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

The McMurphy Phenomena

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

  • #16
    Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Yes, this team is lacking the Antonio and Dale Davis presence needed to compete in the playoffs.
    Bingo.

    We don't have the pieces to be good, but I think we can be better with a different mix. A relatively small adjustment could push this team above .400 IMO.
    I'm not sure about that. We aren't close that close to being bad. We're terrible.

    The bottom line is, we need Dale Davis back.
    Only if he learns to hit his FTs. We need somebody more physical next season, but we can't forget about fundamentals either.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
      Bingo.
      I'm not sure about that. We aren't close that close to being bad. We're terrible.
      .
      One thing to be optimistic about: Pacers have played 22 road games to only 16 home games. Only the Bucks and Warriors have a bigger disparity in number of road games vs. home games played so far.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

        Edit: 1 caveat. This thread is titled McMurphy phenomena for a reason. It's not as narrow as just about Murphy losing us games....so I don't think McBob should be penalized just because Murphy was in that game. McBob's record is still 4-2 in games where he played 10 or more minutes...and that extra victory came against LA....not a bad team.
        I'm not (or, at least, not trying to) penalize McBob. I think he contributed to that game, but in the context of what I thought the discussion was, Murph contributed more...I was working the either/or I inferred from the OP.

        Again, McBob should play more, but I think Murph gets a little bit of a bad rap. He gives us what he can. I have little problem believing that he goes after the boards he gets and shoots the threes not to be a stat whore, but because he believes that's the best way he can contribute to the team. I'm sure he knows his limitations, so he works on what he does well.

        (Yes, he's still overpaid.)

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

          Murphy does not help lose games. I believe that there many positives to his game, and he shows it. He doesn't deserve a lot of the flack he gets here, because he's putting up good numbers. He isn't doing that bad of a job.

          I'm not going to chime in about his salary, because there are many players in many different leagues that make way too much money for what they do.

          In the meantime I'm going to be glad we have at least some *consistent* talent on this team besides Granger.
          Last edited by duke dynamite; 01-14-2009, 12:31 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

            Personally, I'd rather see Murphy than Foster on the court. At least teams have to guard Murphy.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              Murphy does not help lose games. I believe that there many positives to his game, and he shows it. He doesn't deserve a lot of the flack he gets here, because he's putting up good numbers. He isn't doing that bad of a job.

              I'm not going to chime in about his salary, because there are many players in many different leagues that make way too much money for what they do.

              In the meantime I'm going to be glad we have at least some *consistent* talent on this team besides Granger.
              I don't know if Murphy is the problem, but I know he's not part of any team's solution. Murphy is a good guy. He works hard, is a good teammate, won't get into trouble and all that nice stuff. Can't say anything bad about him in those terms.

              But you gotta calll it like you see it: The bottom line is he makes $10M a year, yet he's a well below average starter at his position. I don't know if having someone like that causes you to lose, but it sure as heck doesn't help you win much. Most good teams just don't have those kinds of player contracts on their cap.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                Most good teams just don't have those kinds of player contracts on their cap.

                Amen to that d.c.

                I for one am getting tired of watrching us lose night in and night out. Without Tinsley, J.O, or Jax around we gotta start putting the blame somewhere. Why not the highest paid player on the team.
                Protect the Promise!!!!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  McRoberts' .800 Record (10 minutes or more played)
                  Dec 23 NJN L 107-108 25:05
                  Dec 20 @ PHI W 95-94 28:23
                  Dec 2 LAL W 118-117 10:38
                  Nov 12 @NJN W 98-87 14:23
                  Nov 10 OKC W 107-99 10:05
                  Take the Lakers game out of that cos Murphy won us that game.
                  Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    I don't know if Murphy is the problem, but I know he's not part of any team's solution. Murphy is a good guy. He works hard, is a good teammate, won't get into trouble and all that nice stuff. Can't say anything bad about him in those terms.

                    But you gotta calll it like you see it: The bottom line is he makes $10M a year, yet he's a well below average starter at his position. I don't know if having someone like that causes you to lose, but it sure as heck doesn't help you win much. Most good teams just don't have those kinds of player contracts on their cap.
                    I don't disagree with much of this, or the broad sentiment, but I'd have to look at all the starting 4's before I called him "well below average". There are 30 starting PF's in the league, and I don't know that I could come up with 20 or more of them that I'd consider better than Troy. (I could be proven wrong, though.)

