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

Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

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

  • #16
    Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

    It's good to give OJ some run anyways to see if he can produce. Green is giving no production anyways so what is it really hurting by not having him out there?

    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

      Originally posted by Johanvil View Post
      Freakish ability to jump really high and making amazing dunks. That's all I can recognise to him. Other than that, meh.
      That is usually all it takes to make a player a fan favorite ala McDudd.......

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

        I've got to say, I've been pretty surprised with the way OJ has come on. I'd never seen him play before the summer league, and it was weird watching him. He had the LOOK of an NBA player, and would make solid moves on offense, but he couldn't buy a bucket to save his life. I don't remember his numbers, but they were awful. He'd break his man down, get to the rim, and miss the layup. It looks like that's resolving itself nicely.

        I've missed a couple of the games where he's gotten significant run, but he seems a guy that can become a really solid backup wing for us. Not a future superstar, but somebody you can put out on the floor and trust that they're not going to blow the play. His decision-making seems pretty solid for a rookie.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

          Yeah, for now I have OJ pegged as a solid backup wing on a good team as he continues to develop into a pro. Not sure he's more than that. But that's fine for us.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
            That is usually all it takes to make a player a fan favorite ala McDudd.......
            Once again you show you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. If you think McBob and Green have similar basketball IQ's, there is no hope for you ever having the cognitive ability to understanding anything about sports in general.
            Last edited by Hoop; 01-22-2013, 01:13 PM.
            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

              Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
              I hate to admit it, but I know I was fooled by Green's play last year. Thought this was the 2nd best bench pickup after Ian. Now it's looking like Ian was the only bench pickup that was worth anything of real value.
              I wonder how much the Pacers scouts, GM, front office people actually watched Green in person. I ask that again because if you just see Green in small doses, he can fool you. Last year he looked like a great athlete (which he is) and an adequate shooter (which he still might be) the problem is unless you see him more than a handfull of games you might easily overlook his inability to play basketball.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I wonder how much the Pacers scouts, GM, front office people actually watched Green in person. I ask that again because if you just see Green in small doses, he can fool you. Last year he looked like a great athlete (which he is) and an adequate shooter (which he still might be) the problem is unless you see him more than a handfull of games you might easily overlook his inability to play basketball.
                I presume that everyone saw these comments on Gerald Green from Mark Cuban a few years ago?

                http://www.thetwomangame.com/2010/03...oan-yesterday/

                Sometimes it’s hard to get coaches, managers, and owners to speak up concerning the current goings-on of the team. Everything is played so close to the chest, and it’s almost like the media and the team stand diametrically opposed at times. Consumers of sports media want to know how things work — what went into making this decision, why this guy and not that guy, etc. — and ask the almighty “Why?” But the members of the team itself are also somewhat reliant on keeping that information internal. After all, you never know who might hear what, and specifics are, in this case at least, a team’s worst enemy.

                But I applauded Mark Cuban’s willingness to talk about some of the Mavs’ decisions in the past, if only because it helps those of us on the outside to fill in the gaps. It’s nice to know why this or that was done, even if it’s a year or two later. And then again, sometimes when talking about decisions from the past, guys like Cuban still tip their hand a bit (perhaps intentionally). Read as much into this quote from Cuban as you’d like:

                Sometimes [the players] need prompting [to figure out the best play], and the ones who don’t figure it out…I mean it’s true that’s a great point theres a subset of players that don’t figure it out, that cant figure it out, that don’t think. Those are the ones that are so blessed talent-wise that you try to make it work — like we had Gerald Green. [To the Celtics' Mike Zarren] You guys have had Gerald Green.

                I just look at him and think ‘Oh my God!’ There are things that he’ll show you that are just ‘Oh my God!’ and then he just doesn’t understand the game of basketball and hopefully he’ll figure it out someday but you just keep giving him those chances. He ran out of chances (so far) this last time.

                On its own, I think he’s just talking about the hyper-athletic Gerald Green and players of his ilk. But this topic was a recurring theme for Cuban in many of his panels: a guy that just can’t figure it out, that doesn’t think on the court, that isn’t a smart basketball player. Now, I could be mistaken here, but I seem to remember a lot of similar criticism being lobbed at a guy who played for the Mavs not too long ago. It would be completely unfair of Mark to take explicit pot shots at Josh Howard through media channels, but would I put it past him to perhaps offer a veiled criticism of Josh’s game? Not at all.

