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

Will we re-sign McRoberts?

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

  • #16
    Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

    Unless some team throws big money at him, he will probably get a 3-4 million a year contract? Living in Indianapolis, that is almost equal to if NYC or LA offered him 8 million. I just don't see how he's not back with us. You can never have too many bigs. He's worth the gamble because he just came off of his first full year in the rotation, where he showed an occasional glimpse of dominance, and he is still only going to be 24.

    I would be worried if we didn't re-sign him. I feel like it would be cutting him short. He's came a long way from people saying he would never be able to play in the NBA. He definitely proved that he can play center situationally and excel when the other teams try to go small. Yea we need a physical presence in the post, but lets not forget our guys are still progressing. We may only need to find Foster's replacement.

    My point is the PF has changed in the NBA. It is smaller, quicker. Almost like my worst nightmares from JOB. lol.

    My point is maybe we don't need to add anybody at all. Maybe the bigs we have now just have to keep progressing. I think all we need is Foster's eventual replacement. I'm not ready to sell off Hansbrough's starting spot yet. I've learned people here will sell him short, but I think he has earned his starting spot. He too has went from questions about if he would ever even play in the NBA, to outplaying Boozer in the playoffs. And 85 percent of people here would have wanted Boozer instead of Hansbrough at the start of last year. I wouldn't have.

    If you wanna think I'm joking, just think if Chicago had Hansbrough in the playoff series? Him and Noah would have destroyed us. McRoberts seemed injured in our series.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

      Pretty much have to have somebody who can pass the ball instead of looking to score all the time to allow the offense to have any flow. Also, have to have somebody to shore up the defense behind the defense of Paul George and parts of who knows what other players (assuming that Rush will be traded at some point before a season comes up again), and McRoberts is about the only player who can do both of those things when he is on the court. He is the glue guy that holds things together at this point.

      If they let McRoberts go, they had better come up with other guy(s) that bring what he does or it won't matter much about having Brian Shaw and Vogel as our head coaches (I didn't mistype that, either. I really don't think that Vogel is going to be the true head coach by himself as much as things will get done by committee, especially if other coaches with experience are also brought in to "help" Frank.). Without a player who understands the flow of the game on both ends of the court in the vicinty of the paint, everything will bog down and become isos and perimeter jumpers with an occasional dump into the low post where hopefully a beefier Roy will be able to deliver.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

        Well, I know Josh definitely wants to be back. He told me as much a week ago at the Indians game, but I'm sure it was pretty common knowledge to everyone, anyway. It's only a matter of if Bird & Co. will have a roster space and/or cap space available for him.


        I think they will.
        Last edited by Day-V; 06-24-2011, 03:17 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

          I liked what McBob offered....but I am really expecting that Bird will get a Starting Quality PF and that they will also make a concerted effort to bring over Stanko to fill Foster's spot or at least one of the remaining spots needed to add to the Frontcourt.

          That would leave 4 Big Men....Hibbert, whoever the Starting PF that I think that Bird will go after in FA or through Trade, Hansbrough and Stanko . Frankly, I wouldn't mind that 5th Big Man spot to go to Foster where he can competently fill the 4th/5th Rotational Big Man role that Solo filled last season ( basically the Emergency Big Man that can come in when there are injuries ).
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

            I really don't know which way this will go. I love him on the team in the regular season. But when it comes to the playoffs, his skill set really dissappears. He's a nice guy to come off the bench and hustle and get momentum dunks. But honestly, in the playoffs he just doesn't have the same effect. So im not sure if we should bring him back or not.

            We still need to upgrade and get a starting PF. Both Hansborough and Mcbob are back up PFs and if we did get a good starter and maybe a back C, then i really don't see why we should keep Mcbob. Tyler would have the backup mins at PF covered.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

              Before it became clear that Vogel was going to get the job, I'd have said it's a 50-50 proposition.

              With Vogel seemingly in the fold to stay, I'd say it's at least 75-25 that he come backs.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                Before it became clear that Vogel was going to get the job, I'd have said it's a 50-50 proposition.

