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

Could it be that PG is the problem?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Could it be that PG is the problem?

    http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/p...win-sinks-indy

    Over the past two-plus seasons as the Indiana Pacers enjoyed their unexpected rise, they were a team that was known for its unfailingly sunny disposition and a steady, even if at times irrational, confidence.

    After being scarred by a series of negative incidents over the previous decade, it was that genuine togetherness and collective interest that won back many of the fans who had turned their backs on the basketball-crazed state's flagship team.

    That existing foundation makes the Pacers' crumbling season such a challenge to understand and impossible to have predicted. Teams across the league yearn for such chemistry and stability -- it is those ingredients that traditionally allow teams to fight through challenging times.

    Instead, the Pacers have been internally fracturing. Monday they lost 103-77 to the San Antonio Spurs, a team that is now winners of 18 in a row but also knows a thing or two about battling through adversity, having done it quite a bit this season. It was an important game for both teams, but the Pacers, who had been 33-4 on their floor this season, fell down fast and never recovered.

    "We've been in a downward spiral," Pacers center Roy Hibbert said. "And we've been splintering a little bit."

    The numbers tell the story. The Pacers were 8-10 in March and they're just 13-13 in their past 26 games, nearly a third of a season of average basketball. Their offense, always the weak spot, has collapsed. They have failed to crack 80 points in five of their past six games.

    Their one-point victory over the Miami Heat last week now seems like an outlier when looking broadly at the Pacers. For the first time all season, the Heat have passed the Pacers for the No. 1 spot in the Eastern Conference.

    The Pacers are experiencing a leadership void at the moment and the only thing they're racking up faster than turnovers and bad shots is finger pointing. During a timeout in the second half, George Hill got into a verbal confrontation with Lance Stephenson on the bench and they had to be separated by teammates.

    Paul George has battled some negative attention and has turned away some teammates' offers for support during it. Hibbert has gone on the record calling his teammates selfish. Team president Larry Bird has gone on the record essentially calling his coach, Frank Vogel, soft and his players not committed enough.

    Barely a game goes by when one Pacer or another doesn't seem to be angry at Stephenson for something. Often he earns it, be it ridiculous technical fouls or bizarre decisions, but Stephenson is rarely guilty of not playing with commitment, as Bird has questioned his teammates on.

    After there's been a dearth of passing in recent weeks, the Pacers were overpassing at times against the Spurs, which just played into San Antonio's ability to help-and-recover. Hibbert, frustrated by a lack of touches recently, forced some shots. George, who has been criticized for not acting like the superstar he is, tried too hard to take over and found himself going 1-on-3 as he tried to will himself into making plays in what turned out to be futile second half.

    All those are the symptoms, what is happening is this once close-knit team is buckling in the transition from potential to expectation. Most of the Pacers haven't dealt with these types of demands before and those who have, like Andrew Bynum, aren't in position to help them through it. That includes Vogel, whose first three years on the bench were mostly a merry-go-round until now, and he's struggling to find ways to pull his team out of it.

    Right now the Pacers are missing two veteran voices they came to count on over the past few seasons. Danny Granger, the longest-standing member of the team and one of George's close friends, is now playing for the Clippers. Former assistant Brian Shaw, who was not afraid to be the bad cop on the bench, is now the coach of the Nuggets.

    "We've had plenty of players-only meetings and plenty of sit-downs as a team with coaches and we've had some upper management in here, so I don't know," Hibbert said. "Maybe we should all go to group therapy or something ... figure out some of our grievances."

    Vogel held a long meeting with his players and then his coaches after the latest loss on Monday. But likely nothing said there hasn't been said in some way before. He's attempted to make adjustments, changing up his rotations and his roles.

    He benched Evan Turner, the midseason acquisition who has landed in a quagmire that he wasn't involved in creating, in the second half for Rasual Butler, the veteran who is perhaps the most stabilizing voice in the locker room currently. But Butler, who hasn't played much all season, was unable to turn the tide.

    The Pacers still have the league's top defense, though it was unable to slow the storm surge that is the Spurs on Monday. They've also barely had any practice time because of a taxing March schedule that saw them play five back-to-backs and 11 road games. Defense, practice and their institutional knowledge still gives them a chance to recover.

    Whether it will be in time to get that top seed they've been chasing all season is another matter.

    "The No. 1 seed is the last thing on our minds right now," Vogel said.

    It isn't on the minds of the Spurs, either, though it should be.

    Beating the Pacers after beating the Heat earlier in the streak has put the Spurs in prime position to clinch home-court advantage should they reach the NBA Finals again. Coach Gregg Popovich and his team have been ambivalent about their franchise record-setting run, and Popovich has gone so far as to say the Spurs need a loss to help them refocus.

    "We've never had any numerical or positioning goals, ever, not one time," Popovich said. "We've never talked about [our seed] the entire time I've been here. The only thing we talk about is trying to be the best team we can be come playoff time. That's what we harp on, period. We don't talk about anything else."

    But this fact is out there: The Spurs have gone to the Finals five times and the four times they had the home-court advantage, they won. Last year, obviously, not having Game 7 at home was rather important, just as it was in 2005 when the Spurs beat the Detroit Pistons in Game 7 on their home floor.