                I’m not sure if Cuban was looking to send a message or just got stuck on a particular topic at multiple panels. But that doesn’t stop Green’s story from being any less of a condensed caricature of Howard’s career. I wouldn’t dare play team psychologist here, but from where I’m sitting, Howard’s troubles always seemed to be more mental than physical. It’s undeniable that he faced a lot in rehabbing and returning from various injuries, but the game within the game has always been to keep Josh on the same page as everyone else. He was fed shot attempts early in the first quarter, and there’s absolutely no doubt that he was treated differently than other players. That’s what it took to keep him functioning as a member of the team, and so its what the Mavericks did.

                They hoped he would figure it out someday but they just kept giving him those chances. Josh just ran out of chances this last time.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                  Augustin has since turned it around since his benching, maybe Green will too.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                    Augustin has since turned it around since his benching, maybe Green will too.
                    I think it all depends on what your expectation is.

                    If you expect him to facilitate offense and play within a team concept, you're likely to be disappointed.

                    If OTOH, if we can put him into catch-and-shoot, and simple predesigned cut-to-the-basket opportunities off the bench... he'll be a fine contributor. Think Wayne Ellington as a best-case scenario.

                    Of course, he has to remember how to shoot again.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                      Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                      I think it all depends on what your expectation is.

                      If you expect him to facilitate offense and play within a team concept, you're likely to be disappointed.

                      If OTOH, if we can put him into catch-and-shoot, and simple predesigned cut-to-the-basket opportunities off the bench... he'll be a fine contributor. Think Wayne Ellington as a best-case scenario.

                      Of course, he has to remember how to shoot again.
                      I just look for him to be a scoring spark off the bench without embarrassing himself defensively.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        I just look for him to be a scoring spark off the bench without embarrassing himself defensively.
                        I think we're in a bit of a tough spot with Green, because his shot has become so unreliable, and everyone's lost trust in him.

                        If the team trusted his shot, they could (and should) draw up specific plays for him in the half court that set him up for catch-and-shoot opportunities. As it stands, he's often forced to react to a team offensive concept, which at first caused him to hesitate and look uneasy, and more recently has caused him to have an early trigger finger that results in him jacking up lots of ugly shots early in the clock.

                        We have to do a total reset on him, IMO.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          I've got to say, I've been pretty surprised with the way OJ has come on. I'd never seen him play before the summer league, and it was weird watching him. He had the LOOK of an NBA player, and would make solid moves on offense, but he couldn't buy a bucket to save his life. I don't remember his numbers, but they were awful. He'd break his man down, get to the rim, and miss the layup. It looks like that's resolving itself nicely.

                          I've missed a couple of the games where he's gotten significant run, but he seems a guy that can become a really solid backup wing for us. Not a future superstar, but somebody you can put out on the floor and trust that they're not going to blow the play. His decision-making seems pretty solid for a rookie.
                          Is OJ's play (and DJ's play and pending FA and likely not resigning) motivation to move Lance back to point guard with the 2nd unit?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                            Green would be fine, if he would just hit a decent percentage of his open shots.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                              Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                              Yeah, for now I have OJ pegged as a solid backup wing on a good team as he continues to develop into a pro. Not sure he's more than that. But that's fine for us.

                              That's all the Pacers need presently. I realize OJ played more college BB than Lance, but so far their rookie years are miles a part. One of the things about OJ's play that impresses me is his ability to reb. I really believe he has the talent to be a good player. I sure hope so!

                              Does anyone remember his measurements from pre-draft camp.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Vogel-had-no-choice-but-to-bench-gerald-green/Mike Wells

                                Walsh signed Shawne Williams in NY. Williams played well that year. I never felt Williams had a high BB IQ. It may be Walsh felt since he got Williams to produce the same could happen with Green. A major difference was Williams wasn't given a 3 year garanteed contract. This is problem I have with the Green signing. If he doesn't pan out, you pretty much are stuck with him for the next 2 years unless you can somehow someway find someone who will take him in a trade.

                                We can only hope 1 of 2 things happen: Either Green finds his shot, or he can be packaged in a trade. It would be great if either one would happen ASAP. At this point, I don't really care. If neither happens, I'm happy to let OJ develop his game.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X