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

Bruno article on McRoberts

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

  • #31
    Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

    Intriguing. I haven't played with Simple rating much... How much do you guys like it? At a glance, it seems to say what we think about the individual players... top-5 regular guys are Granger, Price, Dunleavy, Hibbert, and McRoberts (in that order). Bottom-5 regular guys are Jones, Ford, Murphy, Rush, and Foster (in that order).
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

      I don't know what you guys expected them to do with Josh's offense. It's far more likely that he'll develop a jumpshot than it is he'll develop a post game. If he becomes a legitimate threat with his jumper, that will make him that much more dangerous at attacking the basket. His man will have to play up closer, and we know he has the handles to abuse that.

      It doesn't mean you have to set him out on the perimeter every play you run. You can still use him to screen, catch in the high post for passing, whatever.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        I don't know what you guys expected them to do with Josh's offense. It's far more likely that he'll develop a jumpshot than it is he'll develop a post game. If he becomes a legitimate threat with his jumper, that will make him that much more dangerous at attacking the basket. His man will have to play up closer, and we know he has the handles to abuse that.

        It doesn't mean you have to set him out on the perimeter every play you run. You can still use him to screen, catch in the high post for passing, whatever.
        This makes pretty good sense. My reservations are tied up with the fact that O'Brien isn't talking about Josh developing a jumpshot in general - he puts particular emphasis on the 3 point shot.

        Why not have Josh develop his mid-range jumpshot instead of putting the emphasis on the 3pt shot? Don't we have enough guys who can shoot the 3 well at this point? I'd be happier if we were asking Josh to develop a consistent elbow jumper, keeping him a little closer to the rim where he is better able to utilize his athleticism.

        Also, I guess I don't entirely trust that, in our current offense under our current coach, Josh won't be mostly camping out on the perimeter.
        Last edited by gummy; 04-08-2010, 12:40 AM.
        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

        "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

        "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Intriguing. I haven't played with Simple rating much... How much do you guys like it? At a glance, it seems to say what we think about the individual players... top-5 regular guys are Granger, Price, Dunleavy, Hibbert, and McRoberts (in that order). Bottom-5 regular guys are Jones, Ford, Murphy, Rush, and Foster (in that order).
          Jeez the name "simple rating" is kind of ironic...

          Honestly, my guess is..for the most part..it's as good as any other stat..and as bad as any other stat. It has our best player first, our second best player in the top five, the PG that correlates with more wins in the top five..and Josh who has had a lot of production for limited minutes. All seems like solid stats.

          But then you throw Rush in the bottom, and it seems a little funny.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

            "I sat down with him a couple of weeks ago and showed him his numbers, defensively, when he was on the court, what our field-goal defense was, and it wasn't a pretty sight. That has changed. To his credit he has focused on that and earned the playing time he is getting. I think that's a great sign."
            Blah, blah, blah. There's other reasons that can happen, too. Such as when you play a guy. Is he playing in garbage time or when the entire team is actually trying to defend? Who is he playing with, starters or guys off the end of the bench? Did he compare it to what our defensive field goal percentage was ALL the time because for most of the year, especially earlier on, this team was playing pretty lousy defense, and recently, it's been better. But I can't really recall ever seeing McRoberts out there sleeping on defense. He's CERTAINLY got to be helping more than Murphy, so that makes me seriously question his numbers.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

              Why does he want Josh to have a Larry/Reggie mentality? He's a POWER FORWARD!!!
              Those are good skills for any player to have. I don't have a problem with a PF that can shoot 3s and passes well. So long as he does other things that are important for a PF. LIKE DEFEND THE POST.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                Jim O'Brien should just STFU. I'm sick of hearing his double-speak and statements that don't pass the smell test... and I bet the team is too.

                TPTB cannot fire him too soon IMHO. If he's coaching next year and turning another season into a lost season, I'm watching football and college basketball and awaiting his unavoidable and necessary firing. No way I'm investing time or money into any more of this...

                I'd rather have Isiah at this point.... and that's no compliment for Isiah...

                If TPTB cannot see this snakeoil salesman needs to go ASAP then they won't have far to look when wondering why Conseco is empty next season. How much is the cost savings worth of keeping O'Brien versus a total lack of caring by the general public and night after night of empty seats?
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                  This is very simple to understand. Bird want OB to create him an Austin Croshere clone.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                    Originally posted by ToasterBusVIP View Post
                    Those are good skills for any player to have. I don't have a problem with a PF that can shoot 3s and passes well. So long as he does other things that are important for a PF. LIKE DEFEND THE POST.
                    I'm not saying shooting the three is a bad skill to have, I'm saying Josh doesn't need to shoot the volume of threes that Reggie/Larry shot...
                    Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                      Originally posted by USF View Post
                      I'm not saying shooting the three is a bad skill to have, I'm saying Josh doesn't need to shoot the volume of threes that Reggie/Larry shot...
                      He meant how many they shot for practice.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        I've not watched Josh's defense, so I can't come at this from that direction, but I think even on Troy's bad defense days I don't see him give up more points and rebounds than he scores.
                        Then you aren't watching. It's not opinion.

                        The Plus Minus says very simply, while you are on the court your team gives up more points than it gets.

                        Now given that Watson and Danny both have far better +/- numbers, how can you put the blame on them? They just get lucky because normally they bring Troy down but when he leaves somehow it all goes right for them, thus their +/- improves while he sits?

                        From time to time it fluctuates do to a variety of situations. But JOB has not utilized garbage time, nor reigned in Troy's PT. These other guys aren't living off junk minutes and robbing Troy of a chance to redeem his own +/- stat.


                        Don't make me go old school Nap and breakout a detailed tape breakdown on this because it's the kind of topic that could warrant that.


