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

Those who want McRoberts to play...

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

  • Those who want McRoberts to play...


    Getty Images

    How do you feel about McRoberts?

    Unless something were to happen to Rasho, Foster, and/or Baston, don't count on it.

    Sure, we've seen some glimpses of good play with him, but do you really feel that he can become more than a third-tier bench player? At least with us, mind you.

    Don't tell me that with more playing time he'll get better, because it doesn't look like that is going to help.

    I've read through some of the old Blazers' blogs around, and many expected him to be "A second-round steal with first-round talent." It didn't happen. Or at least hasn't.

    Sure, he's athletic, he's big...but, I am not sure that he is cut out to be more than what he is. I like him, I hope he does well, but he's been in two systems, including a Farm System where he supposedly flourished. I just don't think that Josh is really ever going to be that good.

    Before you throw me under the bus, for the record I really like McRoberts. I just would like to expect more from him, but it's unlikely.

    Just something of a little discussion, this is not a place where it is okay to bash the coach or talk tanking.

  • #2
    Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

    I think he could be a very good third big... an Antonio Davis type. I always thought that would be Foster's ideal role, as well, but we've usually had poor enough bigs that he was always forced to start.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

      I think we (myself included) have back-up QB syndrome with McBob. On a NFL team that struggles the fans favorite player is always the back-up QB. There is that "unknown" factor that maybe this guy is THE guy that we've been missing.

      I want McBob to play strictly based on his energy/athleticism. I think in a game like last night where the momentum has clearly swung in the Blazers favor that bringing in some energy off the bench would be nice. On a side note, I think Diener getting hurt killed us in the second half when our offense became absolutely stagnant, but I'm a little biased on that subject. Anyway, maybe McBob comes in and picks up 3 quick fouls, or gets dunked on, or has a costly turnover and hurts us more than helps, but the thing is we don't know b/c he doesn't get that chance.

      The only thing I keep telling myself is that JOB sees him in practice on an everyday basis so he knows more than we do about McBob and what he can bring to the table.
      Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

        There is also the reasoning that he is a free agent this year and we need to be able to resign him for less money and therefore he isn't getting those 8 minute spurts of playing time he probably deserves. Just a thought. Conspiracy theorist possibly.
        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
          do you really feel that he can become more than a third-tier bench player?

          Yes. I do. I'm sure there's a reason that McRoberts isn't playing. It's probably even a good reason. I think it's probably inconsistency. After watching for two seasons, I think O'Brien values consistency almost to a fault.

          With the exception of Rush and Hibbert, you pretty much know what you're going to get from every guy that plays on a nightly basis.

          When you put McRoberts in the game, you know you're going to get energy and effort, but he's obviously not shown O'Brien what else he's going to bring to the table consistently.

          I think Josh needs to pick a couple skills and become excellent at them. I'd suggest a 12-15 foot jumper and learning to be the big in a pick and roll/pop situation. If you combine those two things with his effort on the glass and on defense, he'll make a niche for himself pretty quickly.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

            You know, there is a reason the guy was once the top high school recruit in the country. Athleticism + size + skillset. He has the tools. There are lots of reasons to believe he could be more than a third tier bench player.

            but...

            He came out of college too early, and is very raw. And as someone stated, JOB values consistency almost to a fault, and his reluctance to play rookies this season has been well documented at times. With Rush and Hibbert firmly in the rotation, nobody should be surprised that Mcbob isn't getting any burn.

            Without taking reputation into account, which has been a big problem with people's perception of this guy... I like what I have seen on the court this year. I saw him play really good defense shutting down Zach Randolph in the OT of the clippers game... I have seen him block shots at a high level. His jump shot has potential, and his ball handling and passing are at a very high level for a bigman. Dude has hops, can get up and dunk. There is a lot to like here.

            He is also passive offensively, and has no real post game to speak of.

            He seemed to have an attitude problem at one time, which may explain the earlier blows to his development. However, it appears being a second round pick sent to the D-leaugue has humbled him.. and he seems genuinly thankful for the second chance he has recieved here. If he has a good attitude and work ethic, I don't see any reason why Josh can't turn into a real nice player.

            Josh should get his shot next year when Rasho and Baston say bye bye. Than we can see for ourselves. At the current time Im OK with him not playing, starting next year he needs to get on the court.
            "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


            • #7
              Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

              Mc Roberts should be able to be a good player, I been saying for months that he reminds me of Chris Andersen(the Birdman) rebounds block shots and good D. I think that the problem with JOB is that he does not want to play to many rookies at the same time, I know this is his second year but he only played two games last year. I don't wanna see more Maceo or Rasho let Mc Roberts play
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

                What we have seen and what we have gotten are two totally differant things. Something does not add up.

                The very few moments he has played he has

                a. passed the ball very well, in fact I would say exceptionally well, for a player his size.

                b. Had moments of above average defense for a player who has as little on court experiance as he has.

                c. Rebounded very well

                d. Shot the ball at a decent pace.

                His last time on the floor for any extended min. he was a foul machine, but to the best of my memory that wasn't a problem prior to that game.

                What I'm trying to say is that what we have had glimpses of on the court by no means merits the playing time he has been given. So that leads me to believe that there is something else.

                We are not at practice every day, we don't deal with him every day so there may be something we don't know.

                I guess O'Brien deserves the benefit of the doubt here on this.

