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

Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

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

  • #61
    Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    I have cringed at no less than 8 different posts in this thread. Comparing Howard to Foster is laughable. Comparing Howard to Hansbrough is even more laughable. If Howard did not play on Butler and just so happen to be in the right place at the right time today people would not even be discussing this. Absolutely ludicrous. I think Tom Pritchard is a better comparison to Matt Howard than either Foster or Hansbrough.
    riiight. because tom pritchard was a 4* top 100 player like howard was out of high school, a conference player of the year, and a key, arguably most valuable player to 3 top 10 ranked teams, 113 wins, and a national runner-up. that's a huge insult to howard to compare him to pritch. if pritch had half of howard's skill set to go with pritch's size and athleticism, he'd be an nba draft pick. howard has qualities of both foster and hansbrough as college players, and to laugh at that just shows ignorance on your part.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
      riiight. because tom pritchard was a 4* top 100 player like howard was out of high school, a conference player of the year, and a key, arguably most valuable player to 3 top 10 ranked teams, 113 wins, and a national runner-up. that's a huge insult to howard to compare him to pritch. if pritch had half of howard's skill set to go with pritch's size and athleticism, he'd be an nba draft pick. howard has qualities of both foster and hansbrough as college players, and to laugh at that just shows ignorance on your part.
      Yes, it is an insult to Howard to compare him to Pritchard. Much the same way it is an insult to Foster and Hansbrough to compare Howard to them.

      Look, Howard is a good college player, I understand that and absolutely agree with it. But he is not an NBA player. Will someone invite him to play on their Summer League roster? Probably, but I'd be pretty shocked if that guy ever played a single minute of regular season NBA action.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

        It's too bad Butler doesn't have the same kind of fanboys as North Carolina, because now would be the perfect opportunity for someone to chime in with the requisite post of, "people have been doubting Matt Howard his entire life, and he's always proved them wrong."

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Yes, it is an insult to Howard to compare him to Pritchard. Much the same way it is an insult to Foster and Hansbrough to compare Howard to them.

          Look, Howard is a good college player, I understand that and absolutely agree with it. But he is not an NBA player. Will someone invite him to play on their Summer League roster? Probably, but I'd be pretty shocked if that guy ever played a single minute of regular season NBA action.
          as collegians, in no world was foster a better player than howard. you are just wrong about that. foster has one skill set that got him drafted along with the size and athletic ability to make it in the league. but as a college player, he was not on howard's level.

          hansbrough was obviously better in college, but it isn't in a landslide. IF butler somehow manages another ncaa run, which could very well happen if they upset pitt, you're looking at two players in howard and hansbrough who have nearly an identical resume as far as team accomplishments and their roles on those teams. statistically, hansbrough took many more shots at unc. but nobody on a butler team will ever average 20ppg based on the style butler plays. the %s are equal. howard shot 44.5% from 3 this year. howard is superior to hansbrough defensively and in understanding the game. hans was a much better rebounder and leverages his body better, but howard's rebounding numbers suffer due to butler's team philosophy on defensive rebounding. EVERYBODY crashes the defensive rebound.

          as a diehard iu and butler fan, you really irked me the wrong way comparing howard to pritchard.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
            as collegians, in no world was foster a better player than howard. you are just wrong about that. foster has one skill set that got him drafted along with the size and athletic ability to make it in the league. but as a college player, he was not on howard's level.

            hansbrough was obviously better in college, but it isn't in a landslide. IF butler somehow manages another ncaa run, which could very well happen if they upset pitt, you're looking at two players in howard and hansbrough who have nearly an identical resume as far as team accomplishments and their roles on those teams. statistically, hansbrough took many more shots at unc. but nobody on a butler team will ever average 20ppg based on the style butler plays. the %s are equal. howard shot 44.5% from 3 this year. howard is superior to hansbrough defensively and in understanding the game. hans was a much better rebounder and leverages his body better, but howard's rebounding numbers suffer due to butler's team philosophy on defensive rebounding. EVERYBODY crashes the defensive rebound.

            as a diehard iu and butler fan, you really irked me the wrong way comparing howard to pritchard.
            I'm not talking about their college careers. Isn't the title of this thread "Pro Potential of Matt Howard"? Am I somehow misreading that? To that end, I never said Foster was a better collegian than Matt Howard. For starters, I didn't even watch Foster in college and to this day have not seen a single minute of him playing on any other level than the NBA. I just know what he can do in the NBA.

