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

Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...ce-stephenson/

    Four minutes into his season-ending press conference, Pacers president Larry Bird addressed one of the dumber story lines of Indiana's tumultuous year: Frank Vogel's job security. For weeks, rumors had circulated, rumors fueled by Indiana's end of the season struggles, that support for Vogel in the front office was waning, that Bird was enamored with the idea of replacing Vogel with the recently fired Mark Jackson. Addressing a roomful of local reporters on Monday, Bird was emphatic: Firing Vogel was never an option.

    "There was never any doubt," Bird said. "When the media 800 miles away or a thousand miles away writes a story and everybody gets excited about it, it makes no sense to me. If you had come and asked me, I would have told you. His job is safe. His job was never in jeopardy. The day [the rumors] happened, I went down to Frank and all his assistants and I said, 'Hey, I want you all back next year.' That was it for us."
    ROUNDTABLE: X-Factors in the 2014 NBA Finals?

    No, Vogel isn't the problem in Indiana. Frankly, neither is the core. Indiana has one of the best frontcourts in the NBA in the intimidating duo in Roy Hibbert and David West. West had another West-like season, averaging 14 points and 6.8 rebounds during the regular season and 15.1 points and 7.1 rebounds in the playoffs, numbers on par with his production in each of the last three seasons. Hibbert needs to solve his annual crisis of confidence and a summer spent working with a top big man coach -- Bird, an ex-Celtic, suggested Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, an ex-Laker, if you can believe it -- wouldn't hurt. But when Hibbert is on his game, he ranks among the top-five NBA centers, as demonstrated by his All-Defensive Second Team selection Monday.
    Paul George's limitations -- creating his own shot, for example -- were exposed in the second half of the season, but George remains one of the game's best young players. And despite the immaturity Lance Stephenson showed at the end of the year -- behavior that Bird made no secret was irritating him -- Stephenson, at 23, is too good to just let walk away. There will be offers for him, maybe as high as $10 million per season. But Stephenson is a rapidly developing two-way player who emerged as a workhorse this season. Letting him walk for nothing would be disastrous.

    The Pacers don't need to be torn down. Just tweaked a little. The point guard position needs to be addressed. Miami, with its roster full of stars, can get away with not having a dynamic playmaker at the '1' position. Indiana can't. Too many times the Pacers' offense stagnated in the playoffs and didn't have the safety valve of a point guard who can get into the paint to turn to. George Hill is a plus defender and would thrive in a combo guard role off the bench. But Hill is too passive to be a starter, especially on a team with championship expectations.


    The bench -- a constant source of concern in Indiana -- needs an upgrade again, too. The Pacers retooled the reserves last summer, flipping Gerald Green, Miles Plumlee and a (gulp) a 2014 first-round pick for Luis Scola, who was uneven offensively and a liability in the pick-and-roll defensively. They badly need a shooter, too. By the end of the year, Evan Turner was stapled to the pine and those clamoring for more Chris Copeland need to understand just how bad Indiana's team defense is with Copeland on the floor.

    The Pacers will have to be creative to improve. The draft won't help, though Bird indicated its possible they could make a deal to sneak into the first round. They will have to hope that a team isn't crazy enough to think Stephenson is worth $13-plus million per year (don't laugh, it's the NBA) and they can re-sign him in the $8-$10 million per year range. It helps Indiana that teams are wary of what he might look like outside of Indy, away from the Bird/Vogel structure that has kept him mostly in line. But even at the smaller number, the Pacers, who will begin paying George his max money next year, will be close to capped out.

    Trades, which Bird brought up on Monday, seem the likeliest path, though Indiana isn't exactly flush with assets. The Pacers dumped their best pieces last summer in the Scola trade and shipped off their biggest expiring contract (Danny Granger) midseason. Last season's first-round pick, Solomon Hill, was a non-factor last season and C.J. Watson and Ian Mahinmi have little trade value.

    The reality is the Pacers will have to hope that a quality veteran is available late in the offseason or Bird gets lucky with Indiana's second-round pick.

    The Pacers core is young, talented and bound to get better. But they need some help. Bird's ability to supplement his current crop of stars will determine if Indiana can make the jump from Eastern Conference contender to a title one.
    Sittin on top of the world!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

    I thought somewhere it was said that SI had the story of the Pacers' late season swoon and was set to print it after the season had ended.

    I hope this isn't it.... Because it really doesn't address the swoon.
    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

    • #3
      Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      I hope this isn't it.... Because it really doesn't address the swoon.
      It doesn't really address anything.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

        I agree. The bench was not what let us down during the second half of the year.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          I thought somewhere it was said that SI had the story of the Pacers' late season swoon and was set to print it after the season had ended.

