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

Are we better without JO?

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

  • #31
    Re: Are we better without JO?

    He does take alot of charges. But somehow I'm thinking we could
    find someone a bit cheaper to take care of that stat.

    I doubt the folks in San Antone spend much time monitoring
    or even giving **** about the number of charges Duncan takes.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Are we better without JO?

      I've given this one lots of thought. My answer is this:

      1) If it's the same beat up JO who's been in and out of the line up, then I'd have to say, yes! The team does play much better without the "85%, gimpy JO" out there.

      2) If it's a healthy JO who as JOB said during yesterday's "Jim O'Brien Show", who is the team's only big who can produce on both sides of the ball, then I'd have to say w/o question, "NO!"

      I've seen the sluggish JO and I've seen the quick moving JO. When he first returned the last time JOB/team medical sat him out for 10 days, that was the best I'd seen him play all season! So, he can do it when healthy. The thing is, most fans won't give him due credit because we've all equated his productivity to his paycheck - even I've done it - and forget about the injury factor. We figure that if he's being paid tens of millions he should be able to produce even on a bum ankle or knee, but that's not reality. Still, we have that right to perceive that that's what he should be doing - getting out there, running the court, bagging w/the big boys, scoring 18-20 ppg, avg. 10-12 rpg, etc.

      I'll admit, I want JO to be that player I know he can be, that player we all expect him to be, but the truth is right now he can't be that player. But I'll take a JO that's 65/85% any day of the week because that JO can still do some things to disrupt an offense and would still demand attention while out on the court. Do I prefer that JO? No.
      Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-11-2008, 05:00 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Are we better without JO?

        I answered 'no' strictly based on a comparison of the team with JO available or not available. No trade scenarios or contract relief.

        Disregarding contracts and the like, I would use JO either as a backup or on the first team but he would not be allowed to shoot unless he was dunking or completely open from the middle of the floor. A baseline shot from post-up would put him on the bench the rest of the game...whether he made the shot or not. If he scores 50ppg that way, great. Scoring is not what I want from him anyway...

        If another player passed to him in the context that they would not pass to Jeff Foster or another lame offensive player, I would consider benching that player...or he would earn a point toward sitting for awhile.

        Also, if he does not get at least 9 boards a game, I would bench him for the next game.

        To me, all this means is that JO needs to get his shots within the flow of the offense or pickup garbage shots only.

        The guy is pretty good on defense, so that's hardly ever the concern.

        Now, if you factor in the sad fact that only 3 players in the entire league are paid more than our part-time "super-star", then things take a very sharp turn...

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Are we better without JO?

          Immediately, as in does he play the next game or not (ignoring the injury)? Absolutely NOT!

          Long-term, big picture? Almost certainly YES.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Are we better without JO?

            Hey I finally got a trade to go through on Trade checker!!! Hooray for me. Too bad nobody would do it.



            Indiana New York Trade Breakdown
            Incoming Players
            David Lee
            6-9 PF from Florida
            9.9 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 26.6 minutes
            Quentin Richardson
            6-6 SG / SF from DePaul
            6.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 1.7 apg in 29.0 minutes
            Eddy Curry
            6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
            14.9 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.6 apg in 28.1 minutes
            Outgoing Players
            Jermaine O'Neal
            6-11 PF from Eau Claire (HS)
            15.6 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 2.6 apg in 31.8 minutes
            Protect the Promise!!!!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Are we better without JO?

              Originally posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post
              Hey I finally got a trade to go through on Trade checker!!! Hooray for me. Too bad nobody would do it.



              Indiana New York Trade Breakdown
              Incoming Players
              David Lee
              6-9 PF from Florida
              9.9 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 0.9 apg in 26.6 minutes
              Quentin Richardson
              6-6 SG / SF from DePaul
              6.6 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 1.7 apg in 29.0 minutes
              Eddy Curry
              6-11 C from Thornwood (HS)
              14.9 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.6 apg in 28.1 minutes
              Outgoing Players
              Jermaine O'Neal
              6-11 PF from Eau Claire (HS)
              15.6 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 2.6 apg in 31.8 minutes
              Get-r-Done. Throw in David Harrison or one of our 25 small forwards and it might happen.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Are we better without JO?

