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

James Jones in Portland...

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

  • James Jones in Portland...

    I'm watching the Blazers/Wolves game and at half-time the announcers were singing high praises for good ol' JJ #33. He's been lighting things up behind the arc. Basically saying he was a huge part of why they won 13 in a row. Apparently he wasn't playing much prior to the streak and as soon as he got involved their fortune changed. He's 3 for 3 tonight. This year he's shooting 55% behind the arc and averaging about 10pts per game. I like JJ and I'm glad to see him doing well up in Portland. ...also, Portland is a fun team to watch.
    :thepacers
    No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

  • #2
    Re: James Jones in Portland...

    I HATED, as in ranted all the time, when they let him go. He was a Reggie clone. He hit some big shots in the brawl season to help push for the playoffs (that NJ game late when Reggie ripped off 5-6 late too) and showed a pure 3pt shot.

    Sure he wasn't a great defender or strong off the dribble, but if you needed spot up or curl catch and shoots from 3, he was your man.

    How bad do they need him right now. If Dun can play the 2 then certainly the quicker JJ could.

    I know he was sometimes lost and green out there, but right now we are putting up with Danny, Ike, Shawne, Owens, etc making the same mistakes with far less overall impact on the positive side.


    BTW, coming into last season JJ was 49th ALL TIME in NBA 3P%. Obviously his 38.5 rate went up with this season.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-02-2008, 11:05 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: James Jones in Portland...

      I said at the time we kept the wrong Jones. I liked his demeanor, his defense, and his solid-if-not-spectacular play.

      I know he didn't set the world on fire in Pheonix, but I've always liked JJ.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: James Jones in Portland...

        Yeah, people slammed his total game, but that's not why you keep him. You keep him because he's got a true shot and proved he could make them off of cuts ala Reggie by running the exact same plays that Reggie ran (when 31 came out of games).

        Great jump shooting coming off of cuts or off the dribble is a rare item and critical IMO. Look at Rip's game and his value.

        Of course the 2nd round pick involved helped get James White I believe, so we've got that going for us.
        (disclaimer, I liked White as a pick till I saw his lackluster pre-season camp)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: James Jones in Portland...

          James is playing well for Portland and is an exceptionally nice guy but he's not worth losing sleep over.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: James Jones in Portland...

            Originally posted by Kofi View Post
            James is playing well for Portland and is an exceptionally nice guy but he's not worth losing sleep over.
            I kind of agree with this.

            I was wanting to keep Jones but not at the money he got. He is a replaceable player.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: James Jones in Portland...

              10-4 to those who thought this guy deserved some more time in a Pacers uniform. I don't know if I could say this if it weren't for the Orlando game a few years ago the night after that awful game in Detroit. After attending that game I payed close attention to JJ, something about the way he stepped up the night after the Brawl won me over. Oh well, at least Portland is a respectable team to root for with a good group of players. Nothing but the best for JJ.
              A: "I've got to wait until it gets dark to finish filming. We have one scene shot at night."

              J: (Drunk) "Come film in my pants man, it's already dark there."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: James Jones in Portland...

                I haven't missed JJ at all since he left here. He's a nice guy and a decent player, but that is all. I wish him well

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: James Jones in Portland...

                  I'm thinking it would be nice to have one great shooter on a team that bases its offense on the jumpshot. But hey, that's just me.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: James Jones in Portland...

                    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                    I'm thinking it would be nice to have one great shooter on a team that bases its offense on the jumpshot. But hey, that's just me.
                    I guess I just don't think James Jones is a great shooter. yes he's shooting well to this point this season, but if you look at his entire career (and in Phoenix he got wide open shots all the time) his % doesn't indicate to me that he is a great shooter. He's a pretty good shooter, but I don't think anything more.

                    Here are his career stats.

                    FG% - 40.6
                    3-pt - 40%
                    FT% - 87%


                    What the Pacers offense needs more than shooters is someone who can create shots for himself, for his teammates and get to the free throw line - and JJ does none of those three things.
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-03-2008, 02:41 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: James Jones in Portland...

                      A career 40% 3pt shooter is at least very good if not great IMO.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: James Jones in Portland...

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I guess I just don't think James Jones is a great shooter. yes he's shooting well to this point this season, but if you look at his entire career (and in Phoenix he got wild open shots all the time) his % doesn't indicate to me that he is a great shooter. He's a pretty good shooter, but I don't think anything more.

                        Here are his career stats.

                        FG% - 40.6
                        3-pt - 40%
                        FT% - 87%


                        What the pacers offense needs more than shooters is someone who can create shots for himself, for his teammates and get to the free throw line - and JJ does none of those three things.
                        What you don't appear to understand, *removed*, is that 3-point shooters spread the defense and create opportunities for other players. JJones is helping Portland a great deal because he's making it easier for Aldridge, Roy, Outlaw and others to get good shots. He'd be having a similar affect for Indiana. He would certainly be an upgrade from the bench players they have now.

                        Teams should not rely on players who can "create shots for themselves" (*removed*). There's only about 6 of them in the league anyway who can do it without having a negative affect on their team. How 'bout Marbury...he's a guy with the reputation for being about to "create shots for himself"...is THAT what you think the Pacers need??? Really???

                        The Pacers need good shooters, good (and willing) passers, and players who play together and unselfishly. They need players who are unconcerned with individual stats and not prone to pouting.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: James Jones in Portland...