          I hope this isn't it.... Because it really doesn't address the swoon.
          Perhaps the swoon was just a lot of little things and not anything big, more like a domino effect of Lance being selfish and Roy stating that publicly and there is nothing really more to know. I think by now it would come out if there were anything big. Social media can't keep secrets.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
            Perhaps the swoon was just a lot of little things and not anything big, more like a domino effect of Lance being selfish and Roy stating that publicly and there is nothing really more to know. I think by now it would come out if there were anything big. Social media can't keep secrets.
            There was speculation that Roy was talking about PG. Remember, PG came out after that game and said that Gortat was defensive player of the year, then Roy came out with the selfish dude talk, possibly in response, especially considering the rumored issues between the two:

            http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/3/3...-selfish-dudes
            Danger Zone

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              Perhaps the swoon was just a lot of little things and not anything big, more like a domino effect of Lance being selfish and Roy stating that publicly and there is nothing really more to know. I think by now it would come out if there were anything big. Social media can't keep secrets.
              And then there was the statistical analysis of the comment, which indicates Hibbert was talking about Hill, as Hill doesn't really pass the ball or get many assists:

              http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...dudes-in-here/
              Danger Zone

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

                Roy was talking about Lance.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

                  He was talking about Solomon Hill, who wouldn't give him a break of his Kit-Kat bar.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                    And then there was the statistical analysis of the comment, which indicates Hibbert was talking about Hill, as Hill doesn't really pass the ball or get many assists:

                    http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...dudes-in-here/
                    That analysis is terrible. George Hill has the least amount of assists among the starters to Hibbert? He ranks the lowest of the wings at his posistion in assists per shot, but that number, if you read the graphs is still higher. Hill is floating around .5 assists per FGA, and Lance and Paul were both under .4. This is where you really need to read the stats.

                    So the guy with the smaller role than him is the selfish one? Ok.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

                      Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                      That analysis is terrible. George Hill has the least amount of assists among the starters to Hibbert? He ranks the lowest of the wings at his posistion in assists per shot, but that number, if you read the graphs is still higher. Hill is floating around .5 assists per FGA, and Lance and Paul were both under .4. This is where you really need to read the stats.

                      So the guy with the smaller role than him is the selfish one? Ok.
                      maybe, but he did have 43% more assists to Hibbert than Hill, who had, well, very few. Essentially though, it doesn't really matter because it was the PG/Hibbert woman issues that derailed the season.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

                        Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                        Essentially though, it doesn't really matter because it was the PG/Hibbert woman issues that derailed the season.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

                          Assists, especially to Roy, isn't all that good of a measurement when trying to decipher who passes to who, and how often. Assists are dependent on not only whether or not a receiving player makes a shot, but also if they take the shot in the accepted amount of time/dribbles for it to be considered an assist. Which with Roy, is a bit tricky, as he's getting the ball on the block looking to make his own scoring move, as opposed to getting into scoring position and going straight up with a shot.

                          The link provided pointing to Hill, doesn't even give the other contextual clues from Roy's quote. That fact alone, leaving out the rest of the quote, is a bit fishy. Either the author doesn't understand why context is important when trying to decipher who Roy was talking about, or is ignorant that there was more to what he said, than what the author quoted.

                          When the whole quote is provided, Roy is very clearly talking about Lance. The whole made his name playing one way, changing roles and now playing this way gives that clue. GHill didn't really make any name for himself he didn't already have, nor did his role change. Lance fits both qualifiers to a tee.
                          Last edited by Since86; 06-04-2014, 01:28 PM.
                          “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

                            The other reason why it doesn't matter is because if he was talking about Lance, the stats don't back him up. Hill was tied for first on the Pacers in touches per game (with PG) at 69.5. Lance had 55. Also, Hill far and away had the ball longest per game on the Pacers at 5.3 minutes, compared to 3.3 for PG and 3.0 for Lance.

                            http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingT...gular%20Season

                            Lance also played 3 more minutes and had one more assist per game. To be fair, the person most likely to be a black hole on offense was, well, Hibbert.
                            Danger Zone

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Pacers' problems more peripheral than core-related

                              I guess I should point out that I believe Roy was talking about Lance, but I also believe Roy is full of crapola. Also all the statistics back up that Roy is full of crapola, and there have been other reported issues which you can choose to believe or not about why suddenly went from top 20 player in the league to useless gasbag.
                              Danger Zone

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X