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

Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

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

  • Ace E.Anderson
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    There's a reason why DJ signed with the Pacers for a 1yr $3.5M deal, and it wasn't because people were busting down his door for his services.
    CHA originally extended a qualifying RFA offer of $4.385 the first day they were able to do so. He was originally going to be traded to the Pacers (rumor) but eventually asked CHA to rescind the offer so he could become an UFA. He signed with the Pacers the next day.

    He already knew he was coming to play here, and took the contract that he was offered. We don't know how much he could have commanded, but he knew he would have to take a smaller contract to come here (this was the summer we re-signed Hill, Roy, and signed Green and traded for Ian) He took less money to leave CHA and come to a team that seemed to be on the come-up in IND. No he's not a star like talent, but he's not the scrub that we saw score 5 ppg while he was here neither.

    I'm not arguing that DJ is some great player, I'm arguing he was brought to a team and a system that didn't fit his strengths.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I see a pattern of players being only able to fit a certain role, and their inability to execute what is asked of them. I'm still trying to figure out how professional basketball players not being able to defend, or make good decisions (like ET) falls on the coaches shoulders.

    If Green can only play in a free moving style, where he's given the latitude to force bad shots early in the clock, then how is it a coaches fault when he can't play a more controlled, possession style of game?
    Each player's shortcomings can be explained away individually. But collectively, they paint a picture of a team that gets the lowest bench return of any elite team in the last couple of seasons. Augistin, Green, Turner, Scola......that is some solid bench talent, but collectively they massively underperformed. The best coaches in the league utilize their bench players strengths as opposed to driving to fit a square peg into a round hole. You can say that they are professional basketball players and therefore should be able to do anything, but there is a reason they are bench players. They aren't perfect and have strengths and weaknesses. Our team has generally failed to get the strengths out of the bench. Then you have guys like Plumlee and Copeland who barely got a chance. Overall, it's very hard to absolve a coach of some blame for such poor bench results. I don't view it as an either/or thing. Clearly the players deserve some blame, but I didn't see much creativity from the coaching staff.

    Who exactly are the bench players out there who could succeed in this system? Walsh and Bird delivered some decent talent to Vogel over the past couple of years, yet the results haven't been good. So who out there could fit into a system that is obviously rigid and not conducive to bench success?

    Leave a comment:


  • Since86
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
    Why not both ?? They both need to adapt to each other. Maybe they're being too knee-jerk about the bench's performance (or lack of) early and don't learn to trust them later in the season. Using Pop as an example - he shuffles things around during the season, gives starters rest, puts guys in a position to perform and gain confidence.

    DJ played in 76 games last year.
    Green played in 60 games, with an average of 18mpg.
    Scola played in all 82 games.
    Evan was force fed minutues until the playoffs, when they couldn't risk the gamble anymore.

    How is any of those "knee jerk?"


    Copeland is the only player listed so far, that I'd agree with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    And I'm still trying to figure out how that falls on the coaches shoulders. How is that not the responsibility of players?
    Why not both ?? They both need to adapt to each other. Maybe they're being too knee-jerk about the bench's performance (or lack of) early and don't learn to trust them later in the season. Using Pop as an example - he shuffles things around during the season, gives starters rest, puts guys in a position to perform and gain confidence.

    And no - that's not an indictment on Vogel - I'm pretty sure that was something that Pop learned over the course of his career and working with different players. And it kind of help to have had Robinson, Duncan, Parker, etc ......... But I digress .........

    Continuity helps too. Diaw - 2 yrs. Mills - 3 yrs. Manu - Forever. Moving things around during the regular season sets a nice mindset for the playoffs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Since86
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    No way. DJ avg 11 and 6 on CHA the year before coming to the Pacers (although he shot poorly) and 14 and 6 in 10/11. Those aren't killer All Star stats, but they aren't AJ Price playing yourself out of the league numbers either.

    Also, that CHA team had zero talent.
    There's a reason why DJ signed with the Pacers for a 1yr $3.5M deal, and it wasn't because people were busting down his door for his services.

    Leave a comment:


  • Since86
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    I think it's on the players, more than the FO. It's not like they were asked to carry a role they couldn't perform because they didn't have the skill sets. They were asked to perform smaller roles, rather than larger ones. If a player can't manage a smaller role, for whatever reason, then why is that the coaching staffs fault?

    If Evan can't keep his man in front of him, or can't make good decisions when he has the ball in his hands, then why should he forced fed minutues? Why would his lack of production, as a result of HIS shortcomings, be a criticism on the coach? There's only so much a coach can do. These are professional basketball players. You should be able to put them in a smaller role than they're used too, without their basketball wheels falling completely off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ace E.Anderson
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
    The problem with the whole Augustin thing is that he was playing his way out of the league before we offered him that one year. His resurgence in Chicago wasn't just recovering from one single, terrible year. He was trending downward in Charlotte of all places previous to coming here.
    No way. DJ avg 11 and 6 on CHA the year before coming to the Pacers (although he shot poorly) and 14 and 6 in 10/11. Those aren't killer All Star stats, but they aren't AJ Price playing yourself out of the league numbers either.

    Also, that CHA team had zero talent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ace E.Anderson
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    It's on the FO more than the coaching staff IMO. It's the F.O job to do their due diligence and know if/how a player can fit into a coaching scheme/system.

