will send the Pistons packing like he's done to so many other teams who have underestimated him in the playoffs.

    Everyone else needs to look for another scapegoat. Reggie is not the problem of this team. People want to judge him on how many points he's averaging. How about on how the team does when he's on the floor.

    Comment


    • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

      Originally posted by Millerartest

      Also, you can't trust Kstat on the issue because deep down he's afraid that #31 will send the Pistons packing like he's done to so many other teams who have underestimated him in the playoffs.
      If the Pacers and Pistons were to meet in the playoffs I bet Kstat would love seeing Reggie playing big minutes every game.

      -Bball
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

        Also, you can't trust Kstat on the issue because deep down he's afraid that #31 will send the Pistons packing like he's done to so many other teams who have underestimated him in the playoffs.
        Well, you found me out. After the torching Reggie gave my Pistons in the ECF last year, I want no part of reggie. No sirreeee. We'll never win the east, as long as Reggie is in our way......

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

          Originally posted by Jay@Section204

          You just can't play Foster during the final six minutes of a close game. Just like, when we finally got to The Finals, Bird rarely played DD during the final six minutes of close games.

          You may not have to have five high-powered offensive players, but all five players on the court *MUST* be capable FT shooters.

          Here's the thing, Croshere is one of those players with admittedly less talent 'oozing' from his body than other players in the league.

          But if Croshere is in a rhythm, he's the type of player that consistently makes plays that help a team win. He gets to the line and hits his FTs. He gets clutch rebounds. In short stretches, he doesn't get torched as much, defensively, as you'd think. He's clutch. But he's not the type of player that can come in, cold, and deliver. He's got to be in rhythm.

          Foster, more often that not, just can't make plays. Sure he'll get some offensive rebounds, but he shoots a poor % of his putbacks, and embarassingly low % from the FT line, etc. so I usually respond to his OR's with this ==> .

          But I'll end the Foster/ Croshere debate with the two most important words: David Harrison.

          s.
          Interesting considering that Foster is shoting 64% on 98 attempts from the free throw line and Harrison is shooting 54% on 70 attempts.

          But OK, if 64% is unacceptable, or embarrasing low as you put it, let me see who shoots worse than 64%. We know Shaq does, we know Ben Wallace does. But of course you would not suggest those two guys not play the last 6 minutes of close games. Tim Duncan is shooting 65% this season and 59% last season.

          Jay, 64% free throw shooting for a center/power forward is a decent %, so you need to pick another reason to not play Jeff, otherwise, DH won't get any crunchtime minutes either. In fact if I had time I would list all starting centers and power forwards, and I bet the average free throw % for those players is in the 68% range, likely less.

          Also strange you decide freethrow shooting is so key especially late in games, when Jeff just hit two huge free throws at the end against the Raptors last Wednesday night.


          As far as Jeff's "bad shooting % on putbacks". Not sure what % is a good %. But Jeff's FG% is 56%. So it can't be that bad.

          I'll say it again, if you and others cannot see the tremendous value that Jeff brings to the team (last night he was superb), then I guess nothing I say will change your mind.

          Comment


          • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

            Originally posted by Kstat
            because he's simply too old to "bring it" every night.

            .

            KSTAT, are you taking "another back-handed" swipe at the Geezer ??



            I would rather be the hammer than the nail

            Comment


            • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

              Originally posted by Bball
              Is it possible to petition the league to let us just start Reggie Miller and let him go 1 on 5?
              Isn't that what we are doing now - just a different player?
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                On Foster I agree with bball that he's best suited to play 25-30 minutes off the bench as the team's "hustle guy." Grab some boards, get some putbacks, scramble around. The problem is, right now the Pacers have nobody better.

                As for the FT shooting, you have a choice in close games. You can go with Croshere for FT shooting but give up offensive rebounds, or with Foster who's shooting is worse (but not horrible IMO) but you'll also get boards and have better defense..

                I'd go with option B myself. Of course Ideally you'd have a starting center who can give you 15 and 10, is a good FT shooter, good passer, can hit open 15-foot shots, solid defender, likes to fish, chews tobacco ....
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                  Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck
                  KSTAT, are you taking "another back-handed" swipe at the Geezer ??



                  Or maybe YOU mention this because YOU are taking a backhanded swipe at Geez


                  Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    Interesting considering that Foster is shoting 64% on 98 attempts from the free throw line and Harrison is shooting 54% on 70 attempts.

                    But OK, if 64% is unacceptable, or embarrasing low as you put it, let me see who shoots worse than 64%. We know Shaq does, we know Ben Wallace does. But of course you would not suggest those two guys not play the last 6 minutes of close games. Tim Duncan is shooting 65% this season and 59% last season.