                It may just be another Diagu case of having the tools but just not being able to use them.

                Although, again, from what I saw early in the season I just don't get it.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

                  Mc Roberts will only have a career in the NBA if he develops a niche. Josh is an energy guy. He should be playing the last two minutes of the first half every game the rest of the season. Larry Bird does have a plan. I remember when he was coach; he would insert Mark Pope in games just to inbound the basketball.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

                    USF, I like your analogy to the backup QB syndrome. I think I kinda fell into that trap with McBob, at first. Then I woke up.

                    I think he's is/going to be a third tier guy who plugs a whole for a team like a Brian Scalabrine or Matt Bonner. I like his energy, but I don't see him building a career on that unless he turns that energy into play like Kurt Rambis or Chris Anderson. I like McBob, but I'm not looking for big things from him.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

                      Sure, we've seen some glimpses of good play with him, but do you really feel that he can become more than a third-tier bench player? At least with us, mind you.
                      And how many glimpses of bad play have you seen, and to what extent, and what type of bad play was it (experience, youth, over-aggressive or dumb, selfish, physically inept).

                      This is the issue fans of his have right now. He plays, he's great, he has a dramatic impact on the momentum of the game, and he's incredibly disruptive to the opponents front line.

                      His main issues that I see involve his aggressiveness. He goes after EVERYthing like it's do or die and that leads to quick fouls. He can sometimes be nearly as disruptive to his own team's flow as the other team's. Certainly he also ends up out of position on plays, but I do chalk that up to playing time, and he's far from alone on that issue (ahem, Roy Hibbert).

                      But for the most part he is a positive sum player and I'm dumbfounded by his lack of PT. I really don't know what JOB saw during any of these games that he didn't like, other than perhaps wanting a big that could trail and drain the 3.

                      Perhaps that's just it, maybe JOB doesn't want a team that features some sort of true banger at the PF spot. I love Jeff, but he's a hustler rebounder far more than a banger. He will bang with guys, but he's often taking the punishment more than dealing it out, especially on offense. I mean Jeff is asked to sit out around 15 feet on a regular basis in this system. So maybe the type of player Josh is (ie, not Mr. Mid Range) is the issue. Heck, just look at Rasho's game too.

                      But I certainly don't punt on him for that. He's aggressive because he nearly failed out in Portland. Now he's hungry and I think more focused. I would easily play him in place of Jeff if need be and I'd put that as his upside. A solid 8th man frontline energy guy.

                      I mean here we are in the recruiting thread talking up the idea of a low block banger/pick setter like Blair and yet the team's currently most physical PF can't get off the bench. Why draft what you've already got? I just don't get it.*


                      I been saying for months that he reminds me of Chris Andersen(the Birdman) rebounds block shots and good D.
                      Definitely, almost identical in how they play the game.




                      *I would still view Blair as a smart pick in the 8-12 range
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-05-2009, 01:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

                        Duke, keep this in mind too. Many of us older fans saw Greg Drieling trotted out as a "legit" big man for the Pacers and McRoberts destroys his game, so maybe we aren't as spoiled as someone that grew up with Dale and Tony instead.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

                          My best guess is that McRoberts is a little like Jeff Foster his rookie season and I don't think anyone now looks back and says that Jeff should have played much at all in his rookie season. (I seriously doubt Josh will ever be as good as Jeff - but they have similar games)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            My best guess is that McRoberts is a little like Jeff Foster his rookie season and I don't think anyone now looks back and says that Jeff should have played much at all in his rookie season. (I seriously doubt Josh will ever be as good as Jeff - but they have similar games)
                            The difference is in Foster's rookie year the Pacers were a really good team with plenty of much better bigs. That isn't the case this season.
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Those who want McRoberts to play...

                              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                              You know, there is a reason the guy was once the top high school recruit in the country. Athleticism + size + skillset. He has the tools. There are lots of reasons to believe he could be more than a third tier bench player.

                              but...

                              He came out of college too early, and is very raw. And as someone stated, JOB values consistency almost to a fault, and his reluctance to play rookies this season has been well documented at times. With Rush and Hibbert firmly in the rotation, nobody should be surprised that Mcbob isn't getting any burn.

                              Without taking reputation into account, which has been a big problem with people's perception of this guy... I like what I have seen on the court this year. I saw him play really good defense shutting down Zach Randolph in the OT of the clippers game... I have seen him block shots at a high level. His jump shot has potential, and his ball handling and passing are at a very high level for a bigman. Dude has hops, can get up and dunk. There is a lot to like here.

                              He is also passive offensively, and has no real post game to speak of.

                              He seemed to have an attitude problem at one time, which may explain the earlier blows to his development. However, it appears being a second round pick sent to the D-leaugue has humbled him.. and he seems genuinly thankful for the second chance he has recieved here. If he has a good attitude and work ethic, I don't see any reason why Josh can't turn into a real nice player.

                              Josh should get his shot next year when Rasho and Baston say bye bye. Than we can see for ourselves. At the current time Im OK with him not playing, starting next year he needs to get on the court.
                              yeh, i think you summed up my thoughts up too. came out too early before he really developed his game but, he's still very young and in the offseason he can work on things like a post game among other things. i really think he has the talent and potential to be a much bigger impact player for this team than he currently is. will he? who knows... but i think a slice of humble pie did him some good and he will just focus on improving. i hope he sticks around for us.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X