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

Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

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

  • #31
    Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
    I could argue a few of these rankings, but it's not that bad of a list. Josh has a looooooong way to go to sniff the top 10.
    I agree. I would put him at 18. I think he is better than Humphries, Bass, Amir Johnson, and Diaw.

    But of PFs 25 and younger he is top-5. He will probably never be a top-10 guy at his position but I do think he will be a very solid player for a long time.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

      Good post Mackey Rose. I like Tyler's energy and aggression but sometimes he is selfish to a fault. And he just looks so un-coordinated and out of control on offense. I know you can say well he's just trying to draw the foul but lately they haven't been calling as many of those fouls so it just ends up being a bad shot. I don't want to start that whole Josh vs Tyler thing again but there were actually posters on here saying that Tyler is more athletic than Josh. I guess they don't know the meaning of athletic. And yes.....Josh does need to be a little LESS unselfish. He could be a scorer if he wanted to because he can finish at the rim. Tyler has his place for sure on this team but he needs to tone down a bit on that scorer mentality unless other options are not working.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

        Originally posted by presto123 View Post
        I like Tyler's energy and aggression but sometimes he is selfish to a fault.
        I dont't think Tyler is selfish. I just think he realizes he can't do anything else. He is a bad passer and knows it. His best option is almost always to try to score. He takes a lot of bad shots. There is no denying that. But I would rather have a bad shot than have him hold the ball for 8 seconds and then turn it over. He throws shots up that have no business going in but for some reason it works much of the time. If players get smart and go out of their way to avoid the foul, then it will be a bigger issue but the opposition hasn't fully wised up yet.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

          Originally posted by presto123 View Post
          Good post Mackey Rose. I like Tyler's energy and aggression but sometimes he is selfish to a fault. And he just looks so un-coordinated and out of control on offense. I know you can say well he's just trying to draw the foul but lately they haven't been calling as many of those fouls so it just ends up being a bad shot. I don't want to start that whole Josh vs Tyler thing again but there were actually posters on here saying that Tyler is more athletic than Josh. I guess they don't know the meaning of athletic. And yes.....Josh does need to be a little LESS unselfish. He could be a scorer if he wanted to because he can finish at the rim. Tyler has his place for sure on this team but he needs to tone down a bit on that scorer mentality unless other options are not working.
          Unfortunately, Tyler is the ONLY other scoring option in the low post we have besides Roy.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

            Originally posted by colts19 View Post
            Do you think Josh could be a top ten Power forward? . . We may be happy with him being Josh.
            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
            Josh has a looooooong way to go to sniff the top 10.
            so far, i agree with both statements. josh may not be the worst starting PF in the league, but he is not far from it.

            i haven't decided on josh. he is athletic, but imo, the same way jordan farmar is athletic. great legs on a so so body. josh does lots of things ok, but only passing really well. he seems to be better than the sum of his parts, but the sum of his parts is just ok.

            for josh to be a good player, he has to rebound better, individually defend better, score in the low post better, score in the mid-range better and/or team defend better. all of these are things that he can do, but hasn't yet.

            i think josh has played about as well as he can play this year. and that means he has played ok. but just that. he needs to get better at something or a couple of somethings to be part of the solution instead of part of the process. as he is right now, the pacers can get into the playoffs with him as the PF, but the pacers cannot win playoff games with him at the PF.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
              I dont't think Tyler is selfish. I just think he realizes he can't do anything else. He is a bad passer and knows it. His best option is almost always to try to score. He takes a lot of bad shots. There is no denying that. But I would rather have a bad shot than have him hold the ball for 8 seconds and then turn it over. He throws shots up that have no business going in but for some reason it works much of the time. If players get smart and go out of their way to avoid the foul, then it will be a bigger issue but the opposition hasn't fully wised up yet.
              It's not that hard to make a pass back out to the top. A bad shot is the equilivant of a turnover.

              If you don't have an open shot, pass it back out. It's not that hard, he can do it, because it does it multiple times a game. He just needs to do it a little more often. No one is asking him to get assists.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                tyler looks like he is trying to pass some times, but doesn't always see where to pass. i assume that in time, the game will slow down for him and he will become a better passer. he looks like a willing passer, but not a good passer.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                  Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post

                  Josh tries to create for his teammates first, and then tries to create for himself second.

                  Too bad he can't play PG.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                    He could be a poor mans Lamar Odom.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      He could be a poor mans Lamar Odom.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        That's absolutely unrealistic!

