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

Pacers still mystified by Rush's inconsistency/Mike Wells

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers still mystified by Rush's inconsistency/Mike Wells

    Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
    He also lacks explosiveness, something I thought would of been brought up while i've been gone. He never blows by defenders, mostly because he's too decisive with the ball, and he just doesn't want to bulldoze into the paint and draw fouls. He feels lost because he doesn't know where people are going to be and he doesn't know what to do when he gets into trouble. I believe that has more to do with the structure, or lack thereof, of our offense.
    I disagree here. Brandon is arguably the best athlete on the team. He has the capabilities to get to the bucket and throw it down but he just hasn't for some reason. IMO the problem lies with his ball handling. He dribbles too high to get to the rim on a consistent basis. I also know that he is working on this and it should be corrected in due time.

    Comment


    • #17
      A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

      Maybe my expectations for the kid were too low, but I don't get the hand-wringing with Rush. This is what you get in a second-year mid-round pick.

      Of all the complaints I've head about a Pacer in the past 5 years, I think this is the first I've heard "too calm." Really, that's what we're complaining about now? In other players we'd call that "professionalism."

      Obie's frustration with Rush isn't based on his defense, rebounding, or passing. It's based on his shooting and aggressiveness on the offensive end. Don't dress it up in emotion, coach. Call it what it is. You want him to be a gun.
      Last edited by Anthem; 02-09-2010, 03:24 PM.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Ok mods, I'm in total agreement of PD's link policy. But maybe instead of deleting the entire thread and the discussion that went with it, we could just delete the text of the original post and replace it with or something?
        Back on track, here's the comment I wrote for the now-deceased thread.

        -------

        Maybe my expectations for the kid were too low, but I don't get the hand-wringing with Rush. This is what you get in a second-year mid-round pick.

        Of all the complaints I've head about a Pacer in the past 5 years, I think this is the first I've heard "too calm." Really, that's what we're complaining about now? In other players we'd call that "professionalism."

        Obie's frustration with Rush isn't based on his defense, rebounding, or passing. It's based on his shooting and aggressiveness on the offensive end. Don't dress it up in emotion, coach. Call it what it is. You want him to be a gun.
        very nice suggestion...........because I don't even remember exactly what was being discussed. Kind of like being put on hold in a phone conversation and them coming back and you're lost and just say I'll call you back.

        so um "I'll call you back."
        I'm not perfect and neither are you.

        Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
        Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

          As I was typing while the thread I was involved with was RUDELY interrupt....errr ...... deleted!
          (Thanks Anthem for stating it well & for restarting a "hypothetical" thread w/ very real content, thought & interest)

          In Re to Speed' "Mis-scouted Rush comment:

          Maybe in part, but IMO it's they mis-picked his style & JO'B's working together.
          I like BR. I am maddened by him not taking the step he looked like he had in part already taken at the end of l/y, but I like that he has a complete box score. IMO he needs someone to take him under his wing - not someone we hire & stick him with, but a vet who bond w/ him & make him better. I thought Danny might be that guy, but I don't see him that way anymore.

          On a side thought, but wome what related:
          *Isn't it both sad & ironic that no one on this team is better this year then last year except Roy, & Roy is the least fit w/ what JO'B wants to do?

          *This is NOT a "JO'B is a bad coach" shot. I am getting tierd of reading those. I think JO'B is a good coach, but just not for this team & more importantly this roster. Those that say he is a bad coach do not like his style/philosophy, but that is different from his coaching abilities.
          "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
          (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

            http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...ID=20102090342

            Trying to solve the mystery of Brandon Rush is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

            His body language and expressions are the same whether he has scored 20 points or missed 10 consecutive shots.




            "That's always been me. I never show too much emotion," Rush said. "I never show it when I get down on myself or anything like that. That's always been my personality. It's too late to change me."

            His teammates have tried to encourage him only to receive an occasional cold shoulder. His coaches have basically given up trying to flip the right switch. Coach Jim O'Brien can't talk about the second-year swingman without looking flustered or throwing up his arms in annoyance.

            What drives those in the organization up a wall is that Rush has as much potential as anybody on the roster.

            He starts the game defending players the way LeBron James and Kobe Bryant defend. He can rebound. He can shoot from the perimeter and attack the basket. But he also has had 27 games in which he failed to reach double figures in scoring.

            Recently, Rush has found a rhythm offensively. He is averaging 12.7 points over the past 13 games. He has failed to reach double figures in just three of those games. Rush also has made 51 percent of his 3-point attempts in the past nine games.

            What brought on the scoring surge?

            "We don't know, but we didn't have to do anything to turn on a light bulb," O'Brien said. "He just seems to find his level. We try not to bother him too much."

            Rush's recent play reminds people of how he closed last season, when he averaged 15.9 points and shot 47 percent, including 41 percent on 3-pointers, in the final 12 games.

            The last thing the Pacers want is for Rush to revert to the player who got off to a slow start this season and dealt with confidence issues. He is too talented to let his offensive game dictate other things he does on the court.

            "I'm certainly hoping the production he has given us over the last 15 games or so is who he is because he's playing really well," O'Brien said. "He's shooting the ball at a very high clip with a lot of confidence. On-ball defense is good. We certainly need to continue to grow him off the ball because we think he can be a special defensive player. But I'm hoping and praying that this is who he is."
            I'm not perfect and neither are you.

            Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
            Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

              Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
              Those that say he is a bad coach do not like his style/philosophy, but that is different from his coaching abilities.
              I have to disagree here. JOB might be able to coach his style like nobody's business. Part of being a good coach is recognizing your own limitations, and that of your roster, and adjusting accordingly. If the roster doesn't fit your style, one of them needs to be changed and it sure isn't gonna be the roster. It's precisely his refusal to adjust his style that makes him a bad coach, or at the very least stubborn to his own detriment.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                Originally posted by travmil View Post
                I have to disagree here. JOB might be able to coach his style like nobody's business. Part of being a good coach is recognizing your own limitations, and that of your roster, and adjusting accordingly. If the roster doesn't fit your style, one of them needs to be changed and it sure isn't gonna be the roster. It's precisely his refusal to adjust his style that makes him a bad coach, or at the very least stubborn to his own detriment.
                ding ding ding.............EXACTLY a good coach should be able to adjust just like he wants his players to adjust , not be stubborn and bull headed.
                I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                  Originally posted by travmil View Post
                  I have to disagree here. JOB might be able to coach his style like nobody's business. Part of being a good coach is recognizing your own limitations, and that of your roster, and adjusting accordingly. If the roster doesn't fit your style, one of them needs to be changed and it sure isn't gonna be the roster. It's precisely his refusal to adjust his style that makes him a bad coach, or at the very least stubborn to his own detriment.
                  In part, yes, but JO'B was hired because 1). he is a good coach & basketball mind, 2). he favors the style TPTB wanted to play, & 3). familuarity, LB new JO'B & felt he was the right guy at the right time.
                  Now, you can argue those choices, but like JO'B, the are what they are. If you hire Mike Martz to coach your team, you are going to throw the football, if you hire Bobby knight you will run motion offense, if you hire Tony LaRusa, you will run the bases.... Coaches do need to make adjustments, & some of the greats can even change styles, but I never called JO'B great, not do I think he is capable of straying too far away from what he knows. He is doing what we hired him to be

                  Anyway, lets PLEASE not have another JO'B thread here. I think the BRANDON RUSH topic is worthy of discussion. IMO it does relate in that I don't think JO'B & B.Rush fit, but that is it.
                  "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                  (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                    Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
                    In part, yes, but JO'B was hired because 1). he is a good coach & basketball mind, 2). he favors the style TPTB wanted to play, & 3). familuarity, LB new JO'B & felt he was the right guy at the right time.
                    Now, you can argue those choices, but like JO'B, the are what they are. If you hire Mike Martz to coach your team, you are going to throw the football, if you hire Bobby knight you will run motion offense, if you hire Tony LaRusa, you will run the bases.... Coaches do need to make adjustments, & some of the greats can even change styles, but I never called JO'B great, not do I think he is capable of straying too far away from what he knows. He is doing what we hired him to be

                    Anyway, lets PLEASE not have another JO'B thread here. I think the BRANDON RUSH topic is worthy of discussion. IMO it does relate in that I don't think JO'B & B.Rush fit, but that is it.
                    That is a big part of it though, Brandon does not fit Jim's system. In fact, most of the team does not. In fact most of the NBA does not. It seems only hall of famers (especially the ones who stretch the defense) fit this system. If only we had Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan we might make the playoffs.
                    Last edited by PaceBalls; 02-09-2010, 12:31 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                      Originally posted by travmil View Post
                      I have to disagree here. JOB might be able to coach his style like nobody's business. Part of being a good coach is recognizing your own limitations, and that of your roster, and adjusting accordingly. If the roster doesn't fit your style, one of them needs to be changed and it sure isn't gonna be the roster. It's precisely his refusal to adjust his style that makes him a bad coach, or at the very least stubborn to his own detriment.
                      A GOOD coach adjusts, not just great ones. Just emphasizing what you said which I agree with.

                      I'm tired of letting guys off the hook as if only Phil, Pop and Sloan can adjust to different rosters. I'm not even trying to bash him here because I'm done with that myself.

                      But with that in mind it's much easier to let it go when I don't have to keep seeing these player rips from the coach.

                      "You don't like JOB, we get it, stop complaining". Ok, not a problem.

                      "You don't like Rush, we get it, stop complaining"...right back at ya.

                      Until then I continue to worry when I see these evaluations of Rush, who by most accounts plays a steady, good awareness game based in large part around being the best defender on the team (yes, clearly better than the off/on Dahntay).

                      To me if there's a guy you are penciling in every day and not worrying about his production, it's Brandon. He will impact every game somehow, even if he's not scoring. He's one of the few things a coach doesn't have to worry about, and from my coaching days my opinion is that those guys are my favorite. They make your job easier.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                        Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                        That is a big part of it though, Brandon does fit Jim's system. In fact, most of the team does not. In fact most of the NBA does not. It seems only hall of famers (and guys who stretch the defense) fit this system. If only we had Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan we might make the playoffs.
                        Magic 1) doesn't shoot the three good enough and 2) dominates the ball too much for Jim's liking. He'd need to learn how to initiate the offense by setting up Kevin in the high post and cutting.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                          He is my favorite on the team as well, it's like we are watching a completely different season than the coaching staff.

                          They better not trade him as some filler just to get rid of TJ. I think that would be the last straw for me. Actually I'm out of straws, but that would really suck.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                            My apologies for my blunt handling of the previous thread. It was done out of haste and frustration over repeated issues with absent inks, but I should have just edited the first post and left the thread alone.

                            I'm going to re open it and merge these two together.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                              I would ask, however, that you PM me with these kinds of comments instead of putting them on the public stage.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: A thread about a hypothetical article about Rush

                                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                                Magic 1) doesn't shoot the three good enough and 2) dominates the ball too much for Jim's liking. He'd need to learn how to initiate the offense by setting up Kevin in the high post and cutting.
                                I can totally see Jim benching Magic and going with the 30 year old vet with a 1 year contract.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X