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

Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

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

  • #46
    Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

    I also like McBob's toughness and his body makeover this past summer. He does appear to be a very cerebral player and understands exactly what JOB wants to achieve in his Offensive and Defensive sets. I also like Magnum Rolle alot as well. I believe we signed Magnum Rolle because we expect to trade somebody before the season starts. Worst case, we cut someone like AJ Price because Lance Stephenson has MORE size and upside than AJ Price (although if Lance is convicted of a felonious assault, he'll be cut).

    My worst fear is that JOB will start 2-3 slow-twitch players like he did last year and we'll be BEHIND by 15 pts before the 2nd QTR starts. I want to see guys that can play DEFENSE start the game. We definitely DON'T need one dimensional guys who can SHOOT it (Dun-Dun) but can play NO defense. Or guys who can REBOUND (Jeff Foster) but can't SHOOT it. I hear that Paul George and McBob had the HIGHEST rated PRACTICES due to their DEFENSE and ability to get their hands (steals, deflections, etc.) on the ROCK. Brandon hasn't impressed me too much in practice because he's still very passive on OFFENSE. I'll never know WHY he doesn't rise up over his defender and just shoot the rock. He's got springs in his legs but he has NO confidence still in his shot nor much of a killer instinct.

    I rather see Lance Stephenson on the court who has DOG in him and will play a very physical brand of NBA basketball. Lance only needs experience of JOB's offense and defensive sets. The VETS have a little edge but you can tell Lance will bring his killer instinct with him. Watch him slapping the bench table whenever he watches HIS white team get dogged on DEFENSE. He knows that he would be a mismatch as a PG and he sees the court so much better with his huge physical size. His reported LACK of defense is BS. Yes, he may not realize that NBA players will shoot it whenever any space exists to get their shot off but Lance is a quick learner and he'll be HELL for some opposing PG to defend or shoot over once Lance learns the nuances of playing defense in the NBA.
    Last edited by TooBigNdaPaint; 10-01-2010, 08:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

      Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
      Did you listen to the audio clip or are you just going by the initial tweet? Here is what was said (you can find audio here called "JOB on the power forward position (10-1-10)"). Jim speaks while someone who is probably Bruno does his best impression of Hands,bro.
      Thanks for transcribing it.


      JOB: we keep hustle stats - which are deflections, charges, offensive rebounds - and in the first three days, not counting today, Paul George had 36, Josh had 31 and nobody else had over 15....So ... I don't care if you're a rookie .... If you're being active like that, .... you need to be on the basketball court.
      That sure makes it sound like Paul George is going to see time immediately to me. And that's exciting to me because I had been telling myself to expect a project for the first year or two before he's ready.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

        Originally posted by beezer615 View Post
        I find it disconcerting that Hansbrough hasn't shown up much in the practice videos online. Anybody else see a trend of no news/video on the Hans?
        Me.

        It seems like Obie is saying Josh's primary competition for PT is Foster and Solo. Is that not how you guys are reading it?

        It seems weird not to mention Tyler in that context.
        Last edited by Anthem; 10-01-2010, 10:09 PM.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

          The way I see it, either Tyler's struggling, or Tyler's being "ignored" until his conditioning or whatever is back to where he's as much a part of 5-on-5 scrimmages as he allegedly is everything else.

          I only recall seeing him play during video showing a 4-on-4 session.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Me.

            It seems like Obie is saying Josh's primary competition for PT is Foster and Solo. Is that not how you guys are reading it?

            It seems weird not to mention Tyler in that context.
            I thought he said something about Tyler "getting back in game form" or something like that (not necessarily in audio.)

            Tyler hasn't played basketball in a long time. And he's basically a rookie. It's gonna take him time before he's completely ready.

            Also, he's probably doing extra rehab besides practices, that might take something out of him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              JOb was just getting tired of explaining why he's not playing McRoberts...and he got a little testy.

              The NBA is a business and sometimes the message needs to be framed for the fans. The reality is, if he played McRoberts, fans would not want to see Murphy on the floor. If Murphy sits on the bench, his value plummets...and that's a huge contract to sit on the bench.

              Now that Murph's been traded and more of the bloated contracts get moved, things will start to make more sense...
              I do enjoy such humor...
              Go Pacers!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                I'm skeptical on Josh starting at the 4 until he shows me he's got a pair. He's been able to jump out of the gym and dribble behind his back since he was 18. He's never wanted for talent or potential.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                  Tyler hasn't played a real game since what... Dec 09? And he was just officially cleared to start practicing with contact after a long rehab period? And it's not like he was a 3 time All-Star starter at his position before the injury... So it's not hard to see why he might be a notch or two down on the depth charts right now.

                  It's hard to read McRoberts being #1 on the PF charts right now saying anything about Tyler considering the above.

                  If Tyler wants to pass McRoberts on the depth charts he needs to start focusing on his 3 point shooting. That would be the quickest way to get back to the starting lineup.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Thanks for transcribing it.




                    That sure makes it sound like Paul George is going to see time immediately to me. And that's exciting to me because I had been telling myself to expect a project for the first year or two before he's ready.
                    Paul's defense has been terrific in the clips I've seen. He showed flashes in summer league but he's taken it to another level because of his focus. Very impressive.

