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

Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

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

  • #46
    Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

    Same here Presto123 ..

    Out of all the Pacers players, there are just some that I flat out don't want to see go, whether by trade or not being re-signed....

    In no particular order this is my "fan favorites", whom I'd either be crushed, or saddened and/or disappointed if they were shipped out .. Because we have grown very fond of them and also, I know, it will come back to bite us in our collective a**es and interject feelings of regret seeing them grow into a very good player or possible all-star on ANOTHER TEAM.


    1. Roy Hibbert
    2. Paul George
    3. Josh McRoberts
    4. Danny Granger
    5. Tyler Hansbrough (aka "The Flailing Weirdo")
    6. Jeff Foster (Jeff is on this list because I want him to play here as long as he is healthy and still bringing it..then retire a Pacer like he wants to do. )


    And, although not on my list .. Lance Stephenson

    I REALLY want to see what this kid can do, given at least 12-15 minutes per game consistantly every game.. And depending on chemistry,how well he responds will dictate his minutes and if they rise, his defined role, and importance (if any) to the team and winning..

    This shortened, fast paced season would be the perfect baptism by-fire for Lance.
    Bottom line, we need to see if he is gonna be as good as some of us (most notably Larry Bird) believe that he is ..

    I personally believe from a basketball standpoint, that if Lance were to switch places with John Wall right now, and had everything (the team) given to him on a silver platter (like Wall was), that everyone would be talking about how awesome he was too... lol



    It would be very wise to do this before his contract is up..
    and very very stupid to give him away as filler in a trade scenerio..
    So stupid in fact, I don't want to even contemplate it ..lol
    Last edited by Kemo; 12-02-2011, 01:17 AM.
    "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


    • #47
      Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

      Signing an overpriced prick at the 4 and letting Josh go, I can see that happening, easy, it standard MO.

      Thinking that signing also solved the backup 5, and not re-signing Jeff, see above

      Keeping Tyler, because you drafted him yourself and would never admit there's (much) better out there, see above

      Josh's ceiling is higher then Tyler, no doubt, Josh would come cheap because he would take less here then elsewhere for the honour of playing in Indy, Josh would take 2 for the team at anytime.

      Not re-signing Josh, capital blunder
      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

        Like most have said, this really makes no sense imo especially considering he likely wouldn't command that big of a contract.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

          Hopefully some other team does not offer Josh a contract that we would not match. I see him as that end of bench energy guy that plays 10-15 minutes per night at both 4 and 5 spots depending on match-ups. If someone offers up a fattened contract to him we just need to thank him for his years here and move on. I like the guy but not at the expense of possibly getting that impact player we need.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

            I'd like to see Josh back.
            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

              I'd like to see Jeff and Josh both back but esp. Jeff (he should retire a Pacer). Saying you have 21M in cap space means some people have to go though unless, we can sign them to 1 year deals to meet the salary baseline and to preserve the capspace for next year's crop of FA's.

              Are any of our Euro players ready to come over?
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                Honestly makes no sense. He's 24, would be relatively cheap, from here, fans like him, improving. It's just dumb to not even try and bring him back.
                this.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                  Remember.....Josh took and missed the shot that blew us having a perfect quarter.
                  For this he should be permanently banished from Indiana.

                  All kidding aside though, I like Josh and what he brings and would be delighted if the
                  Pacers could resign him. He plays with lots of flare and is really fun to watch.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                    I guess we need to see what the market is going to do. If he is available in the 3 million range, maybe we'll decide to resign him.

                    Be fun to see him on a team like Phoenix or the Knicks.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                      I suspect a sign and trade of McRoberts. Outside of adding the ability to make an open 3 he really hasnt improved with his time in the NBA. The Pacers need to look elsewhere while they have the chance.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                        Originally posted by JEM View Post
                        I suspect a sign and trade of McRoberts. Outside of adding the ability to make an open 3 he really hasnt improved with his time in the NBA. The Pacers need to look elsewhere while they have the chance.
                        I know the Pacers for some reason thought that would be a possibility, and discussed trying to send him to New Orleans, probably as part of the Rondo deal.

