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

Ford's play raises question for Pacers

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

  • Ford's play raises question for Pacers

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...ion-for-Pacers

    (Mike Wells)
    Indiana Pacers coach Jim O'Brien is about to cross a bridge he didn't anticipate less than a week ago.

    Three point guards, all showing that they deserve playing time.

    The problem stems from O'Brien's preference for playing only two of them because he does not like using three point guards during a game.

    There is veteran Earl Watson, whom O'Brien refers to as a leader because of his calming demeanor on the court. Watson has spent several days away from the team because of a death in his family.

    There is A.J. Price, the player who was supposed to spend most of his rookie season on the bench watching and learning the NBA game.

    And there is T.J. Ford, the speedster who played with a don't-forget-me attitude in the past two games.

    Somebody is going to be unhappy with O'Brien's decision.

    "We'll find out (how this plays out)," O'Brien said after Saturday night's loss to the Milwaukee Bucks.

    Ford would still be stuck on the end of the bench in a supporting role if not for Watson's brief absence.

    It would have been easy for O'Brien to send Ford back to the bench when Watson returns for Tuesday's game against the Chicago Bulls if Ford had played badly.

    But Ford played well.

    "No, I'm not surprised (about my play) because at the end of the day it's a win-lose situation," Ford said. "The only successful thing that can come out of this is me playing well. If I didn't play well, it could have been for multiple reasons. It just showed that even though I wasn't playing, I was still getting a workout in. I was mentally ready for whatever happened.

    "It's about being patient, but you know in the NBA, things are always going to come back around."

    Ford showed little rust after his 18-game absence by scoring 31 points on 13-of-20 shooting to go with eight assists, six rebounds and two steals in the two games. He also hit 3-of-4 3-pointers.

    Ford's recent performances could entice teams to make a run at him before the Feb. 18 trade deadline.

    He took the high road when asked if he thought he deserved to remain in the rotation.

    "Whatever the team needs from me, I'm here to do it," Ford said. "I'm not trying to make any demands or cause a problem. Of course I want to play, but it's up to the coach and what he feels is best for the team right now.

    "I'm trying to be supportive and do whatever job they need me to do. Whether that's playing or rooting other guys on."

    Price got a shot in the rotation because O'Brien wanted to see if he fit into the team's future. Price is averaging 9.3 points and 2.6 assists in 21 games since moving into the rotation. There is a chance O'Brien may not have to make a decision immediately if Price is not able to play against the Bulls.

    Price suffered a concussion when he was poked in his left eye by Bucks center Andrew Bogut in the third quarter Saturday. Price said he hopes to play Tuesday.

  • #2
    Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

    I thougth he played well in the first game, not quite as well in the Bucks game...he got caught in the air with the ball trying to make a pass once or twice....no excuse for a pro to get in that situation.
    Go Pacers!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

      ...

      Please please please don't play Ford JOB. Don't do it.

      The Price and Watson PG combo is sooooo much better.

      The only positive to playing Ford would be, that if you played a Price/Ford backcourt, and it was decent, we might not have to worry about signing another point guard...

      but Ford is really just a terrible point guard.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
        ...

        Please please please don't play Ford JOB. Don't do it.

        The Price and Watson PG combo is sooooo much better.

        The only positive to playing Ford would be, that if you played a Price/Ford backcourt, and it was decent, we might not have to worry about signing another point guard...

        but Ford is really just a terrible point guard.
        Ford does not deserve to be glued to the bench. This is totally unfair to him. I like the fact that Ford hasnt said anything public about his benching. Most players would have went straight to the media and expressed their opinions
        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

          If Obie plays Ford (a player they don't want here) and Watson (a player that isn't under contract next year) over AJ Price, potential for the future, it's a crime.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

            Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
            Ford does not deserve to be glued to the bench. This is totally unfair to him. I like the fact that Ford hasnt said anything public about his benching. Most players would have went straight to the media and expressed their opinions
            If you're only going to play 2PGs, he is most certainly the third PG. And has proved so over and over again this season.