                Originally posted by aceace View Post
                IMHO... JO is still a really good player. He is not a JOB offense player. He needs to be somewhere where they play a half court game more to his skills. We need a 2 guard that can shoot the ball (AKA:Redd) We would need to move Granger to the 4 and Dun at the 3 with Foster, Murphy at the 5. I think we need Tinsley at the point and for him to shoot less. Bringing in a very good 2 might solve the problem as Tinman might be inclined to pass more to a better shooter. Yes, we would miss JO's interior defense but our offense might flourish a little more. Its not necessarily are we better without O'Neal, the question should be "Would we be better with a really good outside shooter in place of O'Neal". I would trade for the best 2 I could if given a choice. This would probably require a 3 way deal of some kind due to JO's contract. Feel free to attack this post!

                sounds good and all EXCEPT that Tinsley is still in the equation... Id rather keep oneal than tinsley ANY day.. we will not suceed as long as mell mell is running the offense... PERIOD !!
                "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Are we better without JO?

                  ALSO to add :

                  Do you REALLY think JO would want to leave his cushy job??

                  Think about it ... There is no other team in the NBA he could get traded to.. in which they would allow him to get away with not practicing...

                  SPEAKING OF ....

                  You wanna know why he is always injured , and is playing like an nba star 10 years older in his twilight years? BECAUSE HE DONT PRACTICE WITH THE TEAM !!
                  He thinks he can just suit up and play 39+ mpg .

                  His body is so out of conditioning , from what it should be , that he is always hurt, and is not playing like the same JO we all at one time come to enjoy..

                  Bottom line is Larry needs to take off the kid gloves...... grow a pube .... and put his foot down.. (sorry for the colorful language) ...

                  Right now let JO stay on the bench and heal.. till he is at 100% .. THEN make him start participating in every practice... ya know we DO have trainers that can condition him at a slower pace till his body can "handle" it ..
                  ALSO don't play him so many damn minutes for awhile..
                  Keep him right around the 28-30 mpg. mark .. till he is capable of being able to play a it more without fear of another injury..

                  ALSO ... how can JO develop ANY kind of chemistry with the team.. when he doesnt PRACTICE with the team? ya see he is so used to being the "go to guy" that he feels he has to have ALL the offense ran through him.. (it doesnt help JOB buys into this philosophy ) .. and in turn the team as a whole plays awkward when JO is on the floor... ITS A PROVEN FACT.. that they play as a "team" when he is injured (with the exeption of mel mel lol) JT is a whole nother cancer... so ill refrain from talkin bout him in this post.. lol this is about o'neal...
                  Anyways he is the one who doesnt have the chemistry goin for him right now, and it is hurting the team..... badly...

                  I dont want to get rid of JO... but something has to give.. Either he buck up and be a professional and do what needs to be done and practice and get himself in condition... or he will end up declining into obscurity to where he becomes a non-factor.... and gets himself traded into a situation in which he wont be "big man in the locker room" anymore..



                  just my 2 cents worth
                  Last edited by Kemo; 01-12-2008, 12:44 AM.
                  "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Are we better without JO?

                    as much as i love JO...and he's my fav player. Yes we are...we can run without JO...with JO he is just way too slow to keep up. I think he should sit...looks like we are tanking anyway.
                    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Are we better without JO?

                      Not that this is a huge difference, but W/O him we ONLY give up 1.9 more points a game per 100 possessions. At the same time, we score 2.6 more points W/O him. What he gives us on the defensive end, he takes away on the offensive end.

                      All this being pointed out, and contrary to all the +/- believers, the only +/- stat that counts to me is this stat:

                      With JO, we are 9-19
                      W/O JO, we are 5-2

                      What other stat do you even need?

                      Offensively, he is a chemistry killer. Defensively, Jeff, Danny, and even Troy at times (surprisingly), do the dirty work on the defensive end in the post, just as well as JO does.

                      I just hope that Obie claiming we are "going small" means JO's days are done here in Indy.


                      http://www.82games.com/0708/07IND13D.HTM

                      There are some pretty startling stats below that prove his "D" isn't the "be all end all", as well.