                With Vogel seemingly in the fold to stay, I'd say it's at least 75-25 that he come backs.
                As the 3rd string PF though? I just don't see that happening. If we find a true starting PF through trade or FA this summer, I don't see Josh returning

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                  The only way I see him coming back is if:

                  1) He's fine with getting a significant cut in playing time to make room for our (hopefully) new starting PF. And by significant I mean he'll probably be getting spot minutes and DNP-CD's for most of the year, unless there's an injury.

                  2) He's fine with getting only a minimal pay raise. I can't see the Pacers wanting to commit more than $3 million to a guy who more than likely won't play that much.

                  If he's completely fine with those conditions, I'd say he's welcome back.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                    Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                    Coming out of the draft with no bigs, how likely is it that Josh will be back?
                    I think it's very likely Jmac will return. Not taking a PF in the draft may be a telling sign in favor of Jmac's job security, but anything could happen in free-agency. And since the decision making isn't exclusively up to the Pacers - it's up to Jmac who has said he wants to stay - I think the Pacers will make him a decent offer.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                      Not for MLE and I'm pretty sure that is not going to happen for 6mil a year either.

                      No team is going to pay McBob that kind of money let alone Bird. He's not worth it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        I agree with you target players 100% but I think we'll have to offer at least a 4 year deal or at least the longest deal allowed in the new cba. The Nuggets are in great cap shape and can pay Nene whatever they want, so he'd have to prefer it here.
                        Memphis is in cap hell and most likely won't be able to keep Gasol if there's a hard cap. They key is that we have to offer a contract that goes into the 1st. year of the hard cap being implemented. If there's a 3 year grace period we have to offer Gasol a 4 year contract. Memphis has about 45 mil tied up in 3 players 3 years from now. Add a high salary for Gasol into the mix and they're up to 60 mil on 4 players. If you throw a 4 yr. deal at Gasol I think they'd let him walk.


                        It depends what the hard cap is, and if they ease into over a # of years. If the Griz can move Mayo for a team that can absorb his salary, like the Pacers, they can afford Gasol.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          I liked what McBob offered....but I am really expecting that Bird will get a Starting Quality PF and that they will also make a concerted effort to bring over Stanko to fill Foster's spot or at least one of the remaining spots needed to add to the Frontcourt.

                          That would leave 4 Big Men....Hibbert, whoever the Starting PF that I think that Bird will go after in FA or through Trade, Hansbrough and Stanko . Frankly, I wouldn't mind that 5th Big Man spot to go to Foster where he can competently fill the 4th/5th Rotational Big Man role that Solo filled last season ( basically the Emergency Big Man that can come in when there are injuries ).

                          I don't expect to see a quick resolve to McBob. I feel Bird will look hard at finding a quality starting PF.

                          I would like Bird to have been on the phone this morning taking to Ricky Jackson, Greg Smith, etc about coming to training camp. The Pacers have openings for a young big or 2. Not to mention cheap.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                            Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                            The only way I see him coming back is if:

                            1) He's fine with getting a significant cut in playing time to make room for our (hopefully) new starting PF. And by significant I mean he'll probably be getting spot minutes and DNP-CD's for most of the year, unless there's an injury.

                            2) He's fine with getting only a minimal pay raise. I can't see the Pacers wanting to commit more than $3 million to a guy who more than likely won't play that much.

                            If he's completely fine with those conditions, I'd say he's welcome back.

                            Why pay him 3 mil when Solo only made 1.5 mil in that role? 1.5 mil is basically twice what he makes now.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                              What about trying to bring in Joel Prezbilla and Kenyon Martin... I think that would be a very nice group for us to have.

                              Hibbert/Prezbilla
                              Martin/Hansbrough
                              Granger/Posey
                              George/Lance
                              Hill/Collison

                              I think this line up would have potential...
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Will we re-sign McRoberts?

                                Originally posted by thatch3232 View Post
                                As the 3rd string PF though? I just don't see that happening. If we find a true starting PF through trade or FA this summer, I don't see Josh returning
                                This is the way I look at it...he's best suited to be the PF when he is on the floor. Given that Hansbrough would fill the same role....and the likelihood that Bird will be pursuing a Starting quality PF...that would leave no minutes at the PF spot for McBob.

                                I love what he does and what he is capable of doing...but there simply isn't any minutes for him.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X