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

J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

    Written By: Brent Jonathan Beck

    In a past interview with the Charlotte Observer , J.J. Redick said, “I think I'll be a role player like 80 percent of the players in the league are.” J.J. continued to say that he doesn’t “expect to be a star,” and he is just going to “shoot,” and “be a team player,” seems to fit the mold of the type of player Herb Simon, Larry Bird, and Jim O’Brien are looking for in their attempt to change the culture, chemistry, and style of the Indiana Pacers.

    Since Redick was selected 11th overall by the Orlando Magic in the 2006 NBA Draft, J.J. was correct about one of his predictions, he hasn’t become a star. Redick not becoming a star isn’t a result of a lack in effort, injuries, or a bad attitude, but it’s a result of his head coaches Brian Hill (2006-07) and Stan Van Gundy (2007-08) never letting him play. In Redick’s first two years in the NBA, the Orlando Magic haven’t allowed the arguable best shooter in the history of college basketball the opportunity to shoot the ball, so the notion that Redick can’t play in the NBA is absurd because nobody really knows. Since Redick publicly demanded a trade for the second time in his young career Pacers fans can only hope Larry Bird sees the potential in J.J. Redick and attempts to package a deal to bring J.J. to the Indiana Pacers, just look at the career turnaround the last Duke player Bird brought to the Pacers had, Mike Dunleavy Junior.



    To put Redick’s playing time with the Orlando Magic into perspective Flip Murray joined the Pacers for their final 23 games and played 529 minutes. In the same season (2007-08) with the Orlando Magic, out of the 82 regular season games Redick was only given the opportunity to play in 34 games, playing 276 minutes. Even 27 year old Andre Owens of the Indiana Pacers received more playing time (392 minutes) in comparison to Redick. In knowing Owens is technically a point guard and Redick a shooting guard, I still believe that with the Pacers currently rebuilding, having Redick on the Pacers roster and giving him 15-20 minutes a game would not only fill up more seats but with Redick’s upside he could ultimately end up a legitimate scoring threat, I know we just got Brandon Rush but Redick has been in the league for 2 years he is young and even more ready to step in and hell the Bulls had Michael Jordan but that didn't stop them from bringing Steve Kerr in for 20 minutes a night, good players find time and Redick would find time on our roster. Redick still has unknown potential and with hardly playing the last two years the Pacers could get Redick at a discount.

    When first hired by the Indiana Pacers Jim O'Brien said the Pacers need to add shooters because he likes the 3-point shot. In shooting the three-ball his first season at a franchise record setting pace, JOB proved to the fans that he sincerely is committed to the three-ball, but as he said on an online chat transcript with fans on Pacers.com, "We don't want to take bad three-point shots, our definition of a good three is when we have a standstill open three-pointer." When asked who he believed were 3-point threats, JOB mentioned Granger, Dunleavy, Williams, Murphy, and Tinsley. With Tinsley likely out of the Pacers future plans, it is obvious that a 12 man active roster with a system and coaching style built around the three-ball needs more than a third of the players with three-ball capabilities. Now that T.J. Ford and Jarrett Jack are goign to be running the show, that will open up even more open shots for Redick, especially with Ford's lighting fast speed and ability to run the floor like no other!

    In 2004, Dick Vitale called Redick the best pure shooter in college basketball since Chris Mullin was at St. John's in the early 1980s and Pacers fans surely haven’t forgotten about the impact Mullin had on the Pacers when acquired from Golden State for center Eric Dampier (Mullin helped the Pacers to the 2000 NBA Finals). In reference to Redick, former AP National Coach of the Year Matt Doherty said, "If you were to teach a young man how to shoot, you would show him video of J.J. Redick because his form is textbook." During his playing days in college, no shooter received more attention from defenses than Redick, and that pool of players included the likes of Chris Paul, Ben Gordon, and Rashad McCants. With Paul averaging over 37 minutes per game, Gordon 31, and McCants 27 in the 2007-08 NBA season it makes no sense whatsoever that Redick averaged only 8 minutes per game with the Orlando Magic.




    Many of the NBA experts projected Redick in the worst case scenario to end up in a similar role as Steve Kerr had during his 5 year stint with the Chicago Bulls. During his time in Chicago, Kerr averaged 23 minutes per game, shot 47 3P%, averaged 8 points per game, and helped the Bulls to three NBA championships (and two more later in his career with the San Antonio Spurs in a diminished role). One of the main arguments against Redick is that he is too small. With Kerr being 6-1 and 180 lb he was undoubtedly successful and useful in a pure shooter role player off the bench for Chicago, so why couldn’t the 6-4 190 lb Redick do the same for a team in the NBA like the Pacers? In his career at Duke, Redick made 457 three pointers, ranking number one in NCAA and ACC history. It is obvious that Redick can shoot the three-ball and the Pacers need more three point threats. With the chance of getting Redick for someone like similarly under utilized (and over glorified) Jeff Foster who is on the downside of his career, who many teams, including the Orlando Magic, need the strengthen their up front players (had talks with Magic fans who said they would be sad to see Redick go, but are fully open to the trade of Foster for Redick to help them win now) Pacers fans can only hope Larry Bird at least calls Magic GM Otis Thorpe about Redick. Redick is now stuck behind 3 other shooting guards as the Magic and Stan Van Gundy continue to screw this young man over, bring him to JOB and Larry, they will find him a place and he will thrive in Indy!



