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

A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

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

  • #46
    Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    The same reason Forrest Gump or Slingblade smiles.
    Strangely, both of those guys are smart enough to not foul out all the time.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      The same reason Forrest Gump or Slingblade smiles.
      Fess up, did Redd secretly feed you that awesome line? Brilliant.


      On JO, I was pretty happy with his game vs WSH, I think he's coming along. On defense he was a monster, a pretty lonely monster. That play where he tried to get the charge, got knocked down, and then got back up to make a shot block after the ball had bounced around inside was solid and showed that there is some lift there (or getting there). On offense he made a sweet multi-step post move that ended with an up and under for a score.

      The look on his face was "I can't believe this is the team Larry put around me". I think JO should get credit for riding this mess out because right now LA must look really good to him. You think Bynum would have had the Pacers winning vs WSH? Please.

      You only trade JO as part of a process to clean out this mix totally and build off Granger, Ike and Shawne, and that doesn't mean featuring them either, just keeping them as you get other stars and bench guys. It would mean moving Dun, Troy and Tins. Have you seen their deals vs their output? Why move JO when the rest can't be moved?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

        Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
        Most on here have probably seen more of the initial games than
        I. So, I haven't seen J.O. for extended mins at this point.
        But if he's still hurting physically, what's he doing on the court ?
        Sit his *** out until he's totally healthy !

        As far as I'm concerned, THE goal for this franchise right now with
        respect to J.O. is to maximize his ability to show enough this year
        to allow them to maximize his eventual trade value.

        The Pacers are not going to compete for an NBA title again w/ J.O.
        So, despite Bird's fixation w/ making the playoffs, this year doesn't
        really matter in the long run. What matters is transitioning optimally
        to the next phase of franchise history and preparing/trying to assemble
        the pieces to potentially compete for a title down the road.

        Just my take.
        This, I agree with. JO should be on the bench til he's "very" healthy. I liken this to holding out Bob Sanders last year vs. having him keep coming back early and losing him again. Having him at full strength for the playoffs was HUGE last year for the Colts. Same with Harrison this year.

        I'm also under the opinion that his injury issues were the main reason he didn't get traded this off season. Damaged goods! All the more reason to get him healthy and increase his trade value.

        Water

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

          Alright, here's my realistic 2-cents worth...

          No, JO doesn't look his expected normal self. Key word here is expected. We've been very fortunate to have a 20/10 player on this team for going on 8 yrs now. Okay, so he's had some serious injury problems the last 3 yrs. What I like about JO is the fact that he has tried to implement other facets of his game to provide the team with those aspects they need. For example, when the team needed improved interior defense, he became a shot blocker. When the team needed a strong interior physical presence, he learned how and has shown the willingness to take charges. When the team started the season wanting to run a more uptempo offense and needed a passer from the interior to make their inside-outside game more effective, guess who became the team's second ranked leader in assists? That's right! JO!! I pointed some of this out in PD's "sister" Pacers' message board, IndyStar.com under my alter ego there, "INdyBoy39" (See the thread, "Bynum...is Better than JO...Right Now" for details).

          The other side of this issue is the fact that JO is hurting right now. JOB reiterated in yesterday's pre-game interview that JO's (left) leg (calf) has some swelling that the medical staff hasn't been able to get under control. (This was first reported on the "Jim O'Brien Show" on Monday 11/19/07. The Pacers/Hornets post-game report on Pacers.com, however, is reporting that it's JO's left knee that's bothering him. Whichever is accurate, it's clear the man is injured and that injury is affecting his game.) Still, I give him credit where it's due. He's trying to bring other parts of his game to the hardwood for the betterment of his team.

          I don't think he's being selfish at all as some claim in wanting the ball in his hands to "be" the primary scoring option. What I do believe is that he wants to get back to that 20/10 form we all have come to expect of him so that he can help his team more on the offensive end as he has helped them on the defensive end. Sitting him out a few games and having his knee/leg checked to determine the cause of the swelling and getting it treated now will be the best thing for JO right now to help this team in the long-term. Once that problem is fully resolved, I think JO will come back and we'll see a better performance from him out there.

