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

  • #91
    Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
    everyone misses some when they are open or they should be shooting 100%.
    Yeah, but he typically misses them if he's in front of the basket (from behind the arc).

    He looks better from the corner either if he open or being guarded.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

      Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
      "self-absorbed" because im trying to illustrate the difference between the two statements you mocked?? thats rich trader joe... keep telling yourself whatever it is that helps you sleep at night.

      (Redacted for brevity by Trader Joe)

      are you able to distinguish now between the two statements or is this going to turn into another hahaha response.

      "Hey, have you played basketball before? And if you say you have I'm not going to believe you."

      Wasn't that your last argument?

      You expect me to give that sort of a question a serious answer? What would you like me to do scan in all the proof I have that I have played basketball competitively?


      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
        "self-absorbed" because im trying to illustrate the difference between the two statements you mocked?? thats rich trader joe... keep telling yourself whatever it is that helps you sleep at night.

        all of a sudden im now self absorbed b/c i want to illustrate the meaning b/t the contrasting statments made using a basketball analogy.?

        Brandon can do only one thing well, and thats shoot stationary from behind the arc.

        again, i know guys who stand behind the 3 pt line, and on occassion if you leave them open yes they will knock it down, but truth be told they are not good shooters and very inconsistent.

        Rush is not a good shooter imho at this point in his career

        but then there are players who can shoot whether they are open, curling off of a screen, on the dribble, fading, with a hand in their face, pulling up in transition, and from anywhere on the floor 25 ft in.

        rush has one aspect of that down.. now bump this thread when he learns how to shoot consistently in the areas above that i just mentioned.

        are you able to distinguish now between the two statements or is this going to turn into another hahaha response.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

            And with that, I really am done. I've tried to entertain your opinion with well thought out and backed up responses, by referencing multiple statistical data from multiple periods in NBA history, and all I keep getting thrown back in my face is "Have you ever played basketball before? Even if you say you have played it I don't believe you."

            I'm through with this conversation, I think anyone who reads this thread would see which side provided more evidence and backing to their opinion, and who was just pulling things out of thin air.

            Please continue to hold whatever opinion makes you happy, I honestly don't care anymore. I've wasted too much of my time formulating a well thought out argument to someone who is clearly not interested in having a well thought out debate.

            To answer your question, I have played and coached basketball since the age of 5. I have coached at both the junior high and high school levels, and I am done with this conversation. Feel free to call me a "tool" or a "loser" or anything else that pops into your mind.

            Enjoy your day.


            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              It's my opinion that I've already won.

              Awesome, good for you. You've caught me. As we all know there is only one school of thought when it comes to basketball, PacersPride's
              yes i forgot, %'s are the end all be all of any sports related discussion. apparently i should subscribe to that theory.. where if a guy is a 42 % shooter from the 3 pt line then he is obviously a consistent 3 ball threat night in and night out.

              however, since Granger and Dunleavy are not 40% shooters, defenses should adjust their gameplan to focus on Rush, and not those two because the %'s are the only thing that ever matters when determining who the good shooters are right??

              completely rediculous.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post

                however, since Granger and Dunleavy are not 40% shooters, defenses should adjust their gameplan to focus on Rush, and not those two because the %'s are the only thing that ever matters when determining who the good shooters are right??
                Again, I've never said this or anything remotely like this anywhere in this thread, but you can continue to put words in my mouth. I am completely out of energy to deal with this any longer.


                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  yes i forgot, %'s are the end all be all of any sports related discussion. apparently i should subscribe to that theory.. where if a guy is a 42 % shooter from the 3 pt line then he is obviously a consistent 3 ball threat night in and night out.

                  however, since Granger and Dunleavy are not 40% shooters, defenses should adjust their gameplan to focus on Rush, and not those two because the %'s are the only thing that ever matters when determining who the good shooters are right??

                  completely rediculous.
                  when Djones is in the game they sag off because he isnt a 3pt theat. You cant do that with B Rush. im sry u are wrong you should go to basketball 101 class to learn what a 3pt theat is.
                  Last edited by pacer4ever; 11-16-2010, 04:41 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                    I honestly can't believe that people still exist who, even in the face of overwhelming statistical and anecdotal evidence, are completely unwilling to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, their eyes and biases have misled them into believing something that just isn't true.

                    I'm changing my vote to "Is this real life?"
                    "And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"

                    "And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."

                    Comment


                    • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                      Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                      when Djones is in the game they sag off because he isnta 3pt theat. You cant do that with B Rush. im sry u are wrong you should go to basketball 101 class to learn what a 3pt theat is.
                      Yeah and you can't leave Brandon open because he can make you pay.

                      He does typically make it when he's open no matter what spot it's in behind the arc.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Feel free to call me a "tool" or a "loser" or anything else that pops into your mind.

                        Enjoy your day.
                        what good will it do, apparently i have "no sense of reality" b/c i believe rush to be an inconsistent shooter.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                          Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                          what good will it do, apparently i have "no sense of reality" b/c i believe rush to be an inconsistent shooter.
                          6 yrs of near 40% from 3 pt range makes u pretty consistent from 3pt range in most peoples book just ask some b ball scouts.
                          Last edited by pacer4ever; 11-16-2010, 04:47 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                            Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                            yes i forgot, %'s are the end all be all of any sports related discussion.
                            For real? He cited several other things to back that up, including shots attempted and made. The large sample size available lends a lot of credence to his rate statistics. I mean...that's how statistics work.
                            "And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"

                            "And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."

                            Comment


                            • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                              Originally posted by fightoffyourdemons View Post
                              For real? He cited several other things to back that up, including shots attempted and made. The large sample size available lends a lot of credence to his rate statistics. I mean...that's how statistics work.
                              also Brandon is one of the most efficent players we have. Which can be backed up with stat i dont get pacerprides agrument.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Is Brandon Rush a consistent 3 point threat

                                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                                what good will it do, apparently i have "no sense of reality" b/c i believe rush to be an inconsistent shooter.
                                No, I think that was said because you refuse to acknowledge a pretty large body of evidence that's been presented to refute your case, and instead repeated the same claims over and over again.
                                "And Tottenham do not know what hit them...well I can tell you, it's Theo Walcott!"

                                "And it's Tony Adams put through by Steve Bould, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?! That...sums it all up."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X