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

Jermaine O'neal

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

  • #31
    Re: Jermaine O'neal

    Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
    So people can complain during more season "like this" It's not worth it. In the NBA you have to build a winner. Nothing else is acceptable
    Yes, and with him .... we're not winners ....

    -- Steve --

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Jermaine O'neal

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      For who? The guys on this team aren't going to be on it when the team is going to have a legit shot at actually doing something in the playoffs.

      People talk about the playoffs like it's some magical land that provides you with all this intimate knowledge of the game.

      Is making the playoffs going to make Travis Deiner a legit starting PG? No, he can be the smartest player in the world, with all the experience possible, but his phsyical shortcomings doom him into being a back-up.

      There are only two or three players on the roster that are young enough, and have enough upside still that they are worth holding on too. Everyone else is expendable, hell all the players are given the right price.

      Why do I want to see Ike, or Harrison get playoff experience when I'm going to watch blow outs with players who will be gone by the time this team is in a position to do anything?

      I have been an Indiana sports fan my entire life, and therefore understand the average fans are extremly unstable and subject to chronic depression at the drop of a dime. However those who act as though our team is a sinking ship with no hope annoy the crap out of me. Why are these people so blinded by there desire to complaian and cry that they are unable to see that we do have a decent core to build from. Honestly give us a healthy JO and a legitimate starting point guard and we could be contenders next year. Say what you will, but we aren't as bad a many here want to believe. Before you pretend dissing our players is a credible argument, proove that the difference between picks 11-15 will improve our team.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Jermaine O'neal

        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
        I have been an Indiana sports fan my entire life, and therefore understand the average fans are extremly unstable and subject to chronic depression at the drop of a dime. However those who act as though our team is a sinking ship with no hope annoy the crap out of me. Why are these people so blinded by there desire to complaian and cry that they are unable to see that we do have a decent core to build from. Honestly give us a healthy JO and a legitimate starting point guard and we could be contenders next year. Say what you will, but we aren't as bad a many here want to believe. Before you pretend dissing our players is a credible argument, proove that the difference between picks 11-15 will improve our team.
        Did I say a draft pick will improve our team? Please show it, if you can find it. I didn't mention the words 'draft' or 'pick' and certainly didn't mention them put together.

        The discussion has been had many of times here already, who on the roster would be good on a contributing team?

        I'll break them down into four categories.

        No way:
        Owens
        Graham
        Harrison
        Diogu

        Spot Mins/Back-ups:
        Daniels
        Diener (maybe)
        Murph
        Flip
        Rush (maybe/in the right role)

        Role Players, but starters:
        Dun
        Foster
        Granger

        Players who have over stayed their welcome and just need to be gone:
        O'neal
        Tinsley


        So we have a full roster made up of end the bench, role players off the bench or role players in the starting lineup, and players who we can't even trade because of injuries/attitudes/salary or a mixture of all three.

        Wow, what a good situation.

        Over the cap, and almost into the luxury threshold.

        We have a roster built around two players that aren't dependable for various reasons, and who can't be traded.

        One of two things have to happen in order to correct the ship. Either trades or through the drafts (notice the plural).

        The fastest thing to do is trades. Who is going to fetch any talent? Owens or Graham? Not even close.

        Granger, Williams, Foster, and Dunleavy with fillers can get better players. Murph can be used as a filler because of the contract size, but you have to find a partner willing to take him.

        Most of the players are either going to be traded or let their contract run out before the Pacers are ready to do anything, because it's not going to happen next year barring some miracle that lands an actual starting PG and some low post presence on both sides of the ball. There's a log jam at the 2/3 position with no player at the all-star level.

        These guys are just fill in players right now. They're easy to trade because of the short contracts, but aren't good enough to fetch anything that will really benefit.

        You can call JO a good player to build around, but history goes against you, in multiple ways. Outside of '04 and the 61 wins, what has he done team wise? Very little. Yes, a lot of it had to do with circumstance, but he can't stay healthy and he can't lead a team to save his life.

        The crumble happened when Reggie started deferring and the old Pacers were retiring. You might think it's just a coincidence, but 18years worth of progress and contention went out the window within 3 long years.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Jermaine O'neal

          Originally posted by gph View Post
          I think the only argument is that instilling a winning culture again might make sense. Morale has been spotty, fan support has been spotty, show some heart and build for the future by acting like winners.
          Limping into the playoffs with a record in the neighborhood of 20 games under .500 isn't winning. Period.

          To me it teaches mediocrisy. They can have a horrible record in the East, but because there are only 7 teams that are better, they live to play 4 more games. Getting your butt stomped doesn't teach experience, close/competitive games teach you things.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Jermaine O'neal

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Limping into the playoffs with a record in the neighborhood of 20 games under .500 isn't winning. Period.