          And that, my friends, is my realistic 2-cents worth.
          Last edited by NuffSaid; 11-22-2007, 12:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

            Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
            LOL. . why would we trade Jermaine O'neal. We'd have no one to guard the post
            You cannot gaurd the post while in street clothes watching the game. Nor can you gaurd the post when you cannot elevate.

            He is not gaurding the post now.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

              JO has always talked a bigger game than he played...even back when he was a good player. Now that he's almost completely ineffective, he still feels the need to boast about what he's GOING to do, rather than going out and just doing it.

              I think he has self-esteem issues. Seriously.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                I said it last summer with all the JO trade rumors, and I'll say it again. JO will be washed up in 2 years (now its 1-1/2 years and counting). Too many miles on those long bony 29 year old legs. He just cant get over his nagging injuries, like Quisy's injury, it just is not going to go away. JO will never take us to the finals. Ever.

                With that being said, I think he needs to get healthy enough before the trade deadline, to increase his trade value. Right now its the lowest its been since before he came to the Pacers. Maybe a team like the Clips, or now the Wizards, or even maybe the Mavs will need help at that time to make their playoff run. I would hope that we could get a young quick shooting guard, who might be able to be a lock down perimeter defender. Bynum is obviously out of the question now anyway. And with Ike's promising start to this season, and Hulk's better play this season, and the energizer bunny Jeff all over the place as always.

                We are simply a better team when JO does not play. The team moves in Obie's offense much much better. That should make LB's decision even easier. The transformation already has happened with Granger becoming the go to guy now anyway.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                  I have to agree now that it may be a good time to trade JO. I hate to say that because I have been saying "Nooooo" all along, but he just doesn't fit the system. It would probably be best for both the team and JO. A good young 2 and a group of expirings would be ok to me, because I would like to see what a line-up of Tin man, Dun, Granger, SWill and Murph/Foster could do?


                  Anyone have any ideas? I would like some sort of anything involving Arenas, but that is pushing it. If we could get a lottery of expriings, maybe going after him next year could be an option?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                    Originally posted by BoomBaby33 View Post
                    I said it last summer with all the JO trade rumors, and I'll say it again. JO will be washed up in 2 years (now its 1-1/2 years and counting). Too many miles on those long bony 29 year old legs.

                    I always wonder if it is number of years in the league or age that makes a player decline and of course you have genetic wonders like Reggie. It also depends on the type of game you play, predicated on athleticism or skill moreso.

                    I am starting to completely agree with you on this. When did JO get so old, it just snuck up on me.

                    Now like alot of declining players he can still have nights were he is similar to his best, but it gets further and farther between (See Shaq the last 3 maybe 4 years).

                    I won't get into what you should or even can do with him, realistically, to much possible or not possible depending on your perspective.

                    As far as the state of the Pacers relative to him though, it still seems to me that the players they have now are at best a second best player on a good team, I still think you have to somehow land a top pick (kid from IU?) or your probably just treading water for the next 5 years, imho.

                    Lastly, this team reminds me of alot of old Arizona State teams that lived and died by shooting and can blow people out and look great, but they get in the tournament and have an off game and they are disposed of by a lesser team. Brunner had an interesting stat on Dunleavy in wins and losses and his shooting percentage.

                    "Mike Dunleavy has averaged 22.0 points on 42-of-84 shooting (.500) in five victories but 11.4 points on 27-of-71 shooting (.380) in seven losses"

                    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_071123.html

                    This is kinda how I see this team as a whole, at this point.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                      Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                      I have to agree now that it may be a good time to trade JO. I hate to say that because I have been saying "Nooooo" all along, but he just doesn't fit the system. It would probably be best for both the team and JO. A good young 2 and a group of expirings would be ok to me, because I would like to see what a line-up of Tin man, Dun, Granger, SWill and Murph/Foster could do?


                      Anyone have any ideas? I would like some sort of anything involving Arenas, but that is pushing it. If we could get a lottery of expriings, maybe going after him next year could be an option?
                      Oh my!!!! I would trade for Arenas in a new york minute, even with him being out for 3 months. Hibachi is the third best guard in the NBA right now. And you could argue him being equal to DWade at 2. That trade would never happen though. I think we would have to sweeten the deal for the Wiz though, as opposed to them sweetening the deal for us. It'd have to be a first rounder and / or one of our young players (Ike, Shawne or Danny).

