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

Nice story on Dunleavy

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

  • Nice story on Dunleavy

    Its nice to read something positive about the guy for once. I think everyone can agree his play has been the bright spot of the year for us.

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7699640



    Warriors fans who booed Mike Dunleavy when he played for their team and continued to do so each time he touched the ball last week at Oracle Arena, his first appearance there since being traded to the Pacers, are easily the NBA's most unrefined. Evidently they hold it against Dunleavy he failed to measure up (11 point average, 43 FG percent, 4.8 rebounds, 2.5 assists) to being picked third overall in 2002 during his 4� seasons with Golden State. In the minds of these geniuses, that's Dunleavy's fault.
    Not Chris Mullin, the executive VP of basketball operations responsible for the selection.
    Not Mike Montgomery, the college coach Mullin (more likely owner Christopher Cohan) chose, who was over his head in the pros and got the quick yank.
    Certainly not the legendary Don Nelson! At the start of last season, the mad scientist deployed Dunleavy, a natural off-guard/small forward who can shoot, handle and pass, at power forward.
    Why? Because Dunleavy is 6-9 and, oh, yeah, 206 pounds, meaning almost every night was a mismatch against Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Kenyon Martin, etc.
    Nelson's experiment was doomed to flop and it didn't take long. Instead of taking the hit and confessing he had out-smarted himself, again, criticism was directed at Dunleavy. Nelson branded him "soft" to the Bay Area media who obediently got the message out to fans.
    On the record, Nelson identified Dunleavy as a, gash, "blend player."
    Instigating, er, industrious reporters relayed that self-serving comment to Mike Dunleavy Sr., who knows Nelson's snake oil act only too well, having played for him in Milwaukee.
    "Oh, you mean a team player?" the Clippers' head coach sarcastically remarked. "Yeah, that's my bad. I taught my son that."
    In other words, "Michael knows what he's doing. The question is, does Nelson know what he's doing?" Well, recent history verifies Nelson's eighth-place Warriors engineered the greatest first-round upset in NBA history in eradicating the 67-win Mavericks last year, their first playoff competition in 13 seasons.
    Additionally, Nelson's team is in the thick of things at 24-17 before last night's game at Milwaukee, good for eighth place in the West.
    No doubt, those same above-mentioned boneheads blame Dunleavy for the Warriors' lottery level during his tour and the eight seasons before he got there. The nerve of the nerd not to get packaged sooner to Indiana for Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington, Nelson's most abused whipping boy this season.
    Conversely, it should be noted, in 28 years of coaching some exceptionally talented teams, Nelson's brilliance has yet to shimmer on a single conference final.
    At the same time, Dunleavy is having his most productive and enjoyable season under Jim O'Brien, who understands how to utilize his skills and appreciates them. He's averaging a team high 17.5 points, 5.9 rebounds and is shooting 49 percent from the floor and 85 percent from the line.
    Unaffected by Oracle's constant jeers, Dunleavy went for 18 points, 10 boards and seven assists in a five-point loss. A few nights later in Indianapolis, the Pacers came back from 16 down to win, 125-117. Dunleavy splurged for 24 points and nine rebounds. Dunleavy took his frosty reception in Oakland like a man: "I wouldn't want it any other way. That's how it was when I was here, so it's only fitting that's the way it is now."
    Last edited by esabyrn333; 01-21-2008, 09:32 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

    Hope you don't mind, but I wanted to re-copy the article an add the paragraphs so it is easier to read. Good find though. And I'll repeat what I've been saying all season long, Dunleavy has been the Pacers best player this season. Sure he has some defensive weaknesses, but he understands the defensive rotations as well as anyone on the team, he understands the offensive system better than anyone on the team. Where as Granger at times gets lost, Mike is always trying, and more importanly he always knows what he is supposed to be doing out there



    Warriors fans who booed Mike Dunleavy when he played for their team and continued to do so each time he touched the ball last week at Oracle Arena, his first appearance there since being traded to the Pacers, are easily the NBA's most unrefined.

    Evidently they hold it against Dunleavy he failed to measure up (11 point average, 43 FG percent, 4.8 rebounds, 2.5 assists) to being picked third overall in 2002 during his 4� seasons with Golden State. In the minds of these geniuses, that's Dunleavy's fault.

    Not Chris Mullin, the executive VP of basketball operations responsible for the selection.

    Not Mike Montgomery, the college coach Mullin (more likely owner Christopher Cohan) chose, who was over his head in the pros and got the quick yank.

    Certainly not the legendary Don Nelson! At the start of last season, the mad scientist deployed Dunleavy, a natural off-guard/small forward who can shoot, handle and pass, at power forward.

    Why? Because Dunleavy is 6-9 and, oh, yeah, 206 pounds, meaning almost every night was a mismatch against Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Kenyon Martin, etc.

    Nelson's experiment was doomed to flop and it didn't take long. Instead of taking the hit and confessing he had out-smarted himself, again, criticism was directed at Dunleavy.

    Nelson branded him "soft" to the Bay Area media who obediently got the message out to fans.

    On the record, Nelson identified Dunleavy as a, gash, "blend player."

    Instigating, er, industrious reporters relayed that self-serving comment to Mike Dunleavy Sr., who knows Nelson's snake oil act only too well, having played for him in Milwaukee.

    "Oh, you mean a team player?" the Clippers' head coach sarcastically remarked. "Yeah, that's my bad. I taught my son that."

    In other words, "Michael knows what he's doing. The question is, does Nelson know what he's doing?" Well, recent history verifies Nelson's eighth-place Warriors engineered the greatest first-round upset in NBA history in eradicating the 67-win Mavericks last year, their first playoff competition in 13 seasons.

