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

Brandon Rush.. seriously?

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

  • Brandon Rush.. seriously?

    I seem to overlook this thanks to Jim O'Brien being the only story right now, but did Brandon Rush really play 24 minutes last night with a stat line of: 1reb 1ast 1stl

    Paul George got 7 minutes.. 7 and stat line was: 7pts 3reb

    Brandon's defense has dropped as well? Is there anyway to light a permanent fire under this guy's a$$?

    We need to play Paul George to find out if we have a SG or not, but Rush is not the answer.

  • #2
    Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

    I know that Rush haven't been that good in few games, but how you expect an inconsistent player to be consistent if your coach is inconsistent?
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

      Well unlike some of the others, Brandon Rush gets consistent minutes, so I'm not blaming O'Brien for this one.

      All the other young guys try to make the most out of there minutes.. Rush.. I don't know

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

        Rush has to take more than 2 shots. He and Posey played a combined 41 mins and did almost nothing at all. Play PG those mins and see what he puts up. Hell he did more in 7 mins than they did in 41.
        Good is the enemy of Great


        We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
        -- Frank Vogel.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
          Well unlike some of the others, Brandon Rush gets consistent minutes, so I'm not blaming O'Brien for this one.

          All the other young guys try to make the most out of there minutes.. Rush.. I don't know
          I'm talking about starting, this is really underrated, people don't understand that players need a rythm, there is a reason why some players don't want to come of the bench.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

            You know who really sucks - John Hollinger. He said BRush had a tendency to wander aimlessly, and at one point was the worst starter in the league, but what does he know? He doesn't even watch basketball games!

            Oops:

            Originally posted by Hollinger's twitter
            Final thoughts: 1) Can't believe Collison didn't pressure Rudy more, 2) Classic wander-aimlessly game from Rush -- 24 min, 0 pt, 1 rb, 1 ast
            Anyway, not saying I 100% agree with Hollinger, and BRush has certainly improved since Hollinger's infamous "worst starter" comment, but I think people need to have some perspective and think about how our team looks to outsiders. Not that good.
            2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              I'm talking about starting, this is really underrated, people don't understand that players need a rythm, there is a reason why some players don't want to come of the bench.
              He's not a starter, and even when Dunleavy comes off the bench, he attempts to make an impact.

              Rush seems content to just be in the NBA. He hardly even plays or shows any emotion ever? I can't tell if he even cares if we win or lose?

              I mean if you follow on Twitter, you see guys like Hibbert, Collison, Paul George tweeting that they're upset about a loss, have to improve, need to get the next one. Brandon Rush is tweeting about mixtapes, shoes, being bored.

              Yeah others do this as well, but at least you can tell they care in between. I mean you get quotes from Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, Hansbrough about the same, and Rush just sits in the background, which in turns translates to the court

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                I'm talking about starting, this is really underrated, people don't understand that players need a rythm, there is a reason why some players don't want to come of the bench.
                You can't be serious?
                He just doesn't always show up and give the impression he wants to play and yet you want to blame JOB?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

                  I agree. In the month of January he has averaged 8.6 ppg on 36% shooting. Pretty bad, and he's lost a step defensively since last month. I'll reiterate; I am so hard on him because I know how good he can potentially be. I am seriously getting somewhat worried about his personal hygiene, if you understand what I mean. He's transformed from a nice 6th man to the Brandon Rush of old ever since the last game of December.

                  Sorry if that is politically incorrect or whatever for being concerned.

                  Originally posted by pwee31 View Post

                  I mean if you follow on Twitter, you see guys like Hibbert, Collison, Paul George tweeting that they're upset about a loss, have to improve, need to get the next one. Brandon Rush is tweeting about mixtapes, shoes, being bored.

                  Yeah others do this as well, but at least you can tell they care in between. I mean you get quotes from Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, Hansbrough about the same, and Rush just sits in the background, which in turns translates to the court
                  Now, I'm just going to have to point something out here.. When I played ball I would have a huge game, but I would never brag about it.. Rush is like that, I can tell. He doesn't like to show out and he doesn't like to give himself a load of credit, he finds it petty and goofy.

                  Maybe you're right that he should be more interested, but this is just the way Rush is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

                    Originally posted by bulldog View Post
                    You know who really sucks - John Hollinger. He said BRush had a tendency to wander aimlessly, and at one point was the worst starter in the league, but what does he know? He doesn't even watch basketball games!

