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

Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

    Regarding Rush's passive attitude, I think some of that would be ameliorated if he had Kobe or Lebron shouting at him every time he made a mistake to light a fire under him a bit. He is yet to play on a team with a really good vet.

    Comment


    • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

      Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
      We tried the B.Rush experiment once. The problem with him isn't that he isn't talented. It is that he use that talent. He is lazy, dosen't play 100% when he is in the game, and his attitude wasn't great. He had those great stretches of games at the end of the season a couple of years back. That offseason alot of people on here thought he was our answer at SG. We thought he would average between 15-20 ppg. He never did. He just went back to the same old timid B.Rush.

      He might be done. I think he can still give a team 10-15 minutes per game, but he has to find that team.
      I would rather have Brandon Rush (good defender and shooter) than Jimmer Ferdette......

      Comment


      • Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        I would rather have Brandon Rush (good defender and shooter) than Jimmer Ferdette......
        Can anyone honestly say they think Jimmer is better than Brandon is/was?

        Jimmer will be out of the league when his rookie contract is up. He can't do anything but shoot and he is even struggling with that now. He was SO bad in summer league.
        There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

        Comment


        • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
          im sorry to all the Rush supporters in this thread but Rush never inspired any confidence in his ability to shoot and i believe he feels the same which is likely the reason he does not shoot it as often as his % would dictate.
          You keep talking about Korver in the playoffs against us, but you realize he was shooting over a guy 8 inches shorter than him, yes? Pretty easy to be comfortable doing that all day.

          You make it sound like shot volume is the giant difference here, and it's not. In Rush's 4 years in the league, he's shot 394 of 953. Korver in the last 4 years has shot 400-937. Pretty close to identical in shots made, and volume of them taken.

          btw, rush is a FA right now i believe and im sure he will land somewhere, but that should measure just how valuable this guy is at his craft, whereas Korver was immediately signed... so i ask why is that if korver the inferior defensive player has the same 3pt% to rush then why is Korver already under contract and Rush is not. its because he sucks point blank.
          Just so you know, Korver wasn't a free agent, and he was traded to the Hawks for nothing but "cash considerations". As we know, guys who are cold hard killers on the court get traded for packages that involve no picks, and no players all the time.

          You have some strange personal vendetta here, because you're skewing facts, making things up and calling other people names the whole way down that road. There was a lot of misinformation in there, but I only picked these two things because I didn't feel like spending several minutes on it. Rush doesn't and didn't suck.

          Comment


          • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

            Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
            Rush was never consistent at anything!
            Never consistent, but he was chronic!

            Comment


            • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

              Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
              Can anyone honestly say they think Jimmer is better than Brandon is/was?

              Jimmer will be out of the league when his rookie contract is up. He can't do anything but shoot and he is even struggling with that now. He was SO bad in summer league.
              I will admit that when people started talking about drafting Jimmer for the Pacers, I said he had bust written all over him. They all said there is always a place for a good shooter but not for one that cannot get his own shot once in a while. Add being a defensive liability to that and Jimmer will be playing in Europe if there.....

              Comment


              • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                Rush's biggest problem with Pacers fans is that he never lived up to expectations, and for some reason most fans are unable to change their expectations to see the good in a player instead of just seeing the disappointment.

                Comment


                • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                  Rush has a ton of God given talents, but the way he uses them makes him a dime-a-dozen NBA player. So...quite frankly his position on the team isn't going to make much of a difference. George Hill could get backup minutes at the 2 and would play a much better game. Lance might blow up this year. OJ might start playing well. Paul George should be on the floor 35-40 minutes every night anyway. Seriously, let's quit with the "what ifs" around Brandon Rush. He had years to make good on his talent and he never did make a difference in Indy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Rush has a ton of God given talents, but the way he uses them makes him a dime-a-dozen NBA player. So...quite frankly his position on the team isn't going to make much of a difference. George Hill could get backup minutes at the 2 and would play a much better game. Lance might blow up this year. OJ might start playing well. Paul George should be on the floor 35-40 minutes every night anyway. Seriously, let's quit with the "what ifs" around Brandon Rush. He had years to make good on his talent and he never did make a difference in Indy.
                    I don't see why OJ would even make this team. I expect him to be one and done..... or even less.....

                    Comment


                    • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                      Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                      I would say that he could be used in the role of an extra 3-point specialist when one is needed. But is that a need? Or is that role already covered by one or more primary backups? For that matter, does Pietrus not provide more than Rush without the detriment of the historical baggage already created with the team?
                      from what I recall, Pietrus is skilled as a perimeter defender....but doesn't have a high basketball IQ and has questionable shot selection. Its possible that this has changed since his days with Golden State....but if I had a choice between Pietrus and BRush and needed a specific perimeter defender that can hit the 3pt shot....Id choose BRush over Pietrus. I know what I get from BRush if I set my expectations low.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                        Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
                        We tried the B.Rush experiment once. The problem with him isn't that he isn't talented. It is that he use that talent. He is lazy, dosen't play 100% when he is in the game, and his attitude wasn't great. He had those great stretches of games at the end of the season a couple of years back. That offseason alot of people on here thought he was our answer at SG. We thought he would average between 15-20 ppg. He never did. He just went back to the same old timid B.Rush.