                    It's a minor point, but all of us (me included) get caught up in our idea of "average", but forget that the league is pretty diluted. (Frame of reference...from 1981 to 1988, prior to the beginning of expansion, there was an average of just under 320 players who saw game action per year. Last year, there were 451, and this year so far, there have been 423.) We measure guys against what we expect or require, but forget that there are a lot of mediocre to bad players with starting jobs. Just as opinion, I consider Troy an average player in a league where the following players started last night:

                    Dahntay Jones
                    Antoine Wright
                    Eric Dampier
                    Vlad Rad
                    Von Wafer
                    Lorenzen Wright (AYFKM???? How is he still in the league?)
                    Sebastian Telfair

                    I consider Troy flawed, but a great many players in the league are, and, as you note, the contract is the big problem. The guy's a dream at $6 million, and a pig at $11. I'd love to get more from him, particularly at the defensive end, but I'm not going to turn up my nose at the rebounds and the threes because, as I said earlier, he's giving us what he's got, and I am confident that he's doing his level best to help the team win. BTW...as to his shortcomings, I don't think any of them are because of sloth. He plays defense as hard and as well as he can...occasionally, it's good enough. This is why I think there are teams where he not only could be a starter, but a very good one. There's just no one here to hide his deficiencies.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      I don't know if Murphy is the problem, but I know he's not part of any team's solution. Murphy is a good guy. He works hard, is a good teammate, won't get into trouble and all that nice stuff. Can't say anything bad about him in those terms.

                      But you gotta calll it like you see it: The bottom line is he makes $10M a year, yet he's a well below average starter at his position. I don't know if having someone like that causes you to lose, but it sure as heck doesn't help you win much. Most good teams just don't have those kinds of player contracts on their cap.
                      I'm going to disagree. He plays hard, well, every night and does a great job at it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                        Personally, I find this thread more than a little ridiculous. With each Pacer loss, Troy increasingly becomes the whipping boy for all that's wrong with this team. I don't think it's fair, logical or makes much sense. Troy is an offensive minded player. He rebounds. He's a double-double machine. He is what he is.

                        There have always been offensive minded players like Troy, but they have a complimentary player beside them. To make an analogy that most fans can understand, look at Dominique Wilkins. (Yeah, I know he's a HOFer, etc, but he's a commonly known player, for the sake of my arguement)

                        Dominique by himself, a stat stuffer. People said the same thing about him that some of you say about Troy, (he had empty stats) BUT when 'Nique had Tree Rollins beside him, that gave him the yin to his yang.

                        Some of you want Troy to be a great defender AND and assist machine AND a scorer AND.....well, come on, now. Really? I think a lot of you are projecting the team's faults, as a whole, onto Troy.

                        I think there's something to be said about Duke Dynamite's statement about having a consistant player and Troy is consistant. Can we say that about most of our roster?

                        I guarantee you if/when, we get a brusing intimidator to play alongside Troy, a LOT of you will pipe down.

                        I'm not saying Troy is on the level of Amare, but that is a another guy who is strictly offensive-minded, who had someone beside him to who plays to his strengths. Amare can score like a demon, but defensively? Umm... Assists? He makes the same amount as Troy, BUT Amare has Shaq, and had Shawn Marion to cover and compliment his skill-set. Troy doesn't have that player and because of managagement decisions, circumstances, etc, it seems there's a lynch mob that wants Troy's head for being a hard workers who plays within himself, while playing within our system and producing on a consistant basis. I don't get some of you.

                        I know I'm most likely wasting my breath. It seems quite a few folks arfe entrenched in their opinions, but I would ask that you re-think things based upon the perspective I've presented in this post.
                        Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                          I can agree with Skaut. We need complimentary players. Troy is a versatile player, but a lot of the time we only see one aspect of his game. Blame it on him, blame it on the system the Pacers run. Ultimately, I don't think that Troy is the one that deserves the heat.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                            With Murphy, you're paying a guy $10M a year, yet at the same time you're desperately seeking to upgrade the position he plays. That's not giving anyone heat or blaming anyone in particular, but that's the situation you're in, plain and simple.
                            Last edited by d_c; 01-14-2009, 09:59 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                              Murphy isn't just an "offensive minded" player. He's a complete and utter defensive liability. And I don't mind Troy. His contract is terrible but that's not his fault. And I don't completely agree that he's a great rebounder either. He gets a lot of "junk" boards. Watch any missed free throw. I don't want to say he steals rebounds but he'll go out of his way to make sure another of our players doesn't come down with it.
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The McMurphy Phenomena

                                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                                Murphy isn't just an "offensive minded" player. He's a complete and utter defensive liability. And I don't mind Troy. His contract is terrible but that's not his fault. And I don't completely agree that he's a great rebounder either. He gets a lot of "junk" boards. Watch any missed free throw. I don't want to say he steals rebounds but he'll go out of his way to make sure another of our players doesn't come down with it.
                                The past few games while Foster and Murphy were in the game together, I have noticed when they both go up for the rebound Jeff always comes down with it.

                                I'm trying to figure out where all these comments are coming from...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X