                          http://blog.oregonlive.com/sportsupd..._new_stre.html

                          MINNEAPOLIS -- There came a time Wednesday when the Trail Blazers couldn't believe what they were seeing during their grind-it-out 90-79 win over Minnesota at the sleepy Target Center.

                          James Jones, the NBA's leading three-point shooter, was open in the corner.

                          Swish.

                          And then Jones, once again, was open in the same spot.

                          Swish.

                          And then again, Jones with time to load his shot and let fly.

                          Swish.

                          Five times in the second quarter, Sergio Rodriguez would drive and kick a pass to Jones, or push a transition break and find Jones, and all five times Jones hit the shot.

                          "I don't understand why teams leave that dude open," Jarrett Jack said. "It's like they don't know what type of player he is."

                          On Wednesday, Jones again showed he is the type of player who can change a game, scoring 13 of his 18 points in the first six minutes of the second quarter, propelling the Blazers to their fourth road win this season.


                          It was the Blazers' first game after their 13-game winning streak was snapped in Utah on Monday, and it reaffirmed what many of the players have been saying since the streak had ended: This young team is much more than just a 13-game flash-in-the-pan.

                          "I'm happy with the way we responded," said Brandon Roy, who struggled with his shot (8 for 21) but still finished with a team-high 24 points. "The big thing I was saying is, 'We gotta win this next game to show everybody that even though the streak was over, we are still a good team.' And I felt we did that. We showed we still have a lot to play for."

                          With the win, the Blazers (19-13) remained in second place by percentage points behind Denver (18-12) in the Northwest Division. And although many of the final statistics were unsightly -- the Blazers shot 39 percent, including 10 for 34 in the second half -- they were able to control the game thanks to a season-low four turnovers, which were one off the franchise record.

                          It was an emotionless game played in a quiet Target Center that was only half-filled. To make matters worse, the start was delayed 24 minutes to repair a gap between floor boards near halfcourt.

                          "The game had a weird feeling right from the start, being delayed," McMillan said. "I was thinking, 'This is not good.' And even though we won the first quarter (23-18), the rhythm never felt good."

                          Enter what McMillan likes to call "the white unit" -- his second quarter reserves, who on this night were led by Rodriguez, Jack and Jones. Immediately, the tempo picked up, as Rodriguez was jitter-bugging through the lane and zinging passes to Jones in the corner.

                          In the first six minutes of the second, Rodriguez had eight assists, putting him in position to tie the franchise record for assists in a quarter (10), set by Terry Porter in 1991. He never got the chance for the record, as McMillan reinserted Roy into the game, but by that time, the Blazers had a 44-32 lead and control of the game.

                          The eight assists were a season-high for Rodriguez, who has drifted into anonymity while playing brief stints in the second and fourth quarters. Afterward, while finishing the remains of what has become his traditional pregame meal -- chicken strips and fries -- Rodriguez downplayed his game-changing role.

                          "They made the baskets," Rodriguez said. "James played a hell of a game. Everybody was trying to get open, and I just find them. For me, it was just how the game was going. I'm always ready on the bench, and I'm always looking at what my teammates are doing and what we need. Then I go in there and just do the best I can do."

                          Of course, it makes it easier when Rodriguez is passing to Jones, who is having the best season of his five-year career. Jones, who has never made more than 40 percent of his three-pointers during his four-plus seasons, is now 33 for 65 (55.4 percent), while boosting his scoring average to a career-high 10.4 points.

                          "That's what we have sorely needed ever since I have been here," Jack said. "A guy who can make you pay if you leave him open."

                          In fact, Jones was being left so open during the second quarter that teammate Travis Outlaw said he was "getting mad," taking it as a sign of disrespect for Jones.

                          "They have to leave someone open, and it just happens to be me," Jones said. "But it's not so much a decision to leave me open, it was the options our offense was creating. Serg was the one who came in and changed everything with his penetration. Every coach will tell you to take away the layin and give up the three. So Serg gave us that burst that we needed, and it jump-started us and put them on their heals. The rest was history."

                          Still, the Blazers had trouble putting the finishing touches on the win, allowing Minnesota (427) to cut the lead to 60-56 in the third quarter. It wasn't until Roy hit a three-pointer at the end of the third to give the Blazers a 75-62 lead that the players could breathe a little easier.
                          Notes:LaMarcus Aldridge finished with 17 points and 11 rebounds, his team-leading seventh double double of the season. ... The Blazers have won four of their past five road games. ... Minnesota, which lost its sixth in a row, got 29 points and 16 rebounds from Al Jefferson.

                          Jason Quick: 503-221-4372; jasonquick@news.oregonian.com To read his "Behind the Beat" blog, go to http://blog.oregonlive.com/
                          behindblazersbeat
                          Last edited by Roy Munson; 01-03-2008, 07:45 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: James Jones in Portland...

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I guess I just don't think James Jones is a great shooter.
                            Yeah, it's not like he's Kareem Rush or anything.

                            But hey, we shouldn't complain. We traded him for 1/3 of James White.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: James Jones in Portland...

                              Key word for him: ROLE PLAYER...which we don't have enough of. We need more players who are willing to come in and fit a specific role for the sake of the team. Jones may have deficiencies to his game, but he would have been a valuable perimeter sniper to spread the floor, and take pressure off our bigs. If we had more of those guys, we'd be much better off. All the championship teams had valuable role playing personnel, in addition to their star play.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X