                        He might be done. I think he can still give a team 10-15 minutes per game, but he has to find that team.
                        BRush received a qualifying offer from the Warriors. Given the number of Players on their rookie contracts that did not receive a qualifying offer....what does that tell you?
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                          You keep talking about Korver in the playoffs against us, but you realize he was shooting over a guy 8 inches shorter than him, yes? Pretty easy to be comfortable doing that all day.

                          You make it sound like shot volume is the giant difference here, and it's not. In Rush's 4 years in the league, he's shot 394 of 953. Korver in the last 4 years has shot 400-937. Pretty close to identical in shots made, and volume of them taken.



                          Just so you know, Korver wasn't a free agent, and he was traded to the Hawks for nothing but "cash considerations". As we know, guys who are cold hard killers on the court get traded for packages that involve no picks, and no players all the time.

                          You have some strange personal vendetta here, because you're skewing facts, making things up and calling other people names the whole way down that road. There was a lot of misinformation in there, but I only picked these two things because I didn't feel like spending several minutes on it. Rush doesn't and didn't suck.
                          And the winner here by the way of knockout, xBulletproof. lololololulz

                          Comment


                          • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                            I was not expecting to get on PD and see this thread again.

                            It seems PacersPride is still sticking to his old arguments. Hilarious


                            Comment


                            • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              I was not expecting to get on PD and see this thread again.

                              It seems PacersPride is still sticking to his old arguments. Hilarious
                              Yes, indeed. And arguments plural is exactly it. Let's see here, off the top of my head...

                              Rush is not a good 3 point shooter.
                              Rush is not a consistent 3 point shooter.
                              Rush is not a consistent 3 point threat.
                              Rush doesn't hit any big 3 point shoots.
                              Too many of Rush's 3's are wide open.
                              Rush air balled a 3 once, which shows he isn't a good shooter.
                              Rush isn't a good shooter.
                              Rush isn't a consistent shooter.
                              Rush doesn't score enough.

                              The best part? Whenever you poke holes in some of these (some make more sense than others, but he seems to like the silliest ones best), he just shifts to the next one and carries on as if they are the same argument! HI-LARIOUS, in a face meets brick wall kind of way. :| Does he care that Rush just came off a season shooting 50% overall and 45% from behind the line (and improved his much maligned free throw shooting average to just below 80%?) Nooooope, somehow it should be even more obvious to us that Rush totally sucks. Come on man, even those of us who were disappointed with Rush's time here aren't buying it.

                              I'll stop contributing to the perpetuation of this ridiculous thread now. Training camp can't come soon enough!!
                              Last edited by gummy; 07-30-2012, 11:23 PM.
                              "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                              "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                              "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                              Comment


                              • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                                For those who love Rush, they need to get over the fact that while it would be great to have him back in Indiana, he will never come back for PR reasons, fair or not. And Indy is far from the best place for him to be playing right now anyway.
                                And this is why I get frustrated with TPTB/Bird because I feel like he somewhat perpetuated that view as some defense of his pick or something, like it was a good pick BUT he's lazy so it's not my fault.

                                If Larry/fanbase just accepted that he was a great 3pt bench SG defender (what DJones kinda was last year) and gave you more scoring+defense than Barbosa, then he could have just stood his ground, let fans accept that you build a team with high picks that become average and average picks that become great (and all other variations), and enjoy him filling a much needed role on the team.

                                BTW, ditto with Josh.

                                The whole Josh/Rush shuffle last year that ended up as Lou and Barbosa was just wasted energy. They easily could have just stood pat on both guys and spent basically exactly what they spent anyway for 2 known bench players with reliable specialty skills that the team needed.




                                Or in other words, Rush sux at 3 ball.




                                BTW, I don't get "lazy". The guy was a pretty strong shot blocker from the SG spot and a good SG rebounder...because those are things lazy players do, right? His only "lazy" area was not trying to take a shot 11 times in 10 minutes (ahem, Barbosa) and on this squad I wouldn't consider that a negative.

                                Sheesh, who wants a 30% 3pt guy taking 10 shots instead of passing to Roy, West, Paul, Danny, or George. I'll take the 40% 3pt guy shooting 5 times in 15 minutes and defending his position. He goes 2-5, that's 6 points on 5 shots and I'm happy. It's your bench 3pt specialist for chrissake, not Vinnie Johnson.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X