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 1 Game 1 Ugh...

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

  • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
    Yes i'm sure they made hard plays all night, but he was giving examples of plays that should never happen. Like at the end of the half, PG loses the ball off his fancy dribbling and Teague misses the fastbreak layup and Kyle Korver beat everyone down the floor for the put back.
    Nothing annoys me more than the Paul George "iso play" to end quarters either. How about we just run a normal offensive play? It seems to me like he wait too long in the shot clock, and then takes some off-balance/fadeaway shot when he's clearly well defended.

    Comment


    • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

      Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
      Ratking,

      Going with a stronger defensive back-court of ET/Lance would be ideal, but you'd have to tell ET he's only out there as a distributor and NOT a playmaker. That's the problem with pairing him w/Lance. Both players have to have the ball in their hand. Both view themselves as "ballas" of which Lance has proven himself to be and ET has not. But for defensive purposes when PG goes out the Pacers definitely need to have a defensive-minded Guard on the floor. It's one of the reasons Vogel tried to keep Lance on the floor w/the 2nd-unit - playmaking and back-court defense. But as this article makes clear in a post-game analysis, the Pacers began to lose this game once PG & DWest went out late in the 3Q, ET & Scola came in and we lost tons of our defensive presence to stop Jeff Teague on dribble penetration both at the point of attack and with help defense.

      Vogel should have NEVER let that happen. So, I blame his rigid player rotations for that blunder. If anything, he should have had CJ Watson on the floor at a minimum. I would have also gone with playing Butler at the 3-spot to make up for Scola's poor man-D.
      The way ET is playing lately, I would just prefer having a backcourt where both players are aggressively looking to penetrate the defense. I like how ET has been looking to pass as well, and think he can do more to get teammates open than G.Hill, especially if Hill isn't looking to be aggressive. I also like ETs potential to post-up some of Atlanta's smaller guards. This skill has been hyped up about more than its been actually observed since he joined the team, but I think its there somewhere. I don't know enough about ET's defense to compare ET and G.Hill defensively.
      https://soundcloud.com/geoclipse

      Comment


      • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

        I can only assume that a lot of you who complain about the PG iso plays at the end of the first half or a quarter don't watch a lot of other teams. This is common place in the NBA for just about every team. Most coaches save their best late game plays for the actual end of games. If I had a dollar for every time I saw Durant, Lebron, Carmelo, etc. either miss a contested jumper or turn the ball over on a useless play at the end of a quarter this season, I could have a pretty good evening at the red garter.


        Comment


        • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
          In what world is Evan Turner part of a stronger, defensive backcourt?
          The worst D played on Teague all game was the crossover stepback 3 he buried on Turner. I think the best defensive backcourt we could have is actually Hill + Watson. Lance is as bad as Hill and if Turner had just slightly less to offer on the offensive end he'd be out of the league by now.

          Comment


          • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

            Watson got eaten alive by Teague too. Our guards except for Paul are way too conditioned to rely on Roy at the rim so when Roy gets pulled out (Antic and Milsap can both shoot) our guards don't adjust to it. At least not quickly enough.


            Comment


            • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

              Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
              Ratking,

              Going with a stronger defensive back-court of ET/Lance would be ideal
              100% disagree, that would be a terrible line-up. The ideal line-up is to either replace one of our wings with a shooter, in the Pacers case the best option is Butler. Until one of them turns into a dead-eye 3 point shooter Turner and Lance should never play on the court at the same time.

              Comment


              • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                Does anyone think having PG guard Teague is going to be much better than George Hill. Sure PG will do a little better job than Hill, but Teague is still too quick. But you have to change it up I agree. But what does that do to open up the rest of the Hawks lineup and what if PG is too tired to do much offensively now.

                I just think it is a marginal net improvement at most. Reminds me of 2004 when we put Artest on Rip and that changed our defense ad while Artest probably defended Rip better the overall team defense was not any better

                Comment


                • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Does anyone think having PG guard Teague is going to be much better than George Hill. Sure PG will do a little better job than Hill, but Teague is still too quick. But you have to change it up I agree. But what does that do to open up the rest of the Hawks lineup and what if PG is too tired to do much offensively now.

