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

Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

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

  • #16
    Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

    I'm starting to worry about his knees. Hopefully everything will pan out during the off season.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

      My comments (and follow-ups from other posters) from back at the start of the season
      http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=26022

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      As it stands it just looks like your trying to pick a fight with fans of Jackson & Dunleavy.
      I agree.


      Oddly people think I'm doing that with Dun, Granger, Foster or apparently any other player I criticize (to promote Jackson). Doesn't seem to matter if in the same post I praise the player too.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

        i will admit that quis has played well and i do like his game, but i think you're getting a little ahead of yourself here.

        quis will never be a star in this league until he develops at least an average jump shot.

        name three starting SG's in the league that quis could beat in a game of HORSE???

        as far as the other aspects of his game - his passing and slashing are above average. but his defense, rebounding, and basketball IQ are nothing to rave about.

        dunleavy is a better shooter, rebounder, passer, and smarter basketball player right now. i would rather he start until quis can get a jumper.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

          10 games

          57.9% shooting
          13.5 ppg
          2.3 rpg
          1.7 apg
          0.4 steals
          25.4 mpg

          Equals

          57.9%
          18.5 ppg
          3.1 rpg
          2.3 apg
          0.6 steals
          35 mpg

          if you pro-rate per minute. That of course assumes the extremely unlikely continuation of 57% shooting, otherwise his ppg would drop 2-3 ppg.

          I'd say as a full-time starter playing 35 minutes a game, Quis could get us 19/5/3/2 steals, and I don't consider that an exaggeration in the least.
          Of course you don't. Obviously I do based on the very numbers you even put up. He's not on pace to do that during this strong streak, and on top of that his missed 5-6 games during this period.


          And before you rant against my hate of the guy or something, go check out the thread I started (see post above) which apparently was before you joined (I notice that you didn't post anything in it at least, which I would think a Quis fan would have).

          I like him, he's a critical player. Why does that require boosting expectations even higher, exagerating what he's done so far, or ripping into other players?


          Cancers gone? Better with Quis than Jack or Dun?

          W-L (with Indy)

          Jack 20-17
          Quis 23-21
          Dun 9-8

          Jackson has the BEST W-L record with the Pacers this year of the bunch. Don't even insult us by relying on the team's record in the LONG HOMESTAND as proof of being better. Save the proof of the post-trade improvement till the end of March, then I'll listen to the team's W-L record with Quis playing AFTER the trade only. At this point the team hasn't been challenged since the trade (and still struggled which is why fans worry).

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

            Quis' rebounding and assist are way down this year. Last year in Dallas he averaged 3.6 and 2.8 in only 28 mpg, which is far more indicative of his actual ability. Given those facts, 19/5/3 is extremely reasonable for Quis as a starter.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

              Originally posted by Quis View Post
              Quis' rebounding and assist are way down this year. Last year in Dallas he averaged 3.6 and 2.8 in only 28 mpg, which is far more indicative of his actual ability. Given those facts, 19/5/3 is extremely reasonable for Quis as a starter.
              They're down but that can be explained in a different way.

              Looking at Per 36 minute numbers (comparing DAL to IND post-trade):

              Pts - 12.9 pts in DAL, 18.8 for IND
              FGA - 10.4 in DAL, 16.0 for IND
              FG% - .480 in DAL, .547 for IND
              REB - 4.6 in DAL, 3.5 for IND
              AST - 3.5 in DAL, 2.0 for IND

              I only included 9 games in the Indiana column, because Murphy and Dun were not available for the first game post-trade vs. Miami.

              His assists and rebounds are down a bit, but his shots are way up. If you're shooting more, you're passing less. If you're shooting more as a G/F, you're rebounding less, because it's more difficult to get your own rebound off a mid-range shot. Dallas also has a much better offense than us, so getting assists playing for Dallas should be easier.