                    I agree. If he keeps it up and finds a way to shoot well, he'll get playing time.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                      i have zero problem with slowly getting Hansbrough into game form as long as McRoberts is getting minutes. I'd really hope that Magnum some minutes over Solo......but I'd live with what I can get with McRoberts.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Not to bad for a guy who wouldn't be in the NBA in, what was it again oh yea 2 years.
                        Fair enough. I hope i can take as good as I give.

                        If Josh is our best player at ower forward and he works well with Roy (that is the most important thing IMO) then I have no problem with Josh starting and laying as many minutes as he possbly can. I'll gladly eat my words.

                        On the other side of this is something I feel I need to mention. Wait, I thought O'Brien hated Josh (I could dig out dozens, maybe hundreds of posts) and I thought O'Brien was too stubborn to change.

                        so if I was wrong about Josh great I can admit it.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                          Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                          Is it just possible to believe that Josh has actually grown as a player, and seeing the opportunity at hand, put in mad work to seize it?
                          I'm sure he has grown as a player,but I don't expect him to suddenly be starter quality.
                          Pacers,baby!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                            To me, this tells me more about where Hansbrough is at than anything else.

                            I like Josh. I'm glad to see him get an opportunity, and I hope it's because he's played well. When he says Josh would play 36 minutes what I here is "We don't have anybody else who's ready to be out there right now."
                            Reminds me of time JOB was on Kravitz and Eddie after his first season. Kravitz was talking about walking to Kokomo and JOB said he'd go with him if Jamaal was still on the roster.

                            Kravitz asked him about all of the high praise he had given Jamaal when he was first hired and during the offseason/preseason. JOB's response: "I had no choice. He was all I had."

                            Hopefully his high praise of Josh is truly because he's earned it.......
                            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                              I am excited just because JO'B seems excited!
                              Josh has the skill sets (to the level we still don't know) that we all think will work well next to Roy. I can not tell you how good Josh is/can/ or will be, but I like being hopeful for the best. What I do know is Josh is 6'10, built solid, has a big-time motor, has some offensive skill sets, is improving on D, has 3 yrs of NBA experience, & is our youngest player!
                              I'm not sure why everyone thinks he is so limited, or is the "worst starting 4" in the NBA? Is it he played HS here? His diss of the HS All-Stars? He went to Duke? Focus on his 2nd rd status while forgetting had he come out 1 yr earlier he would have been late lotto territory? Because JO'B had him shooting all those 3's l/y? Or - not to ignore the white elephant in the room, is it his skin color?
                              Everyone here is in love w/ Magnum, yet on draft nite we were all like "Who?" In just 1 summer league + 1 cool workout video, + some praise from the coaching staff, & most here are hopeful we have the next Rodman/Bosh/JO/KG-type. Why? Is it he's new & unknown, or is there some underlineing optimism based on something more? I for one am not sure...
                              I just want to know: What happened to "McBeard's" legend from l/y? Did we forget Josh's summer league promise from l/y? Did Sampson lose his power when he cut his hair? Why do the people that diss Josh praise us bringing in players like C.Anderson, C.Landery, B.Bass & others of this ilk. How/why are they any better? Why can't Josh have the light come on ala JO (& others), a few yrs into the league & w/ the PT to develop? Why can't Josh be good?
                              Opportunity trumps Perception sometimes, just ask Tom Brady.
                              Last edited by PacerGuy; 10-02-2010, 07:53 AM.
                              "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                              (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Interesting words regarding McRoberts from JOB

                                Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
                                I am excited just because JO'B seems excited!
                                Josh has the skill sets (to the level we still don't know) that we all think will work well next to Roy. I can not tell you how good Josh is/can/ or will be, but I like being hopeful for the best. What I do know is Josh is 6'10, built solid, has a big-time motor, has some offensive skill sets, is improving on D, has 3 yrs of NBA experience, & is our youngest player!
                                I'm not sure why everyone thinks he is so limited, or is the "worst starting 4" in the NBA? Is it he played HS here? His diss of the HS All-Stars? He went to Duke? Focus on his 2nd rd status while forgetting had he come out 1 yr earlier he would have been late lotto territory? Because JO'B had him shooting all those 3's l/y? Or - not to ignore the white elephant in the room, is it his skin color?
                                Everyone here is in love w/ Magnum, yet on draft nite we were all like "Who?" In just 1 summer league + 1 cool workout video, + some praise from the coaching staff, & most here are hopeful we have the next Rodman/Bosh/JO/KG-type. Why? Is it he's new & unknown, or is there some underlineing optimism based on something more? I for one am not sure...
                                I just want to know: What happened to "McBeard's" legend from l/y? Did we forget Josh's summer league promise from l/y? Did Sampson lose his power when he cut his hair? Why can't Josh have the light come on ala JO (& others), a few yrs into the league & w/ the PT to develop? Why can't Josh be good?
                                Opportunity trumps Perception sometimes, just ask Tom Brady.
                                +100 THANK YOU !!

                                I couldn't have said it more eloquently myself if I tried...



                                .
                                "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X