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

My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

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

  • #16
    Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

    Originally posted by Jon Theodore
    I'd LOVE to see us get Chris Bosh/Jalen somehow.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

      Peck, I completely agree. I've made this point before, but you made it better.

      Hicks, do we still have the Jermaine O'Neal video made by those Laker fans? I think you did a remix of it. The video (besides being fun to watch) is pretty instructive, because it shows how athletic and fast Jermaine used to be before he bulked up.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

        Originally posted by Anthem
        Peck, I completely agree. I've made this point before, but you made it better.

        Hicks, do we still have the Jermaine O'Neal video made by those Laker fans? I think you did a remix of it. The video (besides being fun to watch) is pretty instructive, because it shows how athletic and fast Jermaine used to be before he bulked up.
        Dang, I used to have that one before the computer self-destruction. Oh, how I miss those days. I actually saw Jermaine dunk the ball!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

          Originally posted by Unclebuck
          I'm generally not in favor of players gaining weight. Even if it's all muscle. A person's body structure is made to carry only so much weight, and J.O's body structure is very thin, so if he puts on more weight then his body can handle, injuries will result.
          That's a small risk compared to the benefits. ANYONE benefits from more muscle. Any task then takes less % of muscle effort to accomplish. Endurance being affected by how much energy it's taking to do tasks, like blocking out,getting post position,playing defense,rebounding etc all take less out of you if you are stronger. As long as it's not over done like body builders there is nothing but benefit to being stronger. Doing load bearing exercise and weight training makes even your skeletal system stronger as you place increased load demands on it. The lower body loads are greater for sure, both muscle loading and the weight bearing of that extra muscle. But not even close to offsetting the increased performance level benefits.
          As Jermaine has had some knee and back problems it's likely he wouldn't be skying like he used to even if he was 20lbs lighter. Heck, when my back is flared up I can't get off the ground. Some of that comes in time and games to most NBA'ers. Lots of nasty falls when you get 3' off the ground and contacting other large bodies. Especially when you're 240lbs or more. Refs let the big guys beat on each other a lot more than the guards out front.
          I too hope to see him a bit lighter when Harrison takes over the middle
          But it'll be for quickness reasons. He's not close to being too big for his frame.
          Don't forget that he's a recognized BIG STAR now. Everyones beating on him now in an effort to get him off his game.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

            P-Man I don't agree.

            JO at 260 is not as quick as JO was at 245. At least I'm guessing that is the case because he rarely blows by other PFs anymore.

            And that is exactly where I see the advantages of JO being without the extra 15-20# of muscle. If he didn't have it, he would gain quickness to be able to get around his man, thereby causing a defensive problem in the paint for the opponent... probably resulting on more fouls, and more trips to the FT line for the Pacers.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

              But Jermaine is a Power Forward. I think he needs strength more than speed.

              I agree with what others have said, let's look at knee/back/shoulder as the slowown reasons. Imagine if he lost that muscle and became not just creaky "slow" but also got pushed around in the post.
              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


              • #22
                Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                Originally posted by BillS
                But Jermaine is a Power Forward. I think he needs strength more than speed.

                I agree with what others have said, let's look at knee/back/shoulder as the slowown reasons. Imagine if he lost that muscle and became not just creaky "slow" but also got pushed around in the post.
                I wish we had that video of Jermaine. It was heartbreaking looking at all of those dominant moves and realizing he can't do them any more.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                  Originally posted by BillS
                  But Jermaine is a Power Forward. I think he needs strength more than speed.

                  I agree with what others have said, let's look at knee/back/shoulder as the slowown reasons. Imagine if he lost that muscle and became not just creaky "slow" but also got pushed around in the post.
                  :cough: Amare :cough:

                  He doesn't over power anyone, he jumps over their head.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                    Originally posted by Since86
                    :cough: Amare :cough:

                    He doesn't over power anyone, he jumps over their head.
                    ...so if you want to hire Doug Moe to coach your team, itd be a perfect fit....

                    In case you havent noticed, Stoudemire gets beaten up a lot on defense.....

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                      Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                      28 PPG 46.6 FG% 9.25 RPG (1.75 on the offensive end) 2.75 BPG .67 SPG 2 APG 3.16 TOPG 7.3-9.3 on FT's (shot 79.3%)

                      These are JO's numbers from his healthy run of 20 games or so this season.

                      These are consistent with something I've seen all year: Jermaine is grabbing less rebounds this year, but it isn't on the defensive side of the ball. His offensive rebounding is down by a lot this year, and I assume that is because he's had to shoot so much more now.

                      So, uh, all in all, I still think Jermaine can rebound as well as he once did, if we just have enough guys healthy to take some of the offensive pressure off him....
                      I think we have a winner here .

                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                        Peck, This is what I've been saying for the last week now in numerous posts. I remember all the chat about JO gainin lbs over the summer, everyone seemed to think it was a good idea as if it would make him a better post player or something, but he was already a great post player. What made him so great was how quick and versatile he was, almost a SF athleticsm in a big PF body.
                        I thought it was bad then that he gained that extra 20lbs as I do now. He needs to get that spring back in his step, otherwise the next few years are gonna be tough for him and for us watching him play as he becomes more and more 1 dimensional on offense. ala fadeaway jumpers

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                          Originally posted by Peck
                          I think it's time to give him the same speech that Larry Brown gave to Rik Smits.

                          Everybody kept telling Rik to put on weight so that he could bang with the big guys down low & become the low post center we always wanted him to be.

                          It never worked.