                    Oops:



                    Anyway, not saying I 100% agree with Hollinger, and BRush has certainly improved since Hollinger's infamous "worst starter" comment, but I think people need to have some perspective and think about how our team looks to outsiders. Not that good.
                    Hollinger wanted Paul George to play more last night instead of Posey it was in the pacers media chat on pacers.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

                      Saying that he is floating around aimlessly because he isn't starting is just ignorant, considering he did the exact same thing last season when he started 64 games.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

                        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                        He's not a starter, and even when Dunleavy comes off the bench, he attempts to make an impact.

                        Rush seems content to just be in the NBA. He hardly even plays or shows any emotion ever? I can't tell if he even cares if we win or lose?

                        I mean if you follow on Twitter, you see guys like Hibbert, Collison, Paul George tweeting that they're upset about a loss, have to improve, need to get the next one. Brandon Rush is tweeting about mixtapes, shoes, being bored.

                        Yeah others do this as well, but at least you can tell they care in between. I mean you get quotes from Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, Hansbrough about the same, and Rush just sits in the background, which in turns translates to the court

                        Is funny that most of the things you are saying to describe Rush are pretty much the same things I can use to describe Mike, there is a reason why somebody took their time to make the MANLEAVY video, the only time I got to see any reaction or emotion from him was when he got the tip in on the NO game.

                        By the way I don't know if you know this but Dunleavy is been horrible lately too(he was ok yesterday) I would say that I agree with you on PG, he needs more playing time and he was the best SG yesterday, the problem is that the clown has a short leach on him and PG miss assignment on Batum made his benching easier.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

                          Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                          Now, I'm just going to have to point something out here.. When I played ball I would have a huge game, but I would never brag about it.. Rush is like that, I can tell. He doesn't like to show out and he doesn't like to give himself a load of credit, he finds it petty and goofy.

                          Maybe you're right that he should be more interested, but this is just the way Rush is.
                          I'm in no way talking about bragging b/c of a good game, I'm starting about showing emotion or fight when your team is struggling. You're suppose to be apart of the core moving forward with this franchise and you don't seem to care.

                          Did anyone see Hansbrough's reaction when he got taken out in the 3rd quarter I believe, quickly after coming in? He was not happy, he wants to be on the floor, and should be on the floor. He wants to win, he hates to lose.

                          Granger gets frustrated and starts jacking up shots no b/c he doesn't care, it's b/c he doesn't like to lose and tries to put it on himself.

                          Hibbert is thinking of getting mental help b/c he's not playing well, and he feels he's letting the team down b/c he doesn't like to lose.

                          Collison doesn't like to lose, Foster is tired of losing, Dunleavy is tired of losing. Paul George is just a rookie and he's tired of losing. I don't get that sense from Rush, I wish I did, but I don't.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

                            Brandon rush is a joke. The guy has the athletic ability and shooting touch to be a star. But has no confidence in his game. he does not look to create. he does not look to shoot. You have to pray for him to shoot a three even when he is wide open.

                            Its almost laughable that the guy is so good yet SO BAD. I personally want him off the team in the offseason. Start PG next year and resign DUN to a smaller contract to be the backup for him and granger.

                            He has not made any progress on his game and just plays scared on the offensive end.

                            I know you guys are going to say well he is the best defensive player we have. What good is defense when our team struggles to put up 90 points. We cannot rely on two guys to get it done for us. Brandon was brought in here to be a difference maker and right now he is being outplayed by our new rookie.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Brandon Rush.. seriously?

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Is funny that most of the things you are saying to describe Rush are pretty much the same things I can use to describe Mike, there is a reason why somebody took their time to make the MANLEAVY video, the only time I got to see any reaction or emotion from him was when he got the tip in on the NO game.

                              By the way I don't know if you know this but Dunleavy is been horrible lately too(he was ok yesterday) I would say that I agree with you on PG, he needs more playing time and he was the best SG yesterday, the problem is that the clown has a short leach on him and PG miss assignment on Batum made his benching easier.
                              I agree Dunleavy has been terrible as well, and I'm a fan of him, but I can tolerate Dunleavy being bad b/c he'll likely be traded or gone next season anyways. Rush is suppose to be one of the core guys going forward, and those he has play better early, he still seems to be the same inconsistent guy.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X