                    Jay, 64% free throw shooting for a center/power forward is a decent %, so you need to pick another reason to not play Jeff, otherwise, DH won't get any crunchtime minutes either. In fact if I had time I would list all starting centers and power forwards, and I bet the average free throw % for those players is in the 68% range, likely less.

                    Also strange you decide freethrow shooting is so key especially late in games, when Jeff just hit two huge free throws at the end against the Raptors last Wednesday night.


                    As far as Jeff's "bad shooting % on putbacks". Not sure what % is a good %. But Jeff's FG% is 56%. So it can't be that bad.

                    I'll say it again, if you and others cannot see the tremendous value that Jeff brings to the team (last night he was superb), then I guess nothing I say will change your mind.
                    It seems the tide is turning, I no longer feel as though I am alone in the desert.

                    I'd take the time to give you more reasons why I think I have issues with Foster but I think your quote from my signature below says it all.


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

                    Comment


                    • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                      I don't want to leave the wrong impression about my thoughts on Jeff foster. Yes I love what he brigns to the Pacers team, and yes I thought he played a very, very good game against the Wizards. And yes right now I want him to start and finish every game. Only time he should not finish is if the pacers are trailing by 9 -10 points with seven or eight minutes to go, then they should play Croshere.

                      But I agree with Rimfire that Foster should play 25-30 minutes per game. I just don't agree about when he should play those minutes.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                        Originally posted by Suaveness
                        Or maybe YOU mention this because YOU are taking a backhanded swipe at Geez



                        I might be but I can because I am older than him.

                        I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                        Comment


                        • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                          Originally posted by Peck
                          Austin sure was off tonight that is for sure.
                          Austin has been off his entire career.



                          I will say plugging in Freddie in crunchtime was quesitonable. AJ has been pretty solid shooting and passing the last two games, I thought you stick with him down the stretch.

                          I'm just waiting for the day that we can field the same starting lineup for, I don't know, how about 10 games in a row? I know that hasn't happened yet this year.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                            My first post to this thread.....but I've already been slammed on EIGHT occasions. (buncha pricks)

                            First understand this, Reggie is my all-time non-ABA Pacer favorite. That is hard for me to admit on many levels. 1)---I don't suck up to ANY player, it's about the TEAM. 2)---I couldn't stand Reggie the arrogant little hotheaded ballhog flopping jerk for a LOOOONG time. 3) Dale Davis is a reaaaall close 2nd.

                            Having said all that. My observations.
                            1) They haven't quit running plays for Uncle Reggie, he's quit taking the shots he would have taken in the past. THis was really driven home to me at the game Jr. and I attended recently. Yeah that's just one game but it afforded me the chance to watch him when the TV camera isn't on him. He was running his plays and pulling up short. Instead of running off screens and brushing his man off he was stopping short of the screen and [passing the ball. Instead of taking shots that he normally would have he was passing the ball off. He's not playing Reggie Ball.
                            2) Neither RM or FJ should be our starting SG. Of the current lot, JAx should be at SG and we should have a true SF out there. I just do not like SJ at the 3, he plays better at the 2. Freddie would get eaten alive as a fulltime starter by the much bigger 2's in this league. Freddie should play the instant offense role. Be that at the 1, 2, or the 3. Come in for instant points. Reggie relegated to spot minutes for 3 pts...unless he decides to bring back his game, then he could be the BU SG.

                            That's just my opinion and NO FAIR slamming it because I've already been slammed enough in this thread.


                            Oh...Jeff, off the bench backing up David. Might as well be getting DH ready for next year.
                            JJ at the 3 until RA returns, whenever that is, or make a deal.
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                              Originally posted by Mushmouth
                              Austin has been off his entire career.



                              I will say plugging in Freddie in crunchtime was quesitonable. AJ has been pretty solid shooting and passing the last two games, I thought you stick with him down the stretch.

                              I'm just waiting for the day that we can field the same starting lineup for, I don't know, how about 10 games in a row? I know that hasn't happened yet this year.

                              I need further info from you to discuss this.

                              Are you saying consistantly he is off. Are you saying he has periods where he is off. Are you saying basically his whole career is off.

                              I'm not sure how to respond till I know exaclty what you mean.


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

                              Comment


                              • Re: Square Pegs into Round Holes... thoughts on the Pacers in tight games..

                                Originally posted by Mushmouth

                                I will say plugging in Freddie in crunchtime was quesitonable. AJ has been pretty solid shooting and passing the last two games, I thought you stick with him down the stretch.
                                ??? Wasn't Freddie in for Reggie? If AJ hadn't been in he wouldn't have thrown that hideous 3-pt airball up. If there's ever a competition for ugliest shot ever attempted, I nominate that one.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X