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

Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

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

  • #16
    Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

    But there's also those players that bring something special to a team that doesn't show up in the stats. Oh sure, they can still get great stat lines, but they also could do a lot more than that or be good for only filling the stats.

    Plus, the stats do not show effort. Defense is oftentimes based solely on effort. Then there's leadership, fitting into the offense, hustling for balls, etc... You cannot purely look at a stat sheet and get a good idea of a guy.

    If you want a decent perspective, you're going to have to check the stats BUT ALSO watch quite a few games they are in. That is why the NBA has scouts, because they know that just looking at someone's points per game does not even come close to telling them the whole story.

    I'm not even close to sold on Pietrus basically because I haven't been able to see him play enough. Does he hustle on defense and go after boards? Does he knock the ball away from people? Does he share the ball? Does he move around on offense? Can he handle the ball well? I have no idea about any of those questions. The fact that he isn't a starter and only plays around 20 minutes a game does tell me that the coach at GS doesn't trust him enough to have him start a game and play big minutes yet, but is that purely because he's young and still growing or does he have a flaw? Until you can answer these questions then you really don't have any kind of grasp on the player at all.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

      Are you kidding me? Sorry, but that's absurd.

      Describe Petrius' game. Tell me what he actually does on the court. I don't think you can. Heck, I haven't watched him enough recently to answer these questions either, but I've watched him enough to have a gut reaction that his game would compliment the remaining the Pacers.

      What's his 'pet' move? How good is his shooting form? Does he use the proper hand near the basket? Can he handle the ball with either hand? If you were defending him, would you crowd him (take away his jumper), sag off him (take away his dribble penetration), play him straight up, or double-team somebody else? How does he get open - on his own or does he need three screens like Reggie? Does he set good screens? Can he handle the ball in traffic?

      Defensively, does he pressure the ball? How well does he play the passing lanes? How crisp are his rotations? (IOW, does he get caught in no-man's land?) Does he even know when/ where to rotate to?

      I don't need to see him put the ball in the basket to evaluate him. I can learn what I need to know *even* if he's in a slump or hotstreak (and have a better chance of understanding whether its a slump or weakness of his game.)

      You place way too much reliance on stats. I'm a CPA with an MBA in finance. I can make stats do whatever I want, but I don't trust them one bit. So I rarely even look at boxscores and do you know what stats I look at most when I do look at the boxscores? It ain't scoring or assists.

      BTW, when I said "a number of games", twenty was the number I was thinking of. Clearly I agree that anything less than ten just wouldn't give you enough possessions to reach any useful conclusions.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

        Ron for Petrius makes me physically ill.
        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

          Originally posted by Hoop
          Ron for Petrius makes me physically ill.
          What would you prefer?

          We're clearly not getting an all-star caliber player in return, so I suppose that no matter what trade DW thinks is best, there will be lots of capacity to complain about it.

          Of course, its nobody but Ron's own fault that we have to be talking about a Ron-for-Petrius swap as one of the better (rumored) alternatives.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
            What would you prefer?

            We're clearly not getting an all-star caliber player in return, so I suppose that no matter what trade DW thinks is best, there will be lots of capacity to complain about it.

            Of course, its nobody but Ron's own fault that we have to be talking about a Ron-for-Petrius swap as one of the better (rumored) alternatives.
            Petrius will never be more than a 8th or 9th best player on a good NBA team. If he is ever better than that feel free to bring this post back up and I'll say I was wrong and apologize to any Petrius fans.

            I'd rather get a draft pick for Ron than Petrius. Jax and Fred are better and would always play a head of him.
            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

              Originally posted by Hoop
              Petrius will never be more than a 8th or 9th best player on a good NBA team. If he is ever better than that feel free to bring this post back up and I'll say I was wrong and apologize to any Petrius fans.

              I'd rather get a draft pick for Ron than Petrius. Jax and Fred are better and would always play a head of him.
              Fair enough...

              I could see him playing a decent-size role in the right situation, or not at all in other situations. I think he's the type of player, in terms of what he can and can't do, that could complement JO and Granger in the future, but I'm also not sure if he's good enough at what he can do to really make an impact. Did that even make sense?

              I'm not sure I agree that Fred's better than Petrius, but its no secret that I don't see any upside to Fred's game so take that with a grain of salt. Still, I'd agree that Fred - who also will never be better than an eighth-ninth man on a good team - is currently more polished than Petrius. Key word is currently.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

                Originally posted by Fool
                Agreed.

                Watching a player play 1/2/5 games < Never watching a player play.
                Studying a players stats > watching a player play 1/2/5 games, and it's not even close. Anyone who says it is is 100% wrong.