                        But tell me, why would he do that when he could just go where he wants to go on his own? What would be the motivation for letting the Pacers decide his future team, when he can make his own decision? The Pacers have absolutely no claim to his rights. It makes no sense.

                        He's an unrestricted free agent. He has no reason to agree to a sign and trade, if it isn't the best situation for him, just to help the Pacers get a deal. That would be crazy.

                        The Pacers made it clear that McRoberts isn't high on their priority list, while other teams have made it clear that he is a number one priority. They are planning on David West, and with West and Hansbrough in the fold, there isn't enough minutes and money to go around for Josh. With a new free agent PF coming in, there was never room for both Josh and Tyler. They have made their bed with Hansbrough, and are going to lay in it. That's just part of the business, and he understands it.

                        He's an Indy guy. He rooted for the Pacers growing up. He wanted to be here, and he intends to make this city his home regardless of what team he's playing for, but the Pacers have made it clear they have other plans. Of course he's disappointed. He had to sit for years and languish on the bench behind inferior players, and then when he finally got a chance to play, he played well and the team was much better when he was on the court. And yet, he lost his starting job last year when he was unfairly made into an escape goat (new favorite term) not once, but twice. They also tried to trade him mid-season, knowing he wanted to be here, so I suppose the writing has been on the wall. Through all of this, he never complained, and remained hopeful of coming back.

                        I'm still hopeful that the front office will have a change of heart, and he will. I don't understand the thought process of signing a pick-and-pop undersized power forward to complement the pick-and-pop undersized power forward you have on the roster. Why West and Landry would be higher priorities than McRoberts is beyond me. Nene is a whole different kind of player, and would make sense, but McRoberts is a much better fit for this roster than either West or Landry. Unfortunately, for Josh, and in my opinion the Pacers, the front office doesn't see it that way.

                        Good luck to Josh wherever he ends up.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                          Mackey,

                          Thank you for that. If I'm Josh there is no way I'm letting the Pacers dictate where I go. He's a free agent, he's earned the right to pick his next stop. I still hope he's back, but I wish him nothing but the best. One of my favorite players and I will cheer for him wherever he goes outside of DET, NY, MIL and CHI, of course.
                          Last edited by BPump33; 12-02-2011, 09:06 AM.
                          Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                            He had to sit for years and languish on the bench behind inferior players, and then when he finally got a chance to play, he played well and the team was much better when he was on the court. And yet, he lost his starting job last year when he was unfairly made into an escape goat (new favorite term) not once, but twice. They also tried to trade him mid-season, knowing he wanted to be here, so I suppose the writing has been on the wall. Through all of this, he never complained, and remained hopeful of coming back.
                            While it was pretty obvious JOB seemed to mess with Josh's head and others on the team you can't forget Josh took himself out of games because of the mental aspect as well. Maybe my memory is clouded but I recall he had a hard time keeping his (bad) emotions in check too and for that you can't blame anyone but Josh.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                              I don't understand the thought process of signing a pick-and-pop undersized power forward to complement the pick-and-pop undersized power forward you have on the roster. Why West and Landry would be higher priorities than McRoberts is beyond me. Nene is a whole different kind of player, and would make sense, but McRoberts is a much better fit for this roster than either West or Landry.
                              I don't put it beyond Bird to use Wells and the media as a diversion. We are hearing West and Landry but Bird may be pursuing Nene, Gasol, Rondo . . . who knows.

                              Except for mentioning that he had interest in Hibbert (and he may not have been his first choice), Bird's MO seems to never mention the player he is truly interested in.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Josh McRoberts doesn't believe the Pacers will re-sign him...

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                I guess we need to see what the market is going to do. If he is available in the 3 million range, maybe we'll decide to resign him.

                                Be fun to see him on a team like Phoenix or the Knicks.
                                Man...if he played with alley-oop throwing PG, he could be a regular on Sportscenter. Josh did throw down a lot of dunks last season where I was like . My favorite was the Granger to McRoberts for the leaner dunk. Another favorite was a dunk against the Nuggets over Chris Anderson.

                                EDIT: Went to YouTube to watch some of his dunks, but for some reason I don't recall this one....
                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUF4YjKukMo
                                Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 12-02-2011, 09:32 AM.


                                Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X