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

Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

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

  • #16
    Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

    Originally posted by ABADays View Post
    I would have to say JO is the PACERS franchise player. But through my definition of what a franchise player should be - no he isn't.
    Even at his best he never elevated his teammates to the point that I would think of him as a franchise player -- whatever that is. For about the 500th time, I feel that JO is horribly overrated and the Pacers stuck with him for two seasons too long.

    Had they gotten rid of him two summers ago, as I advocated to the irritation of many, they'd be so much better off now. His value was higher then, and they could have gotten a premier player in return, and a good draft choice that could have turned into a premier player.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

      Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
      Well when the other team doesn't have to guard anyone else, it's pretty believable...
      Not when that's 11th on the team. Logic dictates there are better options, especially if they're not guarded.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

        If healthy, JO is about #20 in the league. He is a legit franchise player, but only an average one. For example, just looking at bigs, he is better than Gasol and Curry, but not better than players like Garnett, D. Howard, Yao and Duncan. It is arguable whether he is as good as Bosh, Stoudemire, among a few others. This does not count the Lebrons, Dwades and Mellos which send JO down to #20.

        If healthy, he will keep the team somewhere around .500 with a decent supporting cast. Due to his injury history, his value is lower...probably around #35 in the league. Accordingly, it makes him barely an adequate franchise player. The team needs to deal him for a number of reasons. Among them is that he could pull a Bender on us and decide he wants his health since he has enough money. He is not going to improve from here on out and might walk sometime to win a championship. I think his value will never be higher.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

          Not that I want JO around next season or anything, but John Stockton himself couldnt have made this joke of a team any better, so dont get mad at JO for TPTB putting a terrible team on the court the last few seasons. If it wasnt for JO, we'd be winning as many games as the Hawks.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

            I'm sorry, but I can't throw Jermaine under the bus when we had a team as awful as this years team. Get some players around JO who can make shots consistently, then I will get pissed at JO about his shooting percentages. Sure, he isn't the perfect franchise player and he does make mistakes...but when you put players around him who can't shoot, play defense, or create their own shots..this is exactly what happens. Teams bog down on JO and keep 2 guys on him or near him at all times so he can't work inside the paint.

            The only knocks I have on JO are that he is injury prone, and takes to many jump shots..but the latter probably had more to do with the fact that he was injured. So in conclusion, don't prematurely trade your franchise player until you get a good team around him. We need someone to step up and consistently make 3's and we need a guy who can create his own shot besides JO and Tinsley. Or at the very least, make our current scrub starters learn to play some defense.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

              One really good player can't do it by himself. No, maybe JO is not a franchise player, but he's a guy that if you surround with another really good player (like Artest was), he can bring your team a lot of success. I think the problems we've had as of late is the inability to find that #2 guy. Jackson should've never been in that role, Granger is not a pure enough scorer yet, and the other guys are way too inconsistent (Dunleavy, Tinsley, Murphy, Daniels, etc.).

              How many sure-fire franchise players are there really in this game right now?

              -LeBron
              -Wade
              -Carmello
              -Kobe
              -D. Howard
              -Duncan
              -Garnett
              -Nash

              Then there is iffy people like

              -Yao
              -Chris Bosh
              -Jermaine O'Neal
              -Paul Pierce
              -Tracy McGrady
              -Arenas
              -Dirk
              -Brand
              -Gasol

              So, not being a "franchise" player is not necessarily a bad thing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

                At this point, I'm content with trading JO. Obviously it'd be a step back. But no one's going to relieve our salary cap woes. Dunleavy may be somehow possible to trade, but not Murphy. He's got one of the worst deals in the league. JO and Granger are the only players we have who'd be capable of getting us a legitimate player in return for. And with what I've seen of Shawne Williams, I'm not near as gung ho about keeping Granger forever as I once was.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Top 10 Block leaders for 2006-2007

                  Marcus Camby 3.3blks : 1.74TOs
                  Josh Smith 2.88blks : 3.15 TOs
                  JO 2.64blks : 2.94 TOs
                  Emeka Okafor 2.57blks : 1.66 TOs
                  TD 2.4blks : 2.8 TOs
                  Alonzo Mourning 2.31blks : 1.68 TOs
                  Elton Brand 2.24blks : 2.53 TOs
                  Pau Gasol 2.14blks : 2.75 TOs
                  AK47 2.06blks : 1.93 TOs
                  Ben Wallace 2.03 blks : 1.31 TOs

                  http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statis...ll&season=2007

                  It's split half and half for the top ten, I would think that the % for having more blocks than TOs a game would start dropping there after.

                  I fail to see the point though. Care to enlighten?

                  EDIT: Nevermind, I missed DaSmash's line about it until SIG pointed it out.
                  And to add to that list we should consider FGAs per and perhaps Assists to indicate touches that created possible turnover situations. That puts AK and Okafur as special, but none of the others stand out (and those 2 had some pretty good assist PGs running the show, Utah's whole team are good passers in fact).

                  On top of that Steve Nash has less steals+blocks than he does turnovers...guess Nash isn't a franchise guy either.

                  Before you (Smash) bring a stat at least have some sense of scope and purpose to it, it makes a lot bigger impact than some odd, random fact with zero context.



                  Now his FG% - that's an issue for the amount of touches he gets. His turnover to FGA ratio might not be good, I honestly haven't checked myself. Those are the things that carry weight. Trying to discount blocks with turnovers is nonsensical.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Jermaine O’Neal, Is he a franchise player? Do the numbers lie???

                    Voice of reason here...

                    It's true, JO will never be the type of player who can take over a game night after night, placing the team on his shoulders and winning a championship. Then again, if anyone is asking him to do so, well, you're just not based in reality. As Arcadian points out, it generally takes two or more front-runners to "lead" the way. Clearly, the Pacers haven't had that #2 players since Reggie retired. And even before that the team has been beset by one controversy after another since...well, you know when...not to mention injuries. But we've heard it all before. Let's not go back into it.

                    Fact is, the numbers presented by DaSmash actually paint a pretty good picture of just how consistent JO has been over the years. No, his statistics aren't up there were they were between 2000-2003, but that was 4-7 yrs ago. Age does catch up to you eventually. But it's amazing to me to see that he's still producting at near when he was at the top of his game. Personally, I'd be hard pressed not to classify last season as his best overall year. Why? Because he was able to put together a "complete" season, meaning he competed on both sides of the ball whereas normally he's viewed as just another offensive low-post threat. I'm certainly not going to bash the guy. After all, how many other PF's/Center do you know command a double-team damned near every game? I haven't watched ever Spurs or T-Wolves game, but I'm pretty confident both didn't have to endure that kind of on-the-court attention as often.

                    The point here is JO remains a vital part of this team. While there are parts of his game that needs to improve, I wouldn't want to see the Pacers play against him. The other side of the equation, however, is simply for him to mature a little bit more, i.e., not be soo quick to think that being the "franchise player" means every facet of the team's game plan must come through oneself. Sometimes, the best thing a leader can do is recognize his shortcomings and become an advocate to others. He'll learn soon enough that often times its better to be humble than to be too stalwart.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X