    Monday was the first game in an eight-game run the Spurs will play against teams with winning records, with five of those games slated for the road. Thursday they play what could be a pivotal game for Western Conference home-court advantage against the Oklahoma City Thunder on the second night of a back-to-back.

    Which meant handing the Pacers just their fifth home loss of the season, even if it was just one of a string of 18 impressive victories now, still had some meaning.

    "This was a good win for us," Tim Duncan said. "To continue the streak, all that is good. We'll worry about a couple of things, staying healthy, finishing the season strong and hopefully going into the playoffs with the confidence we're playing with now."
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

    .................. Waiting on the Could it be that DW is the problem thread or ............ the could it be that RH is the problem thread or could it be that (insert player, coach, executive, cheerleader name here) is the problem thread.
    Last edited by PacerDude; 04-01-2014, 12:18 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

      PG's **** shooting has been our biggest problem.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
        .................. Waiting on the Could it be that DW is the problem thread or ............ the could it be that RH is the problem thread or could it be that (insert player, coach, executive, cheerleader name here) is the problem thread.
        Agreed. Trying to single out one factor for a Titanic-esque struggles is pointless. There are plenty of contributing factors, including Paul's play.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
          PG's **** shooting has been our biggest problem.
          no.
          #LanceEffect

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
            .................. Waiting on the Could it be that DW is the problem thread or ............ the could it be that RH is the problem thread or could it be that (insert player, coach, executive, cheerleader name here) is the problem thread.
            Could it be that PD is the problem?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

              I think David West playing so well in January and February and carrying us really hid a lot of the issues this team was having offensively.
              Last edited by BenR1990; 04-01-2014, 02:42 PM. Reason: used the word "really" too many times in a sentence

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

                If you subscribe to the theory that a team is only as good as its best player, than yes he is a problem here. He hasn't played very well and he is our best player so yes he is a problem.

                However that is different from saying he is the reason for the chemistry issues - certainly he is a reason. But he is still young and too good to "get rid of"

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  If you subscribe to the theory that a team is only as good as its best player, than yes he is a problem here. He hasn't played very well and he is our best player so yes he is a problem.

                  However that is different from saying he is the reason for the chemistry issues - certainly he is a reason. But he is still young and too good to "get rid of"
                  I was just referring to the quote about some pacers reached out to PG to help him and he declined. Speculation but could have rubbed those that tried to help, the wrong way
                  Sittin on top of the world!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

                    He's part of the problem. For the first half of the season, he was playing at a superstar level. His jumpshot was lethal, but since then, he's lost his shot. Instead of doing what he does best, focus on his great defense...he's continued to chuck up shots like he's LeBron or Durant. He's not there yet. It looked like he finally took that step, where you could say "take the game over", but not anymore. Whether it was the stripper incident, the cover of ESPN Magazine, and the GQ photoshoot maybe he and the rest of the team began to believe the hype.

                    Instead of the group that felt "slighted" by the National Media and played with a chip on its shoulder, we began to see this group transform into a bunch of entitled crybabies. This is sad because they hadn't won anything. Gone was the team that played like a cohesive 5 man unit. Instead, it's been replaced by a bunch of individuals too worried about "getting theirs" and "their stats", than they are trusting one another and making the right basketball play. Pointing fingers instead of trying to find solutions. No one holding themselves and each other accountable.
                    Last edited by PR07; 04-01-2014, 02:25 PM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

                      Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                      Could it be that PD is the problem?

                      Paul's dick. Hmmm.....could be.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        If you subscribe to the theory that a team is only as good as its best player, than yes he is a problem here. He hasn't played very well and he is our best player so yes he is a problem.

                        However that is different from saying he is the reason for the chemistry issues - certainly he is a reason. But he is still young and too good to "get rid of"
                        Curious as to what makes Paul George our "best" player...? It's widely assumed, but outside of a 1-2month stretch this year, what makes this the case? Or is simply a matter of he has the potential to not only be our best and one of the better players in the league. What I see is a player who greatly lacks in any kind of understanding of the game, and when he decides to slack off defensively, which has been the case more times than not this year, he's barely an average player. We were so quick to label him our new face of the franchise, but I'm not quite sure he's earned it.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

                          I have thought for a while now that both Hibbert and PG are over-rated. I cringed a little when we gave Hibbert that much money and although I didn't cringe when PG got his payday, I had serious concerns that he could justify that salary on the court. I guess my concerns were justified so far.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

                            Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                            I have thought for a while now that both Hibbert and PG are over-rated. I cringed a little when we gave Hibbert that much money and although I didn't cringe when PG got his payday, I had serious concerns that he could justify that salary on the court. I guess my concerns were justified so far.
                            At least with PG, you can at least say, "He's young, he's 23. He'll learn."

                            Roy is 27, what's his excuse? He's had enough NBA experience, where he should be considered both a veteran and a leader on this team. The fact that he not only doesn't bring it every night, but points fingers in the media doesn't demonstrate a lot of maturity.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Could it be that PG is the problem?

                              Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                              At least with PG, you can at least say, "He's young, he's 23. He'll learn."

                              Roy is 27, what's his excuse? He's had enough NBA experience, where he should be considered both a veteran and a leader on this team. The fact that he not only doesn't bring it every night, but points fingers in the media doesn't demonstrate a lot of maturity.

                              That's exactly why I didn't want to give Hibbert the huge contract. He is mentally fragile and inconsistent and in my opinion always will be to some extent.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X