                        How many PF's are averaging those stats right now? What other teams could McBob be starting for besides the Pacers? Josh has some nice skillsets, but let's not embellish them to the point of fantasy.
                        oh now thats bullcrap .. First off I said I know he "could" put up them kinda stats.. I don't believe it is unrealistic AT ALL ..

                        You are acting like those stats are world-beater stats..
                        If I may interject , in his final year as a Pacer , Troy Murphy was averaging
                        14.6 points , 10.2 rebounds ,2.1 assists , 0.5 blocks and 1 steal per game .. Where exactly is he now and how's his career /pt coming along? /sarcasm

                        The only thing holding Josh back offensively is Josh .. He is more than capable... He is so used to being the 4th to 5th scoring option , being the "garbage man" if you will , that I believe he got in a comfort zone.. I believe Vogel will inspire and demand more from him on the offensive end.
                        "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


                        • #42
                          Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                          Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                          oh now thats bullcrap .. First off I said I know he "could" put up them kinda stats.. I don't believe it is unrealistic AT ALL ..

                          You are acting like those stats are world-beater stats..
                          If I may interject , in his final year as a Pacer , Troy Murphy was averaging
                          14.6 points , 10.2 rebounds ,2.1 assists , 0.5 blocks and 1 steal per game .. Where exactly is he now and how's his career /pt coming along? /sarcasm

                          The only thing holding Josh back offensively is Josh .. He is more than capable... He is so used to being the 4th to 5th scoring option , being the "garbage man" if you will , that I believe he got in a comfort zone.. I believe Vogel will inspire and demand more from him on the offensive end.

                          Again, it's unrealistic, but then you were in love with Travis Diener too.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                            http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...t=61436&page=3



                            I find it interesting that these posts were made within the span of a week.

                            I don't think they are really saying different things entirely, just think it's interesting.
                            No one answered them then to my satisfaction, and no one has now. I'm getting a lot of "he is what he is" vibes.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              No one answered them then to my satisfaction, and no one has now. I'm getting a lot of "he is what he is" vibes.
                              I'll try to answer this:

                              The things that Josh needs to improve on are the things that NBA players typically can improve on.

                              The things Josh already does at a high level are the most difficult to improve. NBA players don't get more athletic as their careers progress. They don't get taller or longer. Their ball handling rarely improves much. Their passing rarely improves much.

                              His shooting will continue to improve because nearly all NBA players shooting improves as they age. All they do is shoot in practice and he has already improved every year since he's been in the league.

                              His rebounding will get better with more experience as he learns better angles to take.

                              His on-ball defense will get better with more experience.

                              The reason people see potential in Josh is because the things he already does well can't be taught. The things that he needs to improve on can be and generally are learned by players who put in the work. He'll be 24 years old at the end of this month. He should be hitting the prime of his career 3-4 years from now. But even what he does at this stage is pretty important to us. He'll never be a huge scorer. That isn't his mentality. But he'll be efficient offensively because he doesn't take bad shots. The rub is that he will occassionally pass up good shots. But I will take that to the alternative. I'd like to see him become more aggressive offensively. I would like to see him shoot at least 10 times per game. I think as he gets more comfortable that is a reasonable number. Danny Granger is a volume scorer. He needs 15-20 shots per game. Roy Hibbert needs 12-17 shots per game. Darren Collison is going to take 10-15 shots per game. I think Paul George will get to the point where he is taking 15-20 shots per game. Not every player's primary focus should be scoring. Almost all of our current team's focus is scoring. Josh's game is a good fit for players who like to score. His teammates love to play with him because they know he will make them better.

                              I don't think the Pacers will bring him back next year. I think they'll make a play at a bigger name PF. The only logical big name PF available is David West. I think that will be a mistake.

                              I would rather pay Josh $5-6 million per year then pay $10-12 million for David West. I think Josh is a better fit for the direction of the organization. David West will be 31 years old this summer. That is at best the tail end of his prime. I would rather pay half the amount for a player who will be just entering his prime a few years from now. If you sign David West you are committing $50-60 million to a guy who will be 36 when his contract is up. If you sign Josh you are committing $25-30 million to a guy who will be 29 when his contract is up. I just think that makes more sense.
                              Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 02-18-2011, 09:15 AM.
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Should we "uncork" McRoberts?

                                Josh is 3 reb/gm away from being very special. I don't care if he scores much more than 10 per, when he gets those assists. I just think that if he could get to those boards like Foster then there is no reason to go after a free agent PF.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X