                        And then this April Fools joke of a moronic statement, just utterly out of touch with reality...
                        "Significantly he factors into the plans," said O'Brien. "We have Troy (Murphy) in the last year of his contract and I love bigs that can pass the ball and space the court.

                        "Now, he's not at Troy's level spacing the court yet but if he takes a Larry Bird, Reggie Miller mentality from the standpoint of the volume of the threes he can get up, and listens to Billy Keller, who works with him on his shoot, and becomes the type of 3-point shooter that I think he can, with his driving ability and his passing ability, I think he's a significant piece."
                        A freaking 6'10" PF who can rebound, block shots, score in the vertical game regularly, and handles switches onto SFs better than most PFs, and you hate his defense but want him to shoot more 3PAs?


                        If Bird won't fire him then he's totally lost his mind too. This kind of s*** makes me have a meltdown. We are Isiah's Knicks, it's happening right in front of us.

                        Is Bird trying to devalue the team in order to buy it himself?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          If TPTB cannot see this snakeoil salesman needs to go ASAP then they won't have far to look when wondering why Conseco is empty next season. How much is the cost savings worth of keeping O'Brien versus a total lack of caring by the general public and night after night of empty seats?
                          And game after game we now hear a familiar theme - JOB boo'd at introductions, Josh cheered loudly when he comes off the bench.

                          That's not just some group of PD people doing it, there are plenty of people that I assume aren't PD posters involved. Everyone else sees the situation except TPTB and JOB.

                          After the Rush and Roy summer I had hope for Larry, but he's made far more questionable moves than good ones.

                          I mean how well did that money for Luther Head pan out? I mean how critical can a guy be that can't crack the rotation during the team's hot streak, even without TJ Ford playing? They didn't need Luther, and while I do like him and his offense, he wasn't a reasonable luxury to chase down weeks before the start of the season.

                          Not unlike the random M Williams story that popped up. Or the spending for semi-used DJones. Or the spending for semi-used Solo.

                          And for all JOB's big talk, he kept Jack on the bench for a huge portion of last year while the FANS cried for a switch. Then when the switch came the team magically got better. Then they let Jack go to Toronto where he promptly played his way into their starting PG role.


                          Plus how dare JOB say one positive freaking thing about Josh after his irrelevant BS comment, among other dismissals of his ability. His version of what makes a good player or team is totally F'd up.




                          BRUNO - the shill act is bordering on sleazy now.

                          Here's my plan for Bruno. Stop paying him. Then next year pay him $100 for the year. Then the year after that pay him $400 and say "you just made more this year than you did the last 2 years combined, so obviously it's going well for you".


                          Not to mention that year one he was a 19 year old kid in Portland, and then last year it was JOB not playing him. Comparing how much JOB plays him this year with 2 of the team's PFs out with season injuries to how much JOB played him last year is like comparing how much someone stops beating their dog after they break their arm beating the dog.

                          Wow, thanks for the favor buddy.


                          Maybe, just maybe, Bruno can participate in some journalism and go look up the minutes played by other guys of Josh's age/league years on teams below .500.

                          What, you mean 2nd round pick Taj Gibson gets more minutes than Josh? Shocking.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                            Okay, now I'm having a full-on PFFL meltdown...get ready for this info, you are going to love it.

                            Players this season, age 19-22, with at least 400 minutes played THIS SEASON ONLY.

                            Josh comes in 62nd of 62

                            43 of those guys have DOUBLE the PT that Josh does this year. Again, a team who has as it's bigs Roy, Troy, and Solo...and that's all. That team has found 460 minutes when the league standard is closer to 900 for any guy you give the time of day to.

                            Bruno, EXPLICATIVE *&^*$*&*% your (*#$(&* comment, it really does offend me how you try to spin this as a good thing. 61 other players in the NBA in Josh's age range see more minutes of development/PT.

                            GREG FREAKING ODEN played more this year than Josh has, barring the late flurry to end the season at least.

                            BILL WALKER, recovering from injury and traded to the Knicks, has played more minutes in only 31 games played than Josh.

                            JODIE F'N MEEKS, more playing time.

                            DANTE CUNNINGHAM, more PT

                            SERGE IBAKA

                            Jon Brockman, Daequon Cook, Robin Lopez, DeAndre Jordan, Bayless, CJ Miles, Amir Johnson, Javale McGee, Julian Wright...


                            There are guys on this list that Bruno couldn't pick out of a lineup of 4 midgets and the NBA guy, but he's telling me that it's okay because JOB is screwing Josh less this year than he did last year?!?!?!

                            Don't take my word on it. Do the FIVE MINUTES of research it took me to put Josh's PT in perspective.

                            http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1∑=0&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2010&year_max=2010&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=19&age_max=22&height_min=0&height_max=99&lg_id=NBA&franch_id=&is_active=Y&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=mp&c1comp=gt&c1val=400&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=mp



                            BTW, he's 24 so not on this list...

                            TYLER HANSBROUGH
                            so who took over those 500 minutes Tyler got in 2 months of play?

                            How could you afford to give Tyler than kind of PT as a rookie, a guy who 100% showed he can NOT spread the floor, a guy who was not getting more than he was giving, but couldn't then hand just those minutes over to Josh...again, with Foster also being out at that point?

                            It's not a difference of opinion, it's blatant spin/lies. It's just not true and it's far too easy to show that it's not true to think that they made a mistake or didn't realize.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-08-2010, 05:23 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                              Good info, but...deep breaths man. Deep breaths. You need to pace yourself here because it sure seems like JOB is gonna open the season as the coach of the Indiana Pacers.
                              "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                              "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                              "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Bruno article on McRoberts

                                He's talking about the volume of practice shots he takes from three point range, not in-game 3pa's.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X