                          Larry came to town & in thier first meeting he told Rik to drop down in weight & concentrate more on speed. Speed & Rik Smits really just don't go together, however losing the weight did put Rik at the right size to be effective for about 6 more years.

                          I think when all is said & done with Jermaine the same thing will apply to him. Jermaine went out & put on probably 20-30 lbs of muscle over the past two summers because he felt he needed the weight to battle in the post. At first I thought this was a good thing because I figured the size would help him vs. the Pistons & for that matter every other team in the NBA. However I've lately come to the conclusion that J.O. just doesn't carry the weight well.

                          Don't get me wrong he looks superb but IMO, it has affected his ability to jump & defying all human logic it has actually made him a worse rebounder.

                          There is a reason for that. He is not a postional or even a fundamentally sound rebounder. He has always relied on his ability to jump high to get the boards & right now he just can't jump as high as he used to & the older he gets the worse that will become.

                          Now I think J.O. should be applauded for reshaping his body & I think the Pacers management should be booed for making it so that J.O. needed to reshape his body.

                          J.O. has for the past two years begged anybody who would listen to him that we needed another big body to help him in the post. But all we had was Jeff Foster & even though he has his advantages Jeff is not a post player & thus it forced J.O. to be one when in fact he isn't one either on the defensive end.

                          Now we have Dale & hopefully next season we will have him to & then right after that if all works well we will have David Harrison. Both of these guys are big enough & strong enough to guard the post thus allowing J.O. to switch back over the the weaker inside player.

                          I even think it would help his defense to be thinner (God help me for saying that because I was an advocate for getting stronger) because he is really one of the best weak side shot blockers in the NBA but to do that he needs to be able to rotate fast & jump high. Right now he can't do either very well.

                          I still believe that this off-season securing Dale & even getting another post defender is really a top priority. No matter how this season ends.
                          Phooey!!

                          I do not want Jermaine to lose weight.

                          Jermaine's problem is that he needs to evolve and he's not doing that. The extra weight should be an advantage but it's not because Jermaine hasn't adapted his game to it.

                          Just as an older player learns to adapt his game and quit relying on sheer athleticism, (Remember Dan Majerle? Look how he re-invented himself.) Jermaine needs to reinvent his game to take advantage of his weight.

                          There aren't a lot of BIG guys who can shoot like Jermaine. If he slims down, he loses part of what should be an advantage.

                          The reason Jermaine isn't blowing by guys is cause he's trying to play the speed game with extra weight, instead of the crafty game, based on power. Best comparision I can think of is Hakeem. Yeah , Hakeem was a C, not a PF, but at 7'0, 250 pounds, he consistantly blew by guys his whole career. Around JO's same size.

                          Why?

                          Footwork!

                          KEEP the weight and adapt, Jermaine, Study tapes of Hakeem. Watch how he manuevered his man to his advantage by sheer footwork and up and under moves. Watch the ball fakes he used.

                          We talk about how JO holds the ball too long. That's why. He can't blow by his man, so suddenly he stuck with trying to outsmart them and he's not quite sure how to do it.

                          Bring in a specialized coach to work with him on that. Adapt. ADAPT!!

                          To me, if he slims back down, he takes a step backwards and is stunting his growth and potential as a low post dominating presence.

                          As to your Smits comparision, there was something equally, if not more important that happened to Rik, that I think elevated his game.

                          Bill Walton.

                          Yeah, I know some of you are going to groan. You only think of the loudmouth who grates, but how many of you truly remember Walton the player? He was a freaking load. And he did it with excellent footwork and hustle. You think Foster is scrappy, you haven't seen anything.

                          So anyways, that summer, Walton came in and tutored Rik on proper footwork and low post moves. Ordinarily, I don't attribute an inordinate amount of gravity to off-season coaching like that, but Rik's game changed after that, I swear. He sudddenly had moves he didn't have before. Yeah, the weight loss helped his game, in term of stress to his joints, but I think Walton had a huge part in his career lasting longer, too. By not playing a power game and playing with finese, but decisive finese, he saved the wear and tear of being a banger like the staff wanted him to be.

                          All Jermaine needs is a specialized coach to teach him to adapt his game to his size. I think if that happens, he truly can become dominant as a low post player, instead of merely a threat.
                          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                            how many of you truly remember Walton the player. He was a freaking load.
                            Yeah, I hear it took two, sometimes even three trainers to carry his *** off the floor every 5 games.....

                            KEEP the weight and adapt, Jermaine, Study tapes of Hakeem.
                            Thats like giving Freddie Jones a Michael Jordan highlight film and expecting him to score 30 a night.

                            All Jermaine needs is a specialized coach to teach him to adapt his game to his size.
                            You mean like Ewing did for Yao?

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                              Originally posted by Kstat
                              Yeah, I hear it took two, sometimes even three trainers to carry his *** off the floor every 5 games.....



                              Thats like giving Freddie Jones a Michael Jordan highlight film and expecting him to score 30 a night.
                              That's kind of an condescendingly dissmissive and overly simplistic way of looking at it. All I know is Walton has a chamionship ring, is a HOFer & one of the fifty greatest ever. Injuries or not, the guy could bring it.

                              JO has the tools to elevate his game, if he chooses to...with the extra weight.

                              I won't even adress that ridiculous Freddie comment.
                              Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: My Jermaine O'Neal theory.......

                                All I know is Walton has a chamionship ring
                                two, actually.

                                is a HOFer
                                For a guy that was healthy for %5 of his career, yes. He was a HOFer.

                                I won't even adress that ridiculous Freddie comment.
                                Its about as realistic as expecting jermaine to play like the guy who had the greatest footwork of any 7-footer in history.....

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X