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

Mike is good to go

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

  • #46
    Re: Mike is good to go

    Originally posted by bphil View Post
    Sometimes I think I'm watching completely different games than everyone else...
    No, you're not.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Mike is good to go

      Originally posted by beast23 View Post
      I believe you are commenting on what "is" and not what "should be". The problem is not that garbage time is sloppy but rather it exhibits the team culture that is condoned by the coach.

      We have a young team, one of the youngest in the league. Since there aren't all that many full speed practices run during the course of the season, it seems like a smart coach of a young team would leverage every opportunity that he has at getting practice for his seldom used players. If that practice can actually serve a meaningful purpose, such as teaching movement and vision, I think you are that much ahead of the curve.

      But no matter how you cut it, if they want to play one-on-one slop ball during garbage time, that is the fault of the coach, not the players. All JOB has to do is to make it clear that any player effing around during "garbage time" will find himself as one of the three players in street clothes for the next five games.

      If a coach established the culture under which his players are to play, and sets meaningful penalties for not doing so, then the his culture becomes the reality. Under those conditions, the opponent can do what they please, but if they choose to play sloppy, then more than likely they will be embarrassed. Since no player handles embarrassment very well, I think they might learn to play "garbage time" more staight up when playing the Pacers.

      But at any rate, every minute of court time provides a learning opportunity, I think that most coaches are absolutely stupid if the choose to waste it.
      I mean, that's a very idealistic way of thinking about it, but it's not reality. Yes, you're right. I tend to comment on reality more than I do the ideal. I'm a realistic person by nature.

      Pro sports being played at its highest level in all sports is a big product of the situation and consequence. You may as well complain about how some players aren't as clutch in the 4th quarter as they are in the 1st or how regular season ball isn't as intense a playoff ball. The situations and the way the game is being played (and even reffed) are quite different.

      A big reason discipline can't be enforced by coaches as much in garbage time is because the guys playing in garbage time aren't going to have guys backing them up. Coaches generally aren't going to sub one of their starters back in if one of their scrubs is playing poorly. If you're not going to get the hook for undisciplined play, you're less likely to play disciplined.

      Go watch the last 5 minutes of any 20 point blowout. It's not a pretty sight and there's a reason most fans leave the building at this time. Whether it be the fault of the players, coaches, fans or even the refs (who won't use their whistle as much because they are tired and want to go home earlier), garbage time is purely unstructured, undisciplined ball and most player don't get better from it.

      When you see a player get much better in his second season from his first, it's usually because of the work he put in during the offseason, not because the coach let him play some sporadic garbage time minutes the season before.

      FTR, the Pacers aren't one of the youngest teams in the league. They are close to being average. I believe they are a bit younger than average, but there are several teams younger.
      Last edited by d_c; 09-30-2010, 01:51 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Mike is good to go

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        FTR, the Pacers aren't one of the youngest teams in the league. They are close to being average. I believe they are a bit younger than average, but there are several teams younger.
        I would have to say that has something to do with the fact that Rush, Hibbert, Hans, and AJ all played 4 years of college. A lot of rookies are 19-20yrs old. The Pacers get rooks that are 22-23 years old.

        Young might not be the word, but low experience certainly is a better phrase.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Mike is good to go

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          IF Mike Dunleavy can offer his offensive gifts matched up with some form of defense then I have no problem if he earns the starting guard spot.

          But if I have to see about excuses (read that as someone saying "but Mike is a good team defender") because on offense he does what O'Brien likes then I won't be to happy if he starts all season long.

          Also could we please quite trying to insult Mike's athletic ability by just saying he has a high Bball IQ. Mike is fast, Mike can jump, Mike is average strength for someone of his height & build (in other words he is not week or strong).

          I hate that people try and push up a player because he isn't an LBJ type athlete by downplaying their athletic ability and upping their I.Q.

          Yes, Mike is a smart player but so is Danny Granger. Danny is athletic but so is Mike Dunleavy.

          Just because he does not do 360 one handed dunks does not imply he is not athletic. BTW, Mike can dunk the ball. I've seen it.
          If find it really (sadly?) intriguing how rampant reverse racism seems normal in NBA land.
          Accepting that white guys are less athletic and have higher "basketball iq" is just plain silly.
          Much less verbalizing such thoughts..........
          Tyler tested in the above average in almost all the physical tests in the predraft camps. His reach is abnormally long (7') and his vertical is 34", right at or above the league average. His foot speed and lateral movement scores were very high.
          Yet I regularly see him described as "can't jump", "slow", "not quick enough", etc etc
          Same with Dunleavy.
          Because they are white??????

          Yet Stephenson, who EVERY draft report lists as below average quickness and footspeed for a TWO guard, and got torched by summer league pg's, is thought by many here athletic enough to play pg............

          Why is this?
          It's kind of funny.
          But really its sad that it's so accepted.
          I Don't mean this to be critical of anyone in particular, just interesting from a sociological perspective.
          Last edited by MLB007; 09-30-2010, 02:18 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Mike is good to go

            You used two wrong examples.

            Hans isn't athletic and he shows it. He has difficulty getting off "normal" shots. That was true even in college. He gets that label because he initiates contact and puts his body in weird spots. When you initiate contact it's hard to get maximum lift on your shot. People who normally initiate contact do so because they can't jump high enough to get their shot off cleanly and need a way to counter balance their lack of athleticism.

            There were times watching Tyler at UNC he would come out of no where and make a very athletic play, then the next time he came down the court he would look like he was on par with Zoubek and barely get 3inches off the ground.

