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

Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

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

  • #16
    Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

    Who's freaking out?

    EDIT: There is no freaking out going on. I certainly don't think that Rush is the difference between a win and a loss, and if he is then we're in a lot more trouble than I realized.

    I just think the reasoning for putting him on the sidelines is absurd. I'm not overexaggerating that Graham routinely loses his man because he has to swivel his head back and forth to see the ball. Either he literally has no peripheral vision, or he's in the wrong spot defensively. Ball-you-man is seriously one of the most basic defensive concepts in the game, and Graham is completely clueless with it.

    Benching a player for defensive reasons and replacing him with a lost defensive player makes absolutely zero sense. It sends a mixed message. Work with Rush in practice more, break down film more, make him run extra sprints, do something besides completely contradict yourself. If Graham was deserving of extra minutes because he understood the concepts Rush lacks, then there would be no problem. But that's just not the case.
    Last edited by Since86; 12-08-2008, 03:23 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

      bird's philosophy during the draft was a joke, and shows just how little the man actually knows about running a team.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        bird's philosophy during the draft was a joke, and shows just how little the man actually knows about running a team.
        This has nothing to do with the draft so spare us your constant management ridicule.

        Hicks, I don't think anyone is freaking out. It's just that most don't feel this is the way to go about correcting a few defensive mistakes. What makes it even worse is the fact that Rush is being replaced by a player who is even worse on defense than he is. Where's the logic?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          Or let's all freak out. Whatever.
          I'm not "freaking out". I'm criticizing our head coach. Look I'm all for trying to send Rush a kick in the butt, but benching him for a guy that is barely, barely a rotational player in the NBA just isn't gonna do it.
          My point is simple here, I think OBie does think that the bench is hurting us to some extent is trying to find a solution. I think our biggest (bench) problem is that Jack is getting too many minutes, but the reason we can't close out leads falls in the laps of our starters.
          In fact, I don't really have a problem with Rush getting a DNP-CD. I do have a problem with saying well I kind of feel bad for Graham so I need to give him a chance. This isn't 8th Grade CYO or Carmel Dad's Club where everyone gets a chance to play this is the NBA. Basically OBie's logic behind his last sentence is, Rush isn't playing as well as he could, so we should try Stephen Graham. That does nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to make Brandon Rush a better player.
          Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-08-2008, 03:48 PM.


          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

            Originally posted by Indy View Post
            Benching Rush in favor of Graham is beyond asinine. I don't care how Obie justifies it.

            Guys we essentially spent the 11th pick in the draft on Rush, benching him for a guy we got for absolutely nothing and is never, ever going to be more than a 9th,10th man in this league just makes no sense. Acting like Graham is going to make a difference on this team is dumb as all hell. The problem isn't our bench, its our starting 5 right now. They don't know how to finish games. Pinning it on Rush makes it seem like Obie got drunk, blind folded himself and played who should drop out of the rotation by pointing a finger at the chart. This really makes me sick and I question whether he really knows what he is doing.
            Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
            The difference is.... Rush >> Roy

            I'm not a fan of this move either. I thought Rush was bringing more positives than negatives to the table. As long as he's back in a couple games, I guess it isn't a big deal. If this goes on for more than a week or two, I won't be happy at all.
            JOB is punishing a guy that has been doing a good job especially defensively since the start ıf the season and is clearly a big part of this team by letting a guy like graham take his place. graham should do one hell of a job which i doubt he will btw to make this move look less idiotic.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
              bird's philosophy during the draft was a joke, and shows just how little the man actually knows about running a team.
              You're not privy to what you're talking about.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                What if Rush is being benched for defensive reasons but Graham is being played for his aggression on offense? It has been discussed before that One of Graham's strengths is his willingness to do something when he gets the ball.
                BillS

                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                  Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  You're not privy to what you're talking about.

                  i have historical proof that argues bird's idea of drafting "experienced college players" means nothing as far as how good a kid will be coming out of college.

                  you can call me crazy all you want, but the fact of the matter is that i'm one of the few on here with enough balls to question how this sub .500/mediocre team is run. i apologize for not having the "patience" most pacers digest members have thinking we're always on the cusp of greatness. the pacers have never won a title. all i suggest is doing the OPPOSITE of what we've done in the past.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                    What if Rush is being benched for defensive reasons but Graham is being played for his aggression on offense? It has been discussed before that One of Graham's strengths is his willingness to do something when he gets the ball.
                    I still don't see how that makes Brandon Rush a better basketball player.