            To me it teaches mediocrisy. They can have a horrible record in the East, but because there are only 7 teams that are better, they live to play 4 more games. Getting your butt stomped doesn't teach experience, close/competitive games teach you things.
            Your being a drama mama!!!
            If we make the playoffs our record will be closer to five games under .500. Not 20.
            The playoffs are a whole new ball game. Just Look at the Mavericks last year. We will be playing very good basketball and have our franchise player Jermaine O'neal.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Jermaine O'neal

              They're at 12 games under .500, with 8 games remaining.

              In order to get to 5 games under .500, they'd have to win out, which they would be on a 10game winning streak. How likely is that?

              Then you have out of those 8 games, Boston, Atlanta, Philly, and Washington are all playoff teams and the last 3 are all fighting for playoff positions.

              And I'm the one wrapped up in the drama?
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Jermaine O'neal

                i havn't giving up on j.o., tinsley or diogu
                Last edited by troy_225; 04-01-2008, 05:24 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Jermaine O'neal

                  I'm happy for JO that he played last night. Some team may be willing to trade for him. I'm not in favor of keeping JO next season nor in trying to 'build around him'. Been there, done that, didn't work out. Look, JO is chronically injured. He will miss 25 - 30 games again next season just like the last several years. Stop with the happy gas. Let him make his annual year-end appearance, fool some other GM into believing he can still play an 82 game schedule, and then trade him jiffy-quick. Thanks for the memories, JO. Oh, yeah, I forgot. There haven't been any since 2004. Franchise player, indeed.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Jermaine O'neal

                    If JO is playing at a high level during these last 8 games, there is no doubt in my mind that we could keep him. Also, there will be plenty more trade rumors as well.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Jermaine O'neal

                      Bumping this thread to start a JO discussion now that he has a few games under him.

                      Looking at his defensive impact only...
                      In the last 5 games since he has returned, the Pacers have held their opponents to an average of 1.9 points under their OPPONENTS individual season scoring averages.

                      Going back 14 games prior to JO's first game back, the Pacers gave up an average of 11.7 points more than their OPPONENTS individual season scoring averages.

                      If you can keep him focused on the defensive end, I'm all for keeping him next year.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Jermaine O'neal

                        Bandwagon fans...you gotta love 'em...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Jermaine O'neal

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Limping into the playoffs with a record in the neighborhood of 20 games under .500 isn't winning. Period.

                          To me it teaches mediocrisy. They can have a horrible record in the East, but because there are only 7 teams that are better, they live to play 4 more games. Getting your butt stomped doesn't teach experience, close/competitive games teach you things.
                          Alright, so the Pacers don't have a winning record. Yes, it's disappointing, but it's clear that w/JO back in the lineup things have changed for the better (defensively) with this team.

                          I still don't understand why some of you still value draft picks over playoff experience but for my take as long as there remains a chance for this team to get to the post-season I say you fight for it until all hope is lost. After all, they don't call the playoffs "the second season" for nothing. Who knows...maybe this team can shock some folks.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Jermaine O'neal

                            One thing I noticed - JO seems shorter than he used to be

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Jermaine O'neal

                              Originally posted by geetee View Post
                              Bumping this thread to start a JO discussion now that he has a few games under him.

                              Looking at his defensive impact only...
                              In the last 5 games since he has returned, the Pacers have held their opponents to an average of 1.9 points under their OPPONENTS individual season scoring averages.

                              Going back 14 games prior to JO's first game back, the Pacers gave up an average of 11.7 points more than their OPPONENTS individual season scoring averages.

                              If you can keep him focused on the defensive end, I'm all for keeping him next year.
                              He's also drawn no less than 2 charges each game. While it's not an official stat, the league keeps track of it and he has drawn more charges than anyone despite missing 30+ games. That's very impressive!

                              After he draws a couple of charges, guys are hesitant to drive or at the very least they second guess their shot when they drive because they know that JO could either block it or draw the charge. You can't underestimate the impact that has on a defense.

                              Last night against the Hawks was the perfect example. Josh Smith and Marvin Williams were driving the lane at will last night before JO entered the game. After he got in the game they were challanged more and started missing some of their layup and pull up shots in the lane. The Pacers then pulled away. JO put his stamp on the game in less than 19 minutes.

                              If he's trully healed I say they should definitely keep him for another season. Encourage him to drop another 10 lbs during the offseason and work on his ball handling and I think he'll be an important piece in turning this team around.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Jermaine O'neal

                                He seems to be making faster decisions as well. He has been taking to the hole, shooting his fadeaway or passing to teammates almost instantly now, instead of holding the ball and causing his teammates to stand around.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X