            Heck, he didn't even have a good game for a point guard last game. He had a good scoring game.

            Now, if JOB wants to give Ford Head's minutes..as a scorer off the bench. That's one thing. But Ford should be the third PG on this team. In fact I think scorer off the bench would be a really good role for Ford.

            But for the PG, really?

            I mean, who do you want him to play over? AJ? Yea, that's a good idea, the kid's probably the best PG on the team, has been playing well, the team plays better with him in and it's not like this is a contending team where we need the vets..but yes, let's bench him for no reason. At least Ford deserved his benching.

            Or Watson? Someone whose been consistent and solid the whole year. Who is respected by his teammates (remember, Ford's teammates don't like playing with him) Who is a leader, who'll probably help develope Price (as opposed to Price learning from Ford..because we all want that.) And what, he loses his starting spot because of a death in the family? Because T.J. Ford had an efficient scoring game.

            Don't forget..we saw good T.J. these past two games, and he still had 4 turnovers in his last outing.

            I'm not even saying this as a concerned Price fan. Honestly, this is more about TJ vs Watson, because there isn't any logical reason to play TJ and Watson over Price. There are a few logical reasons to play TJ over Watson, but I think that's just bad for the team.
            Last edited by Sookie; 02-08-2010, 02:43 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

              I expect Ford to back up Watson (assuming earl is back( because Price suffered a concussion and they should be extra cautious and sit him out this game

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                If Obie plays Ford (a player they don't want here) and Watson (a player that isn't under contract next year) over AJ Price, potential for the future, it's a crime.
                Yes, and JOS runs a syndicate.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

                  how do you get a concussion from a poke in the eye? didn't see it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

                    Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                    how do you get a concussion from a poke in the eye? didn't see it.
                    The guys hand impacted Prices head mainly - also poked him in the eye
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-08-2010, 03:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

                      I'm starting to think about the benefits--after this season--of trading Watson.

                      If we can't trade Ford, why not keep him the rest of this disastrous year to back up Price? Watson could help a contender and, with a peanuts contract, would be attractive as well ... meaning we might be able to squeeze a draft pick out of the trade.


                      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

                        Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                        I'm starting to think about the benefits--after this season--of trading Watson.

                        If we can't trade Ford, why not keep him the rest of this disastrous year to back up Price? Watson could help a contender and, with a peanuts contract, would be attractive as well ... meaning we might be able to squeeze a draft pick out of the trade.
                        With all the guard injuries the Cavs have, that might be a sweetner along with Murphy. Perhaps We'd get something more than Z and the #30th First round pick.

                        But really...and perhaps this is just selfish of me..I don't want to watch Ford play point. Period.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

                          Yeah, I'd say Ford's play raises questions for the Pacers.

                          Specifically, "I wonder what we could get for Ford?"
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            Yeah, I'd say Ford's play raises questions for the Pacers.

                            Specifically, "I wonder what we could get for Ford?"
                            That is what I was thinking as well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ford's play raises question for Pacers

                              The problem stems from O'Brien's preference for playing only two of them because he does not like using three point guards during a game.




                              BTW, I'm firmly in the camp of Watson/Price (and at some point even flipping that), but letting TJ fill the same role as Luther Head, the scoring/combo guard for short bursts. Maybe some games you don't go to TJ if he's cold or Head is hot, or vice versa. You don't use either as PG unless you have an emergency (injury, fouls) and you don't let either run amuck with poor shooting, especially since you have two of them.

                              Some nights you stay bigger and Rush/DJ stay at SG so much that Head/TJ don't see much or any PT. Some nights you are frontline thin or have a good smallball matchup and they do play.

                              Or you can just see Watson/Price as "100% never, ever let TJ on the court" which is a really reasonable way of handling it. Ooops, green that.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-08-2010, 04:10 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X