    Additionally, Nelson's team is in the thick of things at 24-17 before last night's game at Milwaukee, good for eighth place in the West.

    No doubt, those same above-mentioned boneheads blame Dunleavy for the Warriors' lottery level during his tour and the eight seasons before he got there. The nerve of the nerd not to get packaged sooner to Indiana for Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington, Nelson's most abused whipping boy this season.

    Conversely, it should be noted, in 28 years of coaching some exceptionally talented teams, Nelson's brilliance has yet to shimmer on a single conference final.

    At the same time, Dunleavy is having his most productive and enjoyable season under Jim O'Brien, who understands how to utilize his skills and appreciates them. He's averaging a team high 17.5 points, 5.9 rebounds and is shooting 49 percent from the floor and 85 percent from the line.

    Unaffected by Oracle's constant jeers, Dunleavy went for 18 points, 10 boards and seven assists in a five-point loss. A few nights later in Indianapolis, the Pacers came back from 16 down to win, 125-117. Dunleavy splurged for 24 points and nine rebounds. Dunleavy took his frosty reception in Oakland like a man: "I wouldn't want it any other way. That's how it was when I was here, so it's only fitting that's the way it is now.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-21-2008, 10:04 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

      Thanks Buck

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

        Great article.

        Mike Dunleavy is a smart guy. I don't think anyone disagrees with this, though he's been criticized for being smart. Hearing him talk is no treat, since he isn't particularly eloquent. But, on the basketball floor, he is smart.

        It makes me really happy that Dunleavy is doing better on this Pacers team than he ever did with the Warriors. I'm happy we've got a team where "smart" is allowed to flourish. And I'm willing to be patient with O'Brien when he tells us that the players still don't get it and that the key to success is the discipline to make and take only good shots.

        The frequent talk about which player is our #1 option misses an important point: our #5 guy can score a backdoor open layup -- if we can just create that situation.

        There is a lot of desire for a player (point guard particularly) that can create opportunities for himself and others. Yet here again, the best way to create is with a mixed and balanced attack.

        Basketball as it should be played is constant improvisation. Baseball is rarely anything but individual performances. Football requires coordination, but each player is given a specific assignment on each play, and the term "broken play" is used to describe any play when those assignments are altered on the go.

        Only basketball relies primarily on instantaneous action-and-reaction. You don't have to blow the ball past the opponent, and you don't have to deceive him. In basketball, it is generally enough to take what the opponent gives you, rather than trying to force anything. But you have to be smart to perceive the opportunity quickly enough to take advantage.
        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


        • #5
          Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

          That might be the worst opening sentence I've ever read.
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

            That is a darn nice synopsis, Putnam.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

              I was eccstatic when we picked up Dunleavy. I loved watching him in college, and I was hoping the Pacers would get him. I've been happy with him, and for what he's giving us, his contract isn't extraordinarily that bad. He could easily be seen as the glue guy for this team. Maybe not the most important scorer or playmaker, but the most important combination of those things within the offense. I also want to note that these coaches like Bickerstaff and Nellie, who throw players under the bus like Rush/Dunleavy; I really love when those players succeed in the face of all of that.
              Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 01-21-2008, 11:21 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

                Isn't "extraordinarily that bad"?? What?? It's not bad AT ALL.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

                  I've grown to really like Dunleavy. He's a solid player with a good head on his shoulders, and I'd take him and his shot selection over Jackson's. He can be a little inconsistent sometimes, but not nearly as inconsistent as some other swingmen we've had here at times.

                  That being said, I don't understand what people are saying in regards to him being "smart" on the basketball court. He averages less than one turnover and less than one assist than Stephen Jackson, a player who most of you would say has a low IQ on the court. But the stats suggest that they average relatively the same number of TO's and assists this year.

                  Will someone clarify to me a little bit more what it really means to be "smart" on the basketball court? I don't mean to be a Dun basher here, as I've said before, I like the guy and I'd take him over the player we essentially exchanged him for, but I just don't get that term.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

                    I really like Dunleavy and when people talk about dumping salary for this team, I consider him being one player I would like to keep. He is a good fit for the style the coach is trying to implement. I don't think a team with Dunleavy as your first option is going to go very far, but as a #2 or #3, or "Glue guy" as someone stated, I think he is a very valuable player.
                    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                    - ilive4sports

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

                      I'm glad Mike is here. There aren't enough Team players in this league. By the way, I was aware that Nellie has yet to coach in a conference final.
                      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

                        that guy sounds like me when talking about Mike!

                        great article, warriors fans are gonna be irate for sure
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

                          I read this article and 100% completlely agree. Dunleavy has become my favorite player on the team.

                          One thing to note....although Nellie was chastised in this article for playing Dunleavy at the PF spot....aren't we essentially doing the same with Dunleavy ( and Granger or Shawne to the same degree ) in playing Small Ball?
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

                            Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                            By the way, I was aware that Nellie has yet to coach in a conference final.
                            Nellie has coached the Bucks and Mavs to conference finals.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Nice story on Dunleavy

                              Originally posted by andreialta View Post
                              that guy sounds like me when talking about Mike!

                              great article, warriors fans are gonna be irate for sure
                              Why would we be irate? We have bigger and better things to worry about than Peter Vescey criticizing our fans about booing a player we don't like.

                              We're 25-17 and making another playoff run in what might be the toughest the west has been in years. It'd be nice if Vescey got some of his facts straight (like knowing that Nellie has coached a conf finals), but he was smart enough to note what Nellie has done with a team that was going absolutley nowhere (and I mean nowhere) before he took over 1.5 years ago.

                              I don't agree with everything Nellie does all the time, but before he took over, we were were a less talented version of what the Milwaukee Bucks are right now.
                              Last edited by d_c; 01-21-2008, 01:38 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X