                Take for example Ben Wallace. If I were to judge Ben Wallace based off of his past 5 games, I'd come to the conclusion that he's an average rebounder, average shot blocker, and an average scorer. If I were to go by stats, I'd come to the conclusion that he's a great rebounder, a very good shot blocker, and a below average scorer.
                Which sounds more accurate to you? I rest my case.

                You just can't get enough of an idea how good a player is based on 5 measely games. Jonathan Bender had 5 games where he looked like a future All-Star, and look how that turned out. Stats give you a solid in-depth analysis over a worthy period of time, and thats something being a casual viewer of a player can't give you.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

                  Hey Naptown, Fool was agreeing with you.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

                    You're either missing the point or you're utterly clueless. I think it might be a bit of both so I'm trying to give you some friendly advise so that you'll stop embarassing yourself so often.

                    Reaching a conclusion based solely on studying stats < Reaching a conclusion based on watching a player play the game. Anybody that believes studying stats alone is 100% out-of-touch with reality.

                    Study them all you want.

                    But don't rely solely on stats as an indication of whether something is any good or not. Whether you're talking about a basketball player or a stock in your portfolio or whatever.

                    Stats are just numbers that can be easily manipulated.

                    What do you think scouts do, spend all day looking at spreadsheets with players' stats on them, or watching game film?

                    They don't neglect either one, but when in-doubt, they'll concentrate their efforts on the game film and base their evaluations on what they've seen with their own two eyes, not what they read off the box scores.

                    Just in case you really don't get it, let me spell this out.

                    I have never advocated a casual observation. Re-read those questions I asked above - you can't possibly answer any of them from either analyzing stats or a casual observation.

                    You've got a chicken-and-egg problem with this logic, by the way. For example, lets pick an easy one: Was Jordan a great player because he averaged 30 points per game over a long period of time?

                    Or was Jordan able to get 30 ppg reguarly because he had an explosive first step, could use either hand, was able to extend the range of his jumper, had an uncanny ability to finish at the rim AND get to the line AND hit his FTs, especially at crunch time, and *that* made him a great player?
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                      Fair enough...

                      I could see him playing a decent-size role in the right situation, or not at all in other situations. I think he's the type of player, in terms of what he can and can't do, that could complement JO and Granger in the future, but I'm also not sure if he's good enough at what he can do to really make an impact. Did that even make sense?

                      I'm not sure I agree that Fred's better than Petrius, but its no secret that I don't see any upside to Fred's game so take that with a grain of salt. Still, I'd agree that Fred - who also will never be better than an eighth-ninth man on a good team - is currently more polished than Petrius. Key word is currently.
                      I'm in your camp on this one.....Pietrus is the type of role player that we need to make a run now....one who can provide solid perimeter defend, doesn't complain and most of all won't mind getting less shots then SJax/JONeal.

                      I have a sinking feeling that we are not going to get the starting quality palyer that many of you guys are hoping for. I think that Walsh will be able to gain a little bit of ground in the negotiations....but not enough to get back a player on the level of Odom/Peja/Lewis or even Baby Al. Looking at the way things are right now.......unless Walsh/Bird are considering trading SJax and Tinsley before the trade deadline.....I would much rather get the role players/3rd/4th scoring options that we need to make a run for the championship this season.

                      Also.....if you consider the Warriors a decent team....Pietrus ( before he got injured ) was the 6th scoring option on a team that has scorers like Baron, JRich, Dunleavy, Murphy and Fisher. But you can't judge a player based solely on his offensive performance......just like Freddie....you have to judge him on his defense. Pietrus IMHO is a better defender then Freddie is right now.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

                        Found this idea on a Golden State board.

                        Indiana Gets:
                        - Pieatrus
                        - Fisher
                        - Chaney

                        Golden State Gets:
                        - Artest
                        - Johnson
                        - Gill or Walker would also have to go to GS I think.

                        I think that Pieatrus would be a very nice addition. I like his defense. His offenseive game is better for a up tempo team, IMO, but he is young and still improving and would be a great addition nevertheless.

                        Fish can shoot and gives effort every night. He is pretty good at drawing charges too. He has a bad contract but it is worth it IMO because we would be getting a talent like MP and getting rid of Artest.

                        Chaney is a cheap roleplayer who can shoot from mid range. He doesn't have 3 point range but I like that he doesn't seem to shoot 3s to often. Like I said he is a decent shooter from mid range though and would be a nice veteran guy to rely on.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Mickael Pietrus Is Nice.

                          Originally posted by Shade
                          Knee problems = no thanks

                          We need to avoid players with baggage and/or who are injury-prone (especially knee problems).
                          So we shouldn't get equal value.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X