    Awards Redick Won at Duke

    James Sullivan Award
    John R. Wooden Award
    James Naismith Award
    Adolph F. Rupp Trophy (Repeat)
    Senior CLASS Award
    Consensus All-American (Repeat)
    AP National Player of the Year
    NABC Co-Player of the Year
    USBWA Co-Player of the Year
    ESPN National Player of the Year
    Sporting News National Player of the Year
    Basketball Times National POY
    ACC Player of the Year (Repeat)
    ACC Tournament MVP (Repeat)



    Quotes About Redick

    "I'm glad he's on our side because we still have a chance as long as we have him."

    "He's off the charts with focus and commitment. Nobody has had more or done it better here...He's one of the truly great players to play in this conference. Of all time, this kid's a treasure. That's part of learning every year and not being satisfied with where you're at. He's a believer."

    Duke Blue Devils Head, Coach Mike Krzyzewski



    "He's more than just a shooter. He's tough and knows how to play."

    Boston Celtics Head Coach, Doc Rivers



    "I saw [J.J.] against Texas, and he shot the lights out. I saw him against Memphis, and he shot the lights out. Those are two fairly athletic teams. The ACC is filled with athletes who tried to shut him down, and he set the all-time scoring record."

    Portland Trail Blazers GM John Nash



    "He's the best shooter in the college game by far. His footwork, finish, rotation. It's flawless; it really is."

    NBA shooting coach Dave Hopla
    Last edited by FerengiMiller; 07-18-2008, 11:41 AM.

  • #2
    Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

    Sadly, I think I've actually seen people spell ridiculous that way, and they weren't trying to be clever.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

      Well, is he any good?

      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

        Any evidence of Larry Bird actually being interested?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

          All I know is when he was in the draft, he was one of Birds top targets and Bird wanted to trade up and get him, but we stayed put and ended up landing Granger (who Bird thought would be gone before Redick)... All I know is HoopsHype has said that the Redick trade rumors are starting back up again and they think he is on the open market... they are totally screwing the guy over, supposedly he works his *** off... he would be soo fun to bring into Indianapolis!!! I would love it, with the secrecy Bird and Jimmy M keep with their trade ideas and leads we will never know but I hope to god they are at least thinking about it.... imagine bringing him into our offense!!! The threes we shoot, its like the best scenerio of all time!!!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

            JJ Reddick was taken in the draft where we took Shawne Williams at 17.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

              He's a one dimensional player. All he does is shoot. He does it well, when he's open and set. He doesn't shoot off of screens at all. And unfortunately for JJ, the NBA is not filled with defenders shorter than he is. When you only do one thing it doesn't take long for NBA defenses to take it away. You can get away with being a one dimensional shooter in this league if you're 6'8" or taller, but he isn't.
              Last edited by travmil; 07-18-2008, 12:59 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

                He's a one dimensional player. All he does is shoot. He does it well, when he's open and set. He doesn't shoot offf of screens at all. And unfortunately for JJ, the NBA is not filled with defenders shorter than he is. When you only do one thing it doesn't take long for NBA defenses to take it away.
                Tell that to STEVE KERR babbbbyyy, coming outttaaaa ZONA everyone was saying the same thing... 3 rings with the bulls, 1 with the Spurs, he is a ptper and he is 3 inches shorterr than redick, keep hating on the kid, hes a hard worker, he knows his time will come I love thee.. Im living the American dream here, I know it might not happen but I know its going too, he might be one dimensional, but thats our main dimension baby, they said they same thing about Reggie, they said the same thing about Thunder Dan Marjle, they said it about Ray Allen, they said it about Rip Hamilton, let the kid on the court, let the kid shoot baby hes a PTPer who brings his lunch box to work

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

                  Sheesh , I thought this topic was about James Jones.
                  Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

                    Originally posted by FerengiMiller View Post
                    Tell that to STEVE KERR babbbbyyy, coming outttaaaa ZONA everyone was saying the same thing... 3 rings with the bulls, 1 with the Spurs...
                    Yep, the Bulls won because of Steve Kerr. The rest of the NBA teams need to recognize they are just a JJ Reddick away from 4 rings. How silly of me.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

                      Every time I hear his name, I think of this picture:




                      But anyways, I don't see Redick contributing here at all. Diener is basically the same thing, but he can actually run the point effectively.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

                        Originally posted by travmil View Post
                        He's a one dimensional player. All he does is shoot. He does it well, when he's open and set. He doesn't shoot off of screens at all. And unfortunately for JJ, the NBA is not filled with defenders shorter than he is. When you only do one thing it doesn't take long for NBA defenses to take it away. You can get away with being a one dimensional shooter in this league if you're 6'8" or taller, but he isn't.
                        i agree. All JJ can do is shoot the ball. Hes not a good defender, doesnt come off screens, doesnt rebound well, and cant attack the rim that well. Hes basically a one dimentional shooter. We dont need him on the Pacers. We have enough swingmen as it is. With Granger, Dunleavy, Rush, Daniels and Shawne Williams, there are you going to find time for JJ?
                        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

                          Originally posted by travmil View Post
                          Yep, the Bulls won because of Steve Kerr. The rest of the NBA teams need to recognize they are just a JJ Reddick away from 4 rings. How silly of me.
                          [yt]QOCcd-iAljI[/yt]
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

                            Hey FerengiMiller, I know your new here, but one of the big rules is when you post an article like you did above, you have to prvide a link for it and post it along with it. The admins here watch that like hawks. They'll ask you to fix it and delete the whole thread if you don't.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: J.J. to the Pacers, Not a Redickulous Thought!

                              JJ Reddick was taken in the draft where we took Shawne Williams at 17.
                              Wowsa... brain freezee..... youre totally right.. its late im retarded haha..

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X