                    I understand Obie is paid to win games, but he is also paid to develop players, and I don't think this move does that.

                    Also are we really trying to say, that this team has more problems on offense than on defense right now? Cause the recent evidence suggests something else entirely.
                    Last edited by Trader Joe; 12-08-2008, 03:54 PM.


                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      What if Rush is being benched for defensive reasons but Graham is being played for his aggression on offense? It has been discussed before that One of Graham's strengths is his willingness to do something when he gets the ball.
                      When you're letting teams consistantly score over 110pts, then maybe he should be a littler more worried about the defense.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                        Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                        My immediate reaction when I read about this was that he was preparing for Dunleavy's return. I think's it's naive to think this has NOTHING to do with Dunleavy.
                        This has nothing to do with Dunleavy's return, whenever that is. When Dunleavy gets back, yeah Rush will probably get less minutes. Does Rush need some extra time to prepare how to sit on the bench properly?

                        If O'brien wanted to play Rush more, he could play him more and then sit him more when Dunleavy comes back. That's if he wanted to. There is no need to overanalyze this.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                          I don't get the Dunleavy theory. So we're benching Rush right now only to have him backup Dun when he comes back? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Of course neither does Obie's logic.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                            I'm banking on the fact that Rush is mature enough to take coaching. This has little to do with what Graham can or can't do defensively. It has everything to do with what O'Brien expects out of Brandon Rush.

                            Graham is not as good of a defender as Brandon Rush is, but Brandon is not as good as O'Brien thinks he should be. Graham has (apparently) played well in practice, and has been productive offensively when given the chance. I seriously doubt that O'Brien thinks Graham is a long term answer. I seriously doubt that O'Brien isn't painfully aware of Graham's defensive shortcomings. This is being done for Rush. The direct quote from O'Brien was:

                            "They're playing against terrific players, terrific teams, the most aggressive teams in the league," O'Brien said. "Sometimes if they're not doing very well, as was the case for Roy (Hibbert) a couple of weeks ago, it's better to have them sit and watch a little bit. I have a great deal of confidence that Brandon is going to be a terrific player and he's going to be a terrific player this year."
                            If you're wondering what the conversation O'Brien had with Rush, there's really absolutely no reason to believe that what Obie's said in the media isn't basically what he said to Rush.

                            This is clearly designed to be a short term situation. Last night notwithstanding, O'Brien has largely restored Hibbert's minutes after giving him his "perspective". I would expect Rush to get back into the lineup in the next few games, probably by the end of this road trip. Hopefully, he'll spend this time watching the players in front of him, learning from both their successes and their mistakes.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                              Originally posted by Indy View Post
                              I don't get the Dunleavy theory. So we're benching Rush right now only to have him backup Dun when he comes back? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
                              Yeah, Dunleavy has nothing to do with this.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Indiana's O'Brien Opts To Bench Rookie Rush

                                Rush is still the better player, period. Why play a lesser player in order to teach a better player?

                                Why wouldn't you use practice/film time to address the situation, instead putting the team in a worse position especially against a team like the Celtics.

                                Maybe he has tried to correct the problems off the playing court, maybe I'm wrong on it.

                                But Roy's situation is a little different. The players in front of Roy make a bigger impact on the game than he does/was. Letting him watch better players play ahead of him is different that letting Brandon watch a worse player play. If Graham was also a developing player, it would also be different, letting him develop on the court.

                                Their backs were already against the wall playing the Celtics. Subbing out worse for better makes it that much harder.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X