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

Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

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

  • #46
    Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

    Originally posted by JOb View Post
    We feel Earl is better in that situation until proven differently," O'Brien said. "Right now, I think Brandon is struggling. I don't think he's playing as well as he would like to play. Keep in mind, he's only in his second year and we have a chance to have a veteran presence out there. That's the reason we're doing it."

    ....

    Not too pleased about his teammates decision, Ford, who was just 1-of-5 from the field and had five turnovers, flung his arms in frustration in the corner.

    O'Brien agreed with Ford because he told Jones to do a better job of seeing the court after the turnover.
    This excerpt tells it all. JOb is stroking Ford because otherwise it's Tinsley II. Ford could be as frustrated as he wants to be and D Jones' mother is still a better basketball player. D Jones has earned enough rope where you just let that one go. What a joke!

    ...and JOb claims he benched Rush for Earl Watson...a veteran presence. Well, that conversation ignores the fact that TJ does less to win games than either Watson or Rush.

    Here's the grade card:

    TJ:
    Defense: F Offense:C-

    Rush:
    Defense B+ Offense F

    Which grade card to you want? Neither player is very good right now...but many people including JOb...sorry but it's true...are more focused on offense. That's why he loves players like Troy and picks a player like TJ over Rush....and why he never thinks to put McBob in there to at least slow down some people. Instead, he puts a 6'4" SG on a 6'9" PF. What a joke!

    ...and the thought that TJ was ever supposed to guard Larry Hughes is laughable. Our other players probably missed assignments because they had to help with that mismatch. Ford is a shrimp and has no business guarding a 6'5" long armed scoring SG like Hughes. Granger probably has a tough enough time with Hughes. It's just silly.

    By the way, I noted last night that JOb was prepping Rush for the bench...to get his boy Murphy back in the saddle. Mark it down. Murphy will be starting very, very soon. Sure, Rush hasn't shot well...but that is one single aspect of his game....and you all know what happened at the end of the year last year. Bench the guy a few games into the season. I don't use this word often, but that's just stupid. Rush could start taking off at any time....and that's the problem...the Pacers don't want 20 million in salary sitting on the bench. That's why playing TJ and Troy over players that win games is allowed.

    The talk about defense will be complete lip service if JOb continues to start TJ and Murphy and gives them 30+ minutes a game. We will be a bad team if that happens and you will not see that swarming defense again this year. Well, at least the players will have a long summer to rest.

    People are going to look back on this stretch and claim it was a fluke. Other people are going to know the truth.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      This excerpt tells it all. JOb is stroking Ford because otherwise it's Tinsley II. Ford could be as frustrated as he wants to be and D Jones' mother is still a better basketball player. D Jones has earned enough rope where you just let that one go. What a joke!

      ...and JOb claims he benched Rush for Earl Watson...a veteran presence. Well, that conversation ignores the fact that TJ does less to win games than either Watson or Rush.

      Here's the grade card:

      TJ:
      Defense: F Offense:C-

      Rush:
      Defense B+ Offense F

      Which grade card to you want? Neither player is very good right now...but many people including JOb...sorry but it's true...are more focused on offense. That's why he loves players like Troy and picks a player like TJ over Rush....and why he never thinks to put McBob in there to at least slow down some people. Instead, he puts a 6'4" SG on a 6'9" PF. What a joke!

      ...and the thought that TJ was ever supposed to guard Larry Hughes is laughable. Our other players probably missed assignments because they had to help with that mismatch. Ford is a shrimp and has no business guarding a 6'5" long armed scoring SG like Hughes. Granger probably has a tough enough time with Hughes. It's just silly.

      By the way, I noted last night that JOb was prepping Rush for the bench...to get his boy Murphy back in the saddle. Mark it down. Murphy will be starting very, very soon. Sure, Rush hasn't shot well...but that is one single aspect of his game....and you all know what happened at the end of the year last year. Bench the guy a few games into the season. I don't use this word often, but that's just stupid. Rush could start taking off at any time....and that's the problem...the Pacers don't want 20 million in salary sitting on the bench. That's why playing TJ and Troy over players that win games is allowed.

      The talk about defense will be complete lip service if JOb continues to start TJ and Murphy and gives them 30+ minutes a game. We will be a bad team if that happens and you will not see that swarming defense again this year. Well, at least the players will have a long summer to rest.

      People are going to look back on this stretch and claim it was a fluke. Other people are going to know the truth.