                      Jermaine O'Neal
                      Indiana Pacers
                      2007-2008 NBA Season
                      Player Stats | 5-Man Units | By Position | On/Off Court | Clutch Play

                      On Court / Off Court stats
                      Many stats are shown on a 'per 48 minute' basis
                      Stat
                      ON Court
                      OFF Court
                      Net
                      Minutes
                      953
                      837
                      53%
                      Offense: Pts per 100 Poss.
                      103.3
                      105.9
                      -2.6
                      Defense: Pts per 100 Poss.
                      105.8
                      107.6
                      -1.9
                      Net Points per 100 Possessions
                      -2.5
                      -1.7
                      -0.8
                      Points Scored
                      1977
                      1831
                      +146
                      Points Allowed
                      2026
                      1847
                      +179
                      Net Points
                      -49
                      -16
                      -33
                      Effective FG%
                      49.0%
                      48.8%
                      +0.2%
                      Effective FG% Allowed
                      50.2%
                      46.7%
                      +3.6%
                      Assisted Field Goals
                      62%
                      55%
                      +7%
                      Assisted FG% Allowed
                      62%
                      59%
                      +3%
                      Own Shots Blocked
                      6%
                      6%
                      +0%
                      Shots Blocked
                      7%
                      6%
                      +1%
                      Rebounding
                      Offensive Rebounding
                      26.5%
                      29.9%
                      -3.4%
                      Defensive Rebounding
                      73.8%
                      72.1%
                      +1.7%
                      Total Rebounding
                      50.2%
                      51.0%
                      -0.8%
                      Stats
                      Free Throws Made
                      15
                      20
                      -5
                      Free Throws Attempted
                      20
                      27
                      -7
                      Free Throws Made by Opp.
                      21
                      29
                      +8
                      Free Throws Attempted by Opp.
                      26
                      37
                      +11
                      Turnovers, on Offense
                      15
                      16
                      +1
                      Turnovers, on Defense
                      17
                      15
                      +2
                      Net Turnovers
                      2
                      -1
                      -3
                      Fouls Committed
                      22
                      27
                      +5
                      Fouls, Drawn
                      20
                      22
                      -2
                      Net Fouls
                      -2
                      -5
                      -3

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Are we better without JO?

                        Interesting, BB33.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Are we better without JO?

                          Originally posted by BoomBaby33 View Post
                          I just hope that Obie claiming we are "going small" means JO's days are done here in Indy.
                          Actually, I took it to mean JO would be playing at the 5 with a lineup of Tinsley, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, O'Neal.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Are we better without JO?

                            Originally posted by mb221 View Post
                            Actually, I took it to mean JO would be playing at the 5 with a lineup of Tinsley, Dunleavy, Granger, Williams, O'Neal.
                            I agree; I don't think it means JO is on the way out (at least not for this reason).

                            I could see JO WANTING out because there's not even a Jeff Foster or Troy Murphy starting with him to take some of the physical pounding.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Are we better without JO?

                              Nice to see JO back in tonight against the Kings. I still think they are better without him, but Travis in there made a bigger difference. Although we do force it in to him way to much and they make it so obvious. It was pretty unbelievable that he kicked it out to Dun for a 3 late in the game. But, if he does that more often he could win me back as a fan.
                              Check out the best league in Indy: www.goGTBA.com

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Are we better without JO?

                                The Pacers beat Sacramento by 6, so the Pacers' +/- ratings ought to by tilted mostly toward the plus. In fact, every player on the Pacers has a + for the game except O'Neal, who has -12.

                                Here are the three big guys and their +/- and minutes

                                Murphy 13:14 +18
                                Foster 2:15 +5
                                O'Neal 34:46 -12

                                The Pacers won!

                                Jermaine doesn't have to do too much for the Pacers to win a game. He is an asset to the Pacers even when, ESPECIALLY when, they play as a team and Jermaine is allowed to contribute rather than expected to dominate.
                                Last edited by Putnam; 01-13-2008, 09:57 AM.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X