              Assuming Daniels gets 36 minutes a game as a starter (a stretch), I think it's reasonable to expect 16 / 4 / 2 out of him--if he can maintain current production with a slight drop in his current shooting form.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

                I don't think Quis has done any much more in Dallas than he has done for the pacers. Trying to rest on his Dallas accomplishments is not a good argument. I like Quis and hated to see him leave Dallas. At least I think they could have gotten a better deal but i think the Mavs craved a salary dump this summer.

                His only good consistent run was late in the 2004 season when Nellie was the Mavs coach and gave Quis the reign to jack up shots when he wanted. That led to a 1st round exit against and old and injured Kings team. Just because he put up more stats to say he was better than Josh Howard which I've read in other posts about Quis is wrong. Josh had his own injuries to deal with in his rookie year and took some time to adjust to the NBA. Josh clearly has more upside and is living up that upside.

                After 2004, Quis time in Dallas was riddled with injuries that had him coming and going in the rotation. Then Nellie left. He clearly frustrated Avery Johnson with blown assignments which is also part of why is gone. He played decent D excpet for the blown assignments and is money in the paint but still hasn't developed range on his jump shot even though it has been pointed out to him since his rookie year he needs to work on it.

                I think Quis best role is a 6th man playing 25-30 minutes. He can come off the bench as a PG, SG, or SF due to his versatility. He also seems satisfied with that role rather being determined to work hard to win a starting job even though he has the talent. At some point he needs to make his opportunity rather than just be complacent and do what is asked of him when called upon.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

                  Originally posted by ChicagoPacer View Post
                  Dallas also has a much better offense than us, so getting assists playing for Dallas should be easier.

                  .
                  Dallas mostly has players who create their own shots so even though they score a lot they do not typically rack up a lot of assists. IMO, Quis is also a player is more likely to create his own shot rather than for someone else. haven't seen him much for the Pacers but he often took the shot rather than passing to players. Court Vision?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

                    Originally posted by Quis View Post
                    Quis' rebounding and assist are way down this year. Last year in Dallas he averaged 3.6 and 2.8 in only 28 mpg, which is far more indicative of his actual ability. Given those facts, 19/5/3 is extremely reasonable for Quis as a starter...in Dallas
                    Fixed.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

                      e. He'll get more shot attemo
                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Fixed.
                      He'll be a bigger part of the offense here, meaning not only more shot attempts, but more opportunity for assists, as he'll have the ball in his hands a higher percentage of the time.

                      19/5/3 - book it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

                        Marquis should be in the starting lineup, he's the only guard that attacks the basket and can play defence
                        R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

                          I agree. I think he's got a future with us.

                          Acie Law IV
                          Marquis Daniels
                          Danny Granger
                          Jermaine O'Neal
                          Ike Diogu

                          That's a team with the potential to do something in this league. And we can;t forget Shawne aka Mr. Upside.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

                            I like Daniels alot.A matter of fact I think he's the second most talented offensive player on this roster.20ppg and shooting a high percentage such 46-47% is very possible from him.I have been dissapointed in his defense but then again this may be a team thing since it seems like nobody wants to play that end of the ball.

                            Biggest problem I have with Daniels is can he stay healthy?Is this guy our new Bender.If management decide were going to rebuild from scratch then he has no role for this team.I simply don't want to rebuild my team around guys who are as brittle as he is.Hopefully he can shake that problem but this was the biggest concern many people had when he first got here and so far the critics have been right.He needs to stay healthy.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Marquis Daniels Is Very Good

                              Quis is good. He is a bit odd though, the guy shows absolutely no emotion at all. He is the stonefaced killer. There was a play early on in tonights game where he was attacking the rim, took a hard foul and got the And1. They showed his face imediately after and he had a perfectly straight face. It made me laugh out loud.

                              I didn't know anything about Quis before he came here. There really is no way to compare him to other players, he is unique. He pretty much can go wherever he wants with the ball in his hands. Hes not really fast, just tricky. He meanders and weaves his way through the lane and noone can stop him. Kinda funny to watch actually. Oh and hes not half bad on the defensive side either.

                              I could see him being our SG of the future. Wed need a star pg to pair up with him in the backcourt though.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X