      Sheeeshh enough of the Murph bashing, he is a Pacer the last time I checked.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Mark it down. Murphy will be starting very, very soon.
        He's the third best player on the roster. Of course he starts.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

          An F for Ford's defense? Really? I haven't focused on him specifically as much as I'd need to to really do this justice, but I've seen enough to know he's doing some good things out there. The worst I'd give him is a C- right now on D.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

            Sounds like we stopped moving the ball on offense and that's when NY's defense started to look so good.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I liked what he said to the fan. The fan made a stupid comment
              i agree. i thought it was awesome.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                He's the third best player on the roster. Of course he starts.
                Who is he better than here?: D Jones, Dunleavy and Granger

                Personally, I think Hibbert is already a more important player...and that Murphy is arguably #4 or #5...and that's being kind and ignoring how well Earl Watson is shooting the ball as well as doing that strange thing called defense.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  He's the third best player on the roster. Of course he starts.
                  You and I think alike Jay.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Who is he better than here?: D Jones, Dunleavy and Granger

                    Personally, I think Hibbert is already a more important player...and that Murphy is arguably #4 or #5...and that's being kind and ignoring how well Earl Watson is shooting the ball as well as doing that strange thing called defense.
                    Troy plays good ball everynight and it's almost a guarantee that's he'll play well. Much like Danny, he is trusted to play well every game.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      He's the third best player on the roster. Of course he starts.
                      You're right Jay, but you're fighting a losing argument. No matter what Murphy does, some people are going to hate him. It's become a Hoosier sport, you know.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                        Originally posted by Cherokee View Post
                        You're right Jay, but you're fighting a losing argument. No matter what Murphy does, some people are going to hate him. It's become a Hoosier sport, you know.
                        Even a hater like me can enjoy his rebounding, consistent ability to put up double doubles, I like the guy for who he is, he can shoot the three well, etc. I get that.

                        The problem is, he is a weak link on defense that makes it very difficult to win many games....and make the playoffs, particularly down the stretch when his 3 pointer starts coming up short. He simply cannot get out on the floor and put pressure on his man.

                        Otherwise, he is a very good player. I would love him to come off the bench for 20 minutes a game.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Even a hater like me can enjoy his rebounding, consistent ability to put up double doubles, I like the guy for who he is, he can shoot the three well, etc. I get that.

                          The problem is, he is a weak link on defense that makes it very difficult to win many games....and make the playoffs, particularly down the stretch when his 3 pointer starts coming up short. He simply cannot get out on the floor and put pressure on his man.

                          Otherwise, he is a very good player. I would love him to come off the bench for 20 minutes a game.
                          I really would like to know why many people hate him? Why do you hate him?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Even a hater like me can enjoy his rebounding, consistent ability to put up double doubles, I like the guy for who he is, he can shoot the three well, etc. I get that.

                            The problem is, he is a weak link on defense that makes it very difficult to win many games....and make the playoffs, particularly down the stretch when his 3 pointer starts coming up short. He simply cannot get out on the floor and put pressure on his man.

                            Otherwise, he is a very good player. I would love him to come off the bench for 20 minutes a game.
                            I agree with this
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                              Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                              I really would like to know why many people hate him? Why do you hate him?
                              Let me try to be as precise as possible. There are two main reasons:

                              1) He does not make the guy he defends uncomfortable at all. He allows the opposition to move freely, make cuts and make plays.

                              2) He gets weaker on offense just when you need to get stronger. He is the anti-Reggie Miller.

                              Otherwise he does lots and lots of good things, but the two items I list are recognized at least intuitively by his detractors. They overwhelm his positives at the very worst time of the game.

                              The fact we went on a winning streak without him and had a better record last year without him are merely signs that can be written off. If you don't see these issues as huge, you will never agree with his detractors.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Brandon Rush to be benched? (Mike Wells blog)

                                Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                                I've noticed this, too. I think JOB is trying to use BRush as a spot-up jump shooter. I'm not sure if that's BRush's game, but I do know he's a very good slasher along the baseline. He can get to the basket. Problem is, we already have Dahntey, TJ and Watson all trying to do the same thing - slice to the basket. Granger gets in the elbow coming off curls or just by finding his way into the lanes. BRush is left kinda hanging out there. You have to wonder if that's by design or if he really doesn't understand fully what he's suppose to do in certain situations. Hence, the reason he looks lost out there most nights.
                                I'm still not sold on Rush being able to do this 15 ppg or more night in and night out. He may have it in him based on the way ended last season, but we don't really know.

                                Often when I watch him I see more of a D. McKey type contributor, which others have suggested before here. Can score sometimes, but not comfortable being relied upon for that amount of offensive production every game.

                                I think a perfect role for Rush would be as a defensive player first priority who provided maybe no more than a fourth option offensively where consistency is required. Ideally, I see him more as a get in where you fit in, ride him when he's hot offensive guy. You'd be better off assuming those games are gravy on top of his defensive impact.
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X