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

Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

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

  • Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

    Get your attention?

    Before you go crazy, read about the context I am talking about.

    When Jackson was here it was oft-discussed on this board that the fortunes of the Pacers were tied to the fortunes of Jackson. There was a whole thread dedicated to this when Jackson was with the Pacers and I wish I could dig it up, although I've been having trouble finding it.

    "Dunleavy went into Wednesday's game at Portland averaging 22.4 points, 6.4 rebounds and 2.7 assists and shooting 53 percent in victories this season. He's only averaging 11.0 points and shooting 40 percent in losses
    "When I get in the flow offensively, it's pretty clear we're a good team," Dunleavy said. "When I don't, we struggle. Why that happens, I don't know. My approach is the same every night. I think it's pretty clear we're a good team when I can get my hands on the ball."

    That quote is from a recent Indystar article. Are the Pacers fortunes now tied to Dunleavy in a similar way that it could be argued they were tied to Jackson during a portion of his tenure here?

    When Dunleavy shows up and plays aggressively the Pacers usually win. However some nights he just doesn't get involved in the offense. Last night was kind of an outlier because he did get involved but he did get involved, but played poorly and the Pacers lost. If Dunleavy takes 15 shots like he did last night, he usually will make more than 6 of them.

    However I'd rather have a game like this from Dunleavy than one in which he gets involved but plays poorly, because more often than not when he gets involved he will play well. When Dunleavy plays passively that's what really dooms the Pacers.

    Stephen's situation was a little more complicated. Sometimes he would try too hard on the offensive end, with erratic drives and poor shot selection. He would play poor defense and try to make it up with great offense (that turned out to be terrible) in his best impersonation of a playground legend. If Stephen played the slightly better than average defense he was capable of, and controlled his shot selection and deferred when necessary, the Pacers were in a good position to win with him.

    This isn't meant to get into a discussion of why Jack left Indy or whatever but I think it's an interesting idea to ponder.
    Last edited by idioteque; 12-01-2007, 01:04 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

    I still think, Dun takes more intelligent shot. tho SJAX is just really stronger than him, i would still rather have him. Dun makes a lot of good plays that run the team, some u dont see on the stat sheet. the boxing out or giving the extra pass..

    he had a lot of good passes during the sonics game. SJAX only does this when he is on his ZONE. his Unstoppable ZONE . hehe
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

      Originally posted by andreialta View Post
      I still think, Dun takes more intelligent shot. tho SJAX is just really stronger than him, i would still rather have him. Dun makes a lot of good plays that run the team, some u dont see on the stat sheet. the boxing out or giving the extra pass..

      he had a lot of good passes during the sonics game. SJAX only does this when he is on his ZONE. his Unstoppable ZONE . hehe
      I don't really mean by comparing their individual stats or qualities. It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't. Can the same be said for Dunleavy now?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

        Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
        I don't really mean by comparing their individual stats or qualities. It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't. Can the same be said for Dunleavy now?
        i guess you could kinda say that now! but were still only 17 games into the season. JO is not himself.. Again dunleavy really isn't the kind of player that needs to score 30. he is what he is, a complimentary player which should compliment our team.

        i think the whenever Dunleavy takes more than 16 shots, the defense focus on him a bit during the 2nd half and thus giving openings to Danny and Tins to do whatever they want. thats just my take on it. im no expert! hehe
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

          Originally posted by andreialta View Post
          i guess you could kinda say that now! but were still only 17 games into the season. JO is not himself.. Again dunleavy really isn't the kind of player that needs to score 30. he is what he is, a complimentary player which should compliment our team.

          i think the whenever Dunleavy takes more than 16 shots, the defense focus on him a bit during the 2nd half and thus giving openings to Danny and Tins to do whatever they want. thats just my take on it. im no expert! hehe
          I'm not saying score 30. I mean saying he scores like 16-25 or so points instead of like 8 or 11. That is the difference between having second or third option numbers compared to having 7th man numbers.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

            Yeah I think their roles are similar.

            Although it's kind of hard to judge.

            This team is still finding there way. When everyone is healthy, I think that Mike is our 3rd or 4th important player.

            Jackson was here through some tough times. From suspensions to injuries his role changed a lot. I think if we would have had a team that had no suspensions and nagging injuries to key players Jackson would have been more efficient in his production.

            But yes I think that we need Mike to play well to win. There is no doubt about it that Mike Dunleavy is very important to the Pacers having success this year.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

              Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
              I don't really mean by comparing their individual stats or qualities. It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't. Can the same be said for Dunleavy now?
              I'm glad you clarified that otherwise I was ready to go off.

              But you're absolutely right. Mike is extremely similar in terms of Jack in this aspect. Whenever they play well, their team wins a large portion of the time. When they play poorly, their team is likely to lose.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                I'm glad you clarified that otherwise I was ready to go off.

                But you're absolutely right. Mike is extremely similar in terms of Jack in this aspect. Whenever they play well, their team wins a large portion of the time. When they play poorly, their team is likely to lose.
                And they're streaky as all get-out.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

                  We both depended/depend on them on the offensive end. Jackson may put up better numbers, but Jacksons shot selection Here in Indiana was quite horrible most of the time. Im glad SJAX is playin well in GS...but right now im happy with MDJ

                  AUSTRALIA'S NO.1 PACER FAN

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

                    Originally posted by dcpacerfan
                    It's more like, if Jack played well the Pacers had a much better chance of winning than they did if he didn't.
                    This is true of every player on the roster. On every roster. Of every team. In every sport. Since the beginning of time.

                    Jackson's reputation is freighted with so much baggage, there's no point in comparing his game with Dunleavy's. Why not ask whether Dunleavy is the new John Long?
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

                      Nope...Dunleavy still needs to grow more...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

                        I see the similarity between the team success with Dun and with Jax, but IMO there's a HUGE difference, which makes all the difference.

                        When Jax was playing well it meant that he was succeeding with his 1on1 drives, and his shot was falling, even on "bad" shots. The rest of the team were not really involved.
                        However, when Dun is playing well it reflects the team game being played, movement without the ball, ball movement, and inevitably (IMO) - shots falling.

                        That's a BIG difference.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

                          Originally posted by NPFII View Post
                          The rest of the team were not really involved.
                          I'm happy to have Dunleavy, and don't want to get into a Jack-vs-Dun debate, but Jack was actually a pretty good passer. When he was here, he moved the ball better than anybody not named Tinsley.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

                            No, I'm way better then Mike Dunleavy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is Mike Dunleavy the new Stephen Jackson?

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              This is true of every player on the roster. On every roster. Of every team. In every sport. Since the beginning of time.

                              Jackson's reputation is freighted with so much baggage, there's no point in comparing his game with Dunleavy's. Why not ask whether Dunleavy is the new John Long?
                              Jackson's game and his reputation are two different things. This is meant to be a technical discussion of his skills rather than a re-hash debate about his reputation. I am sick of it, and probably you and everyone else on this board are as well.

                              And you're missing my point completely. Do you really think we were that better off last year if Josh Powell came in and got 4 and 2?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X