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

Free Brandon Rush

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

  • #16
    Re: Free Brandon Rush

    That's an incredibly weak argument for this particular situation. While it is true that rookies are not given the benefit of the doubt for quite some time, refs are and always will be much more inclined to hesitate on calling a foul for the last play of the game. You are not asking Rush to get the steal, or the block, where aggression is needed and the chance for a foul increases drastically. What you are looking for is someone with length to contest the inevitable jumper you know is coming.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Free Brandon Rush

      Yet, I've seen it happen time and again.

      It's Kobe freaking Bryant. If the game is on the line and a rookie is on him, he's going to get the call.

      I agree with you 100% that Jack should not have been on him (was screaming that all game long, actually), but Rush would have been a foul magnet. I'd have gone with Graham and hoped for the best.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Free Brandon Rush

        Being the last play of the game is more or less semantical at this point, it was most likely the Laker's last possession and time was running off the clock. A foul call would have required contact, something that wasn't needed. The quick whistle on Granger was because of contact, all you want is someone who can stick with Kobe and the length to best contest the shot. If this only decreases his chance of making that shot 1% then it is the correct choice. If it was made or missed a time out was going to be called, and Rush could have been taken out.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Free Brandon Rush

          Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
          please show me where the hell you're getting this?!?
          you know who Mike Tyson is?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Free Brandon Rush

            Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
            please show me where the hell you're getting this?!?
            I'm not saying that Rush has a sense of entitlement or doesn't have talent. If you give him something he doesn't deserve... that leads to entitlement and hurts your team by saying, sorry Stephen, you're a better player now and we appreciate your hard work, but we're playing the rookie who hasn't figured things out in practice or games, but we're sure he'll do it against Kobe.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Free Brandon Rush

              Originally posted by iPACER View Post
              I'm not saying that Rush has a sense of entitlement or doesn't have talent. If you give him something he doesn't deserve... that leads to entitlement and hurts your team by saying, sorry Stephen, you're a better player now and we appreciate your hard work, but we're playing the rookie who hasn't figured things out in practice or games, but we're sure he'll do it against Kobe.
              I understand your sentiment, but I definitely disagree. I don't believe being asked to use your strength of defending to help your team win leads to a sense of entitlement. If anything it would give him confidence, knowing that he can help the team win. I won't pretend to know what the players are thinking, but I sincerely doubt Graham would be sitting there saying I should be out there guarding Kobe, I've played way better than Rush has. I think he would understand that Rush has defensive skills and O'Brien is using his best judgment for the team. And a well run team will not question the coach's decisions.
              I think your argument is best fit for whether or not Rush should be playing 30 minutes a game because he has a higher ceiling, or in other words having more potential and favor as a high 1st round draft pick and as such playing over Graham. However, I still don't believe this would lead to entitlement, but it most definitely could.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Free Brandon Rush

                Playing Graham over Rush right now is merely cutting off your nose to spite you face, IMO.


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Free Brandon Rush

                  Originally posted by Indy View Post
                  Playing Graham over Rush right now is merely cutting off your nose to spite you face, IMO.
                  Graham couldn’t sniff the floor last year but NOW its time to see what he has, I dont get it....

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Free Brandon Rush

                    It has less to do with Graham and more to do with Rush. Brandon looks like he's a hit a wall.

                    Graham has played well the past two games though. His defense on Kobe tonight wasn't as bad as I'd expected.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Free Brandon Rush

                      Rush wasn't even that good in college, 13/5/2 on 43% shooting. I'm not sure why anyone thought such mediocre college production would translate to anything worth a damn in the
                      NBA. He was a bottom-third of the first round talent, just like the mock drafts had him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Free Brandon Rush

                        Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                        Not til he proves that he's better than Graham does Rush have a chance of seeing the floor...

                        Has to earn it.

                        Then he knows he deserves it and can play like it.
                        Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
                        LMAO
                        why?

                        rush has more potential but he hasn't done anything to prove it. i mean he is now in the nba. i can understand he would struggle about quickness or mental strenght but i don't understand him not being able to shoot the ball. did he forget how to shoot?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Free Brandon Rush

                          Originally posted by Quis View Post
                          Rush wasn't even that good in college, 13/5/2 on 43% shooting. I'm not sure why anyone thought such mediocre college production would translate to anything worth a damn in the
                          NBA. He was a bottom-third of the first round talent, just like the mock drafts had him.
                          You are being way too axiomatic with that line of thought. Projecting a player goes way beyond stats. Athleticism and how they will translate to the NBA game is more complex then looking at their collegiate stat sheet. If it was so easy, mock drafts would be filled with stat sheet stuffers and the draft selections would follow as such.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Free Brandon Rush

                            Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                            You mean giving a guy a sense of entitlement so that he thinks he's too good to have to work for anything?

                            Wasn't that our problem with Tinsley, Jackson, and Harrington?

                            And Kobe would have baited Rush into one of those "another lesson you lesson as a NBA rookie" moments.
                            I don't agree with this as it pertains to Jackson. Of all the things you could say about Jax, I don't think his issues centered on entitlement.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Free Brandon Rush

                              Originally posted by Indy View Post
                              Playing Graham over Rush right now is merely cutting off your nose to spite you face, IMO.
                              In the long term, maybe. But Graham gave you far more than Rush would have last night. I like Graham, even though he's raw, and I think he could become a good backup for us. His play has improved by leaps and bounds since he's actually been on the floor.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Free Brandon Rush

                                Originally posted by tfarks View Post
                                You are being way too axiomatic with that line of thought. Projecting a player goes way beyond stats. Athleticism and how they will translate to the NBA game is more complex then looking at their collegiate stat sheet. If it was so easy, mock drafts would be filled with stat sheet stuffers and the draft selections would follow as such.
                                Yes, players who put up great numbers in college wont necessarily have the tools to do the same in the NBA. But that's now what we're talking about here.We're talking about a player who wasn't that productive in college. Why would someone who wasn't that productive in college translate to being anything better than "not that productive" in the NBA? We're not talking about a fresh-out-of-high school raw product. Brandon Rush was allegedly one of the most NBA-ready players in the draft and has been given ample opportunity to prove himself through the first 30 games and preseason. Thus far he's been a huge disappointment.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X