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

Question about Josh McRoberts

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

  • Question about Josh McRoberts

    First of all hello to everyone,its been awhile since I last posted.

    But living in Cincinnati now I rarely get to see a p's game.But I do still lurk around on here and over-whelmingly I see alot of hype about Josh McRoberts,and I was wondering...why?.

    I mean I never see anything decent in the box score from him.Im wondering if people want to see more of him because its people reaching for something,anything...

    It just seems to me that every year we have one player on our team who is a fringe NBA player and whenever we go through a bad streak of losing everyone throws all of their hopes on a guy who will never get more than 7mpg.

    But maybe im wrong,Like I said I havent been able to watch much pacers games this far so maybe this guy looks like a young Brad Miller or something,can someone please clear this up for me?.
    Last edited by Brian; 12-08-2008, 09:02 AM.
    LoneGranger33 said
    Agreed. As the members of Guns and Roses once said, "every rose has its thorn".

  • #2
    Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

    My opinion: he's a savvy, athletic young player who has the potential to be, say, a Jeff Foster with a little better offense.

    In no way can he solve any of our problems this year or the next few.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

      He's looked good and everyone knows I like hustle players like him - but I think right now if he were to play more minutes than a few per game he would be exposed pretty badly

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        My opinion: he's a savvy, athletic young player who has the potential to be, say, a Jeff Foster with a little better offense.

        In no way can he solve any of our problems this year or the next few.
        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        He's looked good and everyone knows I like hustle players like him - but I think right now if he were to play more minutes than a few per game he would be exposed pretty badly
        I tend to agree with Buck's view here. I broadly agree with MFan's view, but I take issue with "savvy" as a description. I believe his biggest weakness is that he has to think too much. It's as if he understands the concepts of basketball, but their natural application escapes him, at the moment. You can almost see the wheels turning, and as a result, he's a beat or two behind the game.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

          I agree with McKeyFan. On offense, McRoberts is very scrappy, very athletic. He'll scramble for lose balls and find the open man. However, from the looks of things he hasn't quite grasped JOB's defensive schemes yet. I'd rank him as a better Baston with the potential to be a much better Jeff Foster when given time to develop.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

            McRoberts has done exceptionally well in his playing, with the exception of his foul trouble. The game always seems to turn around in our favor when he is on the floor.

            One thing I'd like to see from him is for his footing to get a little more solid when he is guarding the post.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

              Anyone remember Cliff Levingston's role with the Bulls during their first 2 championship years?

              McRoberts may develop into more, but for now, that type of role is what I see for him.

              Levingston's role was to come into the game and change the momentum. He was a momentum changer. His role was to come into the game, play scrappy defense, rebound and get into the heads of the opponent. He couldn't do it for extended minutes, but for 10-12 minutes per game, he was in there doing whatever he could to put the momentum in the Bulls favor. It seemed like whenever the Bulls were down 6-8 points and needed to go on a defense fueled run, Levingston was in the game. Game 4 against the Pistons in the 1990-1991 ECF was Levingston at his best: 10 pts, 8 rbs, 2 stl, 2 blk in 22 min.

              The other role that I think he can fill is guarding some of the more athletic big men.

              But, for now, I think "momentum changer" fits him best. He came into the Lakers game and changed the momentum. Even though he missed that putback dunk, it was fearless, assertive and had no sign of "being on his heels" like some players do when the opposing team is going on a run.
              Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

                edit - I swear I didn't read JCouts comment before posting. See bold.

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                My opinion: he's a savvy, athletic young player who has the potential to be, say, a Jeff Foster with a little better offense.

                In no way can he solve any of our problems this year or the next few.
                I don't know if I'd call him savvy, but he is productively aggressive much like Foster is, but with more physicality. He bangs people around and is very disruptive. He is a far superior to Jeff when it comes to handling the ball and has brought up his own rebound several times this season.

                He is smoother on offense than Jeff and you could certainly see him taught to be at least as effective as Dale Davis was on offense, capable of having a go-to post score that would force teams to play him at times.

                His issue is that his aggressiveness often equals out of control play and he disrupts his own team as much as the opponent at times. Plus it leads him into a lot of fouls that he could avoid if he toned it down or learned how to turn it on and off.

                To me he makes a perfect progression from Jeff, not unlike Jeff's rebounding focus and defense helped ease the transition from Dale (paired with JO's own contributions of course).

                The main reason I want him to play is that he shakes things up and gives other teams fits like most energy specialists due. If you need to break a slump or sway momentum he's the kind of catalyst to do that. Use him 10 a game in a pair of 5 minute bursts and I think he helps the team quite a bit, while saving the energy of the other bigs for finishing well.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-08-2008, 02:09 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

                  I hadn't thought about all these aspects of savvy. I was mainly remembering a handful of really crafty, almost no-look passes that he's done. At least he seems to be "savvy" in that regard.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

                    I look at McRoberts the same way I look at Diener.....he's an decent Bench Player that can come in, provide a lot of energy to help change the pace so that the primary rotational players can get some rest, fill a particular role for 10-15 minutes but isn't really good enough to Start or be included in the regular rotation to take significant minutes away from the Big Men in front of him unless one of them gets injured.

                    This doesn't mean that I don't think that he shouldn't get minutes in the regular PF/C rotation....it just means that I think that he should be used as "Jeff Foster"-lite to give Rasho/Foster/Murphy some rest.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

                      Originally posted by Brian View Post
                      I see alot of hype about Josh McRoberts,and I was wondering...why?.
                      He's 6'10" and probably the most athletic player on the Pacers. He is our best ball-handling big, passes the ball well (he would be the best passing big on a few NBA teams), and has a decent jumpshot. He plays with a great deal of energy and enthusiasm and has no aversion to defense. In addition, he's a local kid who's smart and is a good character guy.

                      That's why you see the hype.

                      One thing that I find quite interesting is that McRoberts has been able to quiet down a lot of the naysayers on this board. When we got him from Portland there was a lot of "McRoberts sucks, he'll be out of the league in 2 years, I hope he never plays a minute this season, etc." talk. Since we've seen him play, the vast majority of that talk has dissapeared and people generally seem to have a positive opinion of him.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

                        McRoberts is a better player than I expected. I agree with Mellifluous and would add that McRoberts has good instincts and court awareness.

                        Also, he is not soft...or more accurately, he is not afraid to mix it up and jump into a crowd. It's hard to place his ceiling because of his athleticism, but I would say he has a shot at being another David Lee.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

                          If you knew nothing of this team nor the NBA draft and you watched both Rush and McRoberts play with the blue & gold, could you honestly tell which one was a lottery pick and which was a second rounder?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

                            Right now he fills that energy guy role pretty well, although I look at that as more of his basement projection... he will at LEAST be a short spurts energy guy or momentum changer... I would like to think he has more upside than that though given the tools at his disposal. Athletic, has shown some shooting ability, great passing ability, can handle the ball a bit. Given his seemingly good attitude its not hard to believe he could improve quite a bit from where he is right now. hes pretty young and practually a rookie considering almost zero playing time last season.
                            "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


                            • #15
                              Re: Question about Josh McRoberts

                              Originally posted by Quis View Post
                              If you knew nothing of this team nor the NBA draft and you watched both Rush and McRoberts play with the blue & gold, could you honestly tell which one was a lottery pick and which was a second rounder?
                              It would not be obvious, but Rush looks like the more well-rounded player. However, he is nearly 2 years older than McRoberts. People need to factor in that McRoberts could be in college right now....and has not had much of a shot in the NBA. He might have been a first round pick had he stayed as long as Rush.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X