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        I always wonder if it is number of years in the league or age that makes a player decline and of course you have genetic wonders like Reggie. It also depends on the type of game you play, predicated on athleticism or skill moreso.

                        I am starting to completely agree with you on this. When did JO get so old, it just snuck up on me.

                        Now like alot of declining players he can still have nights were he is similar to his best, but it gets further and farther between (See Shaq the last 3 maybe 4 years).

                        I won't get into what you should or even can do with him, realistically, to much possible or not possible depending on your perspective.

                        As far as the state of the Pacers relative to him though, it still seems to me that the players they have now are at best a second best player on a good team, I still think you have to somehow land a top pick (kid from IU?) or your probably just treading water for the next 5 years, imho.

                        Lastly, this team reminds me of alot of old Arizona State teams that lived and died by shooting and can blow people out and look great, but they get in the tournament and have an off game and they are disposed of by a lesser team. Brunner had an interesting stat on Dunleavy in wins and losses and his shooting percentage.

                        "Mike Dunleavy has averaged 22.0 points on 42-of-84 shooting (.500) in five victories but 11.4 points on 27-of-71 shooting (.380) in seven losses"

                        http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/preview_071123.html

                        This is kinda how I see this team as a whole, at this point.
                        The wear and tear on interior players is far more than wings / guards. Like you said, there are exceptions. What is it about 20,000 minutes for him of jumping for rebounds, cutting, stepping into charges. Plus, he has a bigger upper frame put on top of those gangly legs. He's top heavy.

                        If we do indeed trade for expirings / second rate players for JO, I certainly hope they can land a #1 pick with them. Maybe pair our pick and that pick to move up to get him. Eric Gordon is the bomb man. He has ice in his veins. PLUS, it appears he can play perimeter defense pretty good (at least against college players now).

                        Thanks for finding that info on DunDun's stats for wins / losses. I had been wondering about that. He seems to disappear at times, especially when he is being man handled by another star player whom he is guarding. Case in point, he disappeared vs. Kobe (not that he was guarding Kobe, but it affected him nonetheless), and played well against the similar type player Peja. I still think DunDun is a very important part of our team though.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                          It drives me crazy reading all this "JO doesn't fit in JOB's system"! He's only missed what 1...2 games? And yet everybody seems to forget that he was part of those high scoring first quarters/first halves for at least 8 of the last 12 games. No, it wasn't his scoring that led the way, but then again JOB's system ISN'T designed to propel low-post players. It's designed for our Guards! Please consider that the next time this "JO doesn't fit in JOB's system" mess begins to take root.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                            Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                            It drives me crazy reading all this "JO doesn't fit in JOB's system"! He's only missed what 1...2 games? And yet everybody seems to forget that he was part of those high scoring first quarters/first halves for at least 8 of the last 12 games. No, it wasn't his scoring that led the way, but then again JOB's system ISN'T designed to propel low-post players. It's designed for our Guards! Please consider that the next time this "JO doesn't fit in JOB's system" mess begins to take root.
                            We absolutely don't have enough evidence either way...Jo hasn't been healthy, and too few games to make a judgement on anyway. As far as that goes, there have been games when very few of the Pacers looked like they fitted in JOB's system. It's been a period of adjustment, and an injury-interrupted period at that.


                            [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                              kester99,

                              You're is the first post other than my own that actually rings of some truth and common sense.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: A realistic discussion about Jermaine O'Neal

                                Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                                We absolutely don't have enough evidence either way...Jo hasn't been healthy, and too few games to make a judgement on anyway. As far as that goes, there have been games when very few of the Pacers looked like they fitted in JOB's system. It's been a period of adjustment, and an injury-interrupted period at that.

                                That's me. buddy...I'm full of that stuff.

                                Edit: I apparently don't know how to use that quote thingamajig though.
                                Last edited by kester99; 11-23-2007, 07:34 PM. Reason: rank stupidity


                                [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X