                  I just think it is a marginal net improvement at most. Reminds me of 2004 when we put Artest on Rip and that changed our defense ad while Artest probably defended Rip better the overall team defense was not any better
                  I think you do it like you always have with Paul. He takes it in stints. Maybe he takes the first quarter and Hill takes the second and third. Then Paul takes the 4th. I think you just have to give Teague some different looks. Teague's biggest strength is his quickness which Paul's length really can negate because of how far Teague has to move. We also need to do a better job hedging the screens, Teague was coming around the screens with no resistance from our big men too often in game 1.]

                  Also, the Hawks played exceptionally well in game 1 offensively. If they can keep it up, they will beat us, but I do expect them to not be quite as proficient in some areas. Teague struggled a lot last year against Hill so for me it was shocking to see Teague dominate like that.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Teague struggled a lot last year against Hill so for me it was shocking to see Teague dominate like that.
                    I would have to go back and re-watch last years series, but I suspect the biggest reason why Hill maybe did a better job last season is because the Hawks had Horford and Josh Smith as their big guys. neither a three point shooter so West and Hibbert could help more on Teague. This year with Antic and Millsap, Roy and David have to get back to their men at the three point line, plus Millsap is excellent at driving the ball.
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-21-2014, 02:47 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                      If PG on Teague works, Lance is going to have to guard Carroll and Hill will also have to hang with Korver.

                      I think Hill would hang with Korver just fine, though ET is a much better size match. Korver won't take anyone off the dribble, so it's a matter of having a hand in his face. Arguably he will shoot right over George Hill, but we will see.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Does anyone think having PG guard Teague is going to be much better than George Hill. Sure PG will do a little better job than Hill, but Teague is still too quick. But you have to change it up I agree. But what does that do to open up the rest of the Hawks lineup and what if PG is too tired to do much offensively now.

                        I just think it is a marginal net improvement at most. Reminds me of 2004 when we put Artest on Rip and that changed our defense ad while Artest probably defended Rip better the overall team defense was not any better
                        Teague is still too quick, but you have to think George's freakishly long wingspan will throw him off a bit and slow him down. He's harder to get around. Hill and Watson were consistently burned.

                        It may hamper George down a tad offensively, but I'd rather get other guys involved regardless. We need every one of our starting 5 involved and engaged.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I would have to go back and re-watch last years series, but I suspect the biggest reason why Hill maybe did a better job last season is because the Hawks has Horford and Josh Smith as their big guys. neither a three point shooter so West and Hibbert cpould help more on Teague. This year with Antic and Millsap Roy and David have to get back to their men at the three point line, plus Millsap is excellent at driving the ball.
                          Horford was out last year too wasn't he? But yeah I agree I do think that helped.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Horford was out last year too wasn't he?
                            Yep.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              I think you do it like you always have with Paul. He takes it in stints. Maybe he takes the first quarter and Hill takes the second and third. Then Paul takes the 4th. I think you just have to give Teague some different looks. Teague's biggest strength is his quickness which Paul's length really can negate because of how far Teague has to move. We also need to do a better job hedging the screens, Teague was coming around the screens with no resistance from our big men too often in game 1.]

                              Also, the Hawks played exceptionally well in game 1 offensively. If they can keep it up, they will beat us, but I do expect them to not be quite as proficient in some areas. Teague struggled a lot last year against Hill so for me it was shocking to see Teague dominate like that.
                              You mean last year when Teague had to defer to guys like Josh Smith? Its Teague's team now, he has gotten much better this season. While Hill has fallen off a cliff on the other hand. We probably sweep this team if we had GHill of last year, and even he had issues staying aggressive then.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Odd Thoughts: Round 1 Game 1 Ugh...

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                If PG on Teague works, Lance is going to have to guard Carroll and Hill will also have to hang with Korver.

                                I think Hill would hang with Korver just fine, though ET is a much better size match. Korver won't take anyone off the dribble, so it's a matter of having a hand in his face. Arguably he will shoot right over George Hill, but we will see.
                                You realize Turner and Hill have the same wingspan right? Closing out on shooters, a 6'9" wingspan is just as effective on a 6'2" frame as a 6'7" frame.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X