            I've already given the measurements on Dunleavy, and he IS unathletic.

            I agree there is a sigma attached to white players, but it's because most white players aren't as athletic as black players. Sure some exceptions to the rule come along, but those are just that, exceptions.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Mike is good to go

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              You used two wrong examples.

              Hans isn't athletic and he shows it. He has difficulty getting off "normal" shots. That was true even in college. He gets that label because he initiates contact and puts his body in weird spots. When you initiate contact it's hard to get maximum lift on your shot. People who normally initiate contact do so because they can't jump high enough to get their shot off cleanly and need a way to counter balance their lack of athleticism.

              There were times watching Tyler at UNC he would come out of no where and make a very athletic play, then the next time he came down the court he would look like he was on par with Zoubek and barely get 3inches off the ground.

              I've already given the measurements on Dunleavy, and he IS unathletic.

              I agree there is a sigma attached to white players, but it's because most white players aren't as athletic as black players. Sure some exceptions to the rule come along, but those are just that, exceptions.
              If the only definition of athletic is jumping, then maybe. But strength is not an athletic attribute?

              Unathletic to describe a 6'9" player who plays the wing position in the NBA just does not make since to me.

              He's so smart that other players are just dumbfounded by his mental ability to move without the ball that he can score at will?

              Stamina is also part of being athletic and I have a feeling that if Mike were UNathletic he would not be able to constantly move without the ball.

              No, Mike is not Dwayne Wade but he isn't Greg Ostertag either.

              You can't play shooting guard or small forward in the NBA and be unathletic, it's just not possible. I don't care how smart you are you still have to be able to get your shot off and up and over defenders. You still have to at least pretend to move laterally on defense and you have to at least have some burst of speed to be able to get into position to draw a charge, if not people would just drive around you every time.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Mike is good to go

                I think Mike is really good offensively and is a difference maker.

                He has the characteristics a SG should have which is being able to make open shots, space the floor, and can make an open layup right off a pass.

                He's not the strongest and most athletic guy out there and his defense isn't all that good, but he's really effective offensively.

                I'm excited to see if the 07-08 Mike Dunleavy is back.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Mike is good to go

                  http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_100930.html

                  Here's the video speaking with Mike and Jim.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Mike is good to go

                    Originally posted by Since86
                    I agree there is a sigma attached to white players,
                    A sigma, huh? Well, the frat houses can let whoever they want to play on their intermural teams. There's an alpha attached to the black players, so it all works out for everybody.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Mike is good to go

                      Interesting to compare Mike and Tyler:

                      Height w/o shoes: 6'8" vs 6'8.25"
                      Height w/ shoes: Both 6'9.5"
                      Wingspan: 6'9" vs 6'11.5"
                      Standing reach: Both 8'10" (By the way, how is this possible given their height and wingspan differences?)
                      No Step Vertical: 24.5" vs 27.5"
                      Max Vertical: 29" vs 34"
                      Bench Press: 11 vs 18
                      Lane Agility: 11.55 seconds vs 11.12 seconds
                      3/4 Court sprint: 3.30 seconds vs 3.27 seconds

                      I'm fascinated that by most measurements listed, Tyler surpasses Mike, including areas you would think an NBA wing would be better than an NBA big. (Vertical, Lane Agility, 3/4 Court sprint)

                      http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Mike-Dunleavy-2294/
                      http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/...ansbrough-288/

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Mike is good to go

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        A sigma, huh? Well, the frat houses can let whoever they want to play on their intermural teams. There's an alpha attached to the black players, so it all works out for everybody.
                        Sorry I forgot my "t."

                        And for the record, it's intramural.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Mike is good to go

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          You can't play shooting guard or small forward in the NBA and be unathletic, it's just not possible. I don't care how smart you are you still have to be able to get your shot off and up and over defenders. You still have to at least pretend to move laterally on defense and you have to at least have some burst of speed to be able to get into position to draw a charge, if not people would just drive around you every time.
                          No ****. But when one refers to a player as an "athlete" they are implying that among his peers, he is above average. Ford is faster than most other PGs. Howard's quicker, stronger, and can jump higher than most other bigs.

                          When one says that a player is a bad athlete, like Mike Dunleavy, one is implying that he cannot jump, isn't as strong, or doesn't move as well as most other wings.

                          No one is trying to say that Mike Dunleavy is Jonah Hill on an NBA court.
                          "man, PG has been really good."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Mike is good to go

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Height w/o shoes: 6'8" vs 6'8.25"
                            Height w/ shoes: Both 6'9.5"
                            Wingspan: 6'9" vs 6'11.5"
                            Standing reach: Both 8'10" (By the way, how is this possible given their height and wingspan differences?)
                            Wingspan measures from fingertip to fingertip I believe. As we've seen Tyler has some pretty broad shoulders. So while his wingspan is longer, I'd guess that his actual arm length is shorter. If it were say, 1 inch shorter on each arm because of the width of his shoulders, it would make up that difference in wingspan, I believe.

                            Just a guess, but I think it's a pretty good one.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Mike is good to go

                              I guess i'm not overly shocked by Dun's vert number, I knew he wasn't that athletic, but it feels nice knowing that 15 inches of height aside, I'm a better athlete than an NBA player haha.

                              34.5 inch vertical... yea, I barely graze rim at 5'6", sup?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Mike is good to go

                                Originally posted by Since86
                                . . . intramural. . .


                                Ya got me.
                                And I won't be here to see the day
                                It all dries up and blows away
                                I'd hang around just to see
                                But they never had much use for me
                                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X