    Leave a comment:


  • Since86
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    That's six players who either had some of the worst seasons of their careers here, or who barely got a chance to touch the court. Tyler definitely played better here than in Toronto, and CJ Watson was one of the better point guards in the league this season. Nevertheless, I see far more examples of bad bench production than I do success stories. Collectively, there just seems to be a pattern of bench talent not being able to produce here, particularly on the offensive end of the court. Don't care about OJ, Ben Hansbrough, or Pendergraph since those guys are bottom feeder players wherever they play.
    I see a pattern of players being only able to fit a certain role, and their inability to execute what is asked of them. I'm still trying to figure out how professional basketball players not being able to defend, or make good decisions (like ET) falls on the coaches shoulders.

    If Green can only play in a free moving style, where he's given the latitude to force bad shots early in the clock, then how is it a coaches fault when he can't play a more controlled, possession style of game?

    Leave a comment:


  • TinManJoshua
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    The problem with the whole Augustin thing is that he was playing his way out of the league before we offered him that one year. His resurgence in Chicago wasn't just recovering from one single, terrible year. He was trending downward in Charlotte of all places previous to coming here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Since86
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
    Maybe it's more of a "good players come here to be an important piece off the bench and then grossly under-perform".
    And I'm still trying to figure out how that falls on the coaches shoulders. How is that not the responsibility of players?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ace E.Anderson
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Augustin busted in a mere 10 games in Toronto before getting cut to facilitate the Rudy Gay trade. Hardly a large sample size. In his full seasons with teams, he was generally pretty good in Charlotte, was of course good with the Bulls, yet of course sucked as a Pacer. I'm going to put far more weight of several Charlotte seasons and 61 games in Chicago than I am 10 games in Toronto.
    The guy that surprised me with his struggles the most is DJ. He's a good ball handler, pretty good shooter, and was more of a true PG than we've had in a long time. He didn't need to play uptempo (just see his game in Chicago) he just needed the ball in his hands to make things happen .Green I can understand due to a style mismatch. But I thought FOR SURE DJ was going to be killer in a Pacer Uni just because of the skills (3 pt shooting, passing) that he brought to the table.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ace E.Anderson
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    I don't think the players that left necessarily got better - but I do feel that they were put in a better position to succeed. Obviously Green needs to play more up-tempo in order to play well. Obviously DJ needed to play in a pick and roll type of offense where he could create/handle the ball in order to play well. I feel the jury was out on these guys BEFORE we signed them. But instead of being placed within situations that catered to their skill set - Vogel tried to make them play as post feeders/spot up shooters - and that's just not either of their game.

    Tyler was Tyler for the most part in Toronto, and Plumlee, was just in a numbers jam as a rookie. Should he have played more, we honestly don't know - but he definitely looks like the type of big we could use right now. Young and OJ are about out of the league, and Pendy changed his name and got himself a ring.

    I don't know if the blame should be on the coaching staff or on the F.O for signing players that did not fully fit the system - but it's obvious (at least in the case of DJ and Green) that those guys were put into a system that didn't cater to their skills.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacerDude
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    I think this whole "bench players leave and suddenly get good" argument has become more of projection than what actually happened.
    Maybe it's more of a "good players come here to be an important piece off the bench and then grossly under-perform".

    Leave a comment:


  • Sollozzo
    replied
    Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Plumlee wouldn't have fixed the bench issues. He's a better hand version of Ian.

    Let's really go over this list of bench players that left and suddenly got good.

    DJ? He busted in Toronto, getting CUT, before going to a desperate Bulls that allowed him to do anything he wanted offensively.
    Tyler?
    Sam Young?
    Pendergraph?
    Ben Hans?
    OJ?

    So really the only example of a bench player leaving and turning heads is Green. DJ, eh..... I think it's pretty apparent that he needs a certain situation to have an impact and that's more on him. DJ had all the chances in the world to do something in Indy, and just couldn't get it done. It's nothing like Copeland.

    I think this whole "bench players leave and suddenly get good" argument has become more of projection than what actually happened.
    Plumlee - not saying that he would have "fixed" anything. But when you give your first round draft pick a mere 55 minutes of playing time in his rookie season and then he goes on in year two to have a damn good season with another team........well maybe in hindsight you should have played the guy a couple more minutes.

    Turner - 17 PPG player in Philly, gets traded here and is getting DNP'd by the end of the playoffs. Yeah I know that he wasn't a good defender and made some dumb decisions, but I still have a hard time believing that he would have been so useless on all of the other playoff teams. It has to be unprecedented for a guy to put up 17 PPG for a team, get traded, and then collect DNP's by the end of the playoffs on his new team. Put him on the Spurs or even a team like the Mavs and I bet they figure out how to use him. I'll be interested to see what happens to him next season. If he goes to a good team, then I fully expect him to produce.

    Scola - he definitely aged here, but he still basically became a one dimensional jump shooter here. We didn't post him up near enough times until the Miami series when he looked very good doing it.

    Green - sucks here, is a stud in Phoenix.

    Augustin busted in a mere 10 games in Toronto before getting cut to facilitate the Rudy Gay trade. Hardly a large sample size. In his full seasons with teams, he was generally pretty good in Charlotte, was of course good with the Bulls, yet of course sucked as a Pacer. I'm going to put far more weight of several Charlotte seasons and 61 games in Chicago than I am 10 games in Toronto.

    Copeland - decent player on a 54 win Knick team last year, yet never gets a chance to consistently get a groove here on the court even though shooting was one thing this team really needed.

    That's six players who either had some of the worst seasons of their careers here, or who barely got a chance to touch the court. Tyler definitely played better here than in Toronto, and CJ Watson was one of the better point guards in the league this season. Nevertheless, I see far more examples of bad bench production than I do success stories. Collectively, there just seems to be a pattern of bench talent not being able to produce here, particularly on the offensive end of the court. Don't care about OJ, Ben Hansbrough, or Pendergraph since those guys are bottom feeder players wherever they play.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X