            Hansbrough vs. Howard in their college careers was a landslide, sorry. Hansbrough was one of the most decorated and best college players ever. He won a national title and he played against the best competition in an elite conference. He was national player of the year. Howard has had a splendid career, and he's obviously a winner, but his resume doesn't stack up to Tyler's and it's not even remotely close.

            As far as irking you with the Pritchard comment, sorry, but get over it. I thought it was very extreme and silly to compare Howard to Foster/Hansbrough, so I made an equally extreme and silly comparison to a lousy college player.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

              ^
              considering all we know of howard is what he has done in college, isn't it necessary to compare howard to foster and hansbrough as college players? you say it's extreme and silly but haven't once mentioned why you find it silly from a basketball perspective.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                Disclaimer: I am by no means saying Howard is remotely close to Kevin Love (or even that their games are at all similar)

                However, didn't people once upon a time say Kevin Love wasn't athletic enough to make it in the NBA? That he didn't have a position?

                I'm just making the point that people are writing off Howard already, when against any elite college big man he's played against (aside from maybe Greg Monroe), he's played very well.

                He has a great feel around the rim. Honestly, this is a strength of a player than no stat can detail until you actually watch someone play. However, Howard might have some of the best feel for the rim out of any college big man I've seen in recent memory. Additionally, he's an incredibly smart player. He doesn't use athleticism to beat you, rather he uses angles and his body to get his shots off. Will that type of stuff work in the pros? Maybe not. Certainly, Howard can't expect to be anything more than a backup rotational player AT BEST. However, just like his team, everyone seems to write them off, but they always seem to come through.

                Additionally, if guys like Kosta Koufos, Byron Mullens, and DJ White are still in the league, I don't think you can look me in the eyes with a straight face and tell me that Matt Howard doesn't belong, without at least giving him a shot. Yes, those guys are taller, but Howard is the better player than the first two (I saw both those matchups live) and probably is at least in the same arena as DJ White. And don't tell me, "Well, those first two guys are seven footers." I'll tell you who cares? I'd rather have a guy that plays like he's 6"10 than a 7 footer who plays like he's 6"5.
                Last edited by PR07; 03-18-2011, 10:30 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                  Howard has now faced the #1 and #2 rebounding teams in the country and has won both games with rebounds at the end of each. Just say'n...

                  *Edit* They're the #7 and #8 rebounding teams in the country, #1 and 2 in their bracket.
                  Last edited by indyaway; 03-19-2011, 09:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                    Originally posted by indyaway View Post
                    Howard has now faced the #1 and #2 rebounding teams in the country and has won both games with rebounds at the end of each. Just say'n...
                    The kid is the Academic All-American of the Year, has scored the winning points in two straight NCAA tournament games.

                    Even Charlie Sheen thinks that guy is #winning.

                    Yet its ludicrous to compare him to Jeff Foster and Tyler Hansbrough, when you have a carbon copy in Tom Pritchard just 60 miles away.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      Yet its ludicrous to compare him to Jeff Foster and Tyler Hansbrough, when you have a carbon copy in Tom Pritchard just 60 miles away.
                      Other than 3" of height and 3 RPG Howard's senior year stat-line is as good or better than Foster's was his final year, and dare I say Howard accumulated his numbers against tougher competition than Foster ever faced at Southwest Texas State (a directional school).

                      Again, 2 straight games against the best rebounding teams in the country and both times he magically is in the right place, right time to win the game off the boards. It's not coincidence, IMO.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                        Originally posted by indyaway View Post
                        Other than 3" of height and 3 RPG Howard's senior year stat-line is as good or better than Foster's was his final year, and dare I say Howard accumulated his numbers against tougher competition than Foster ever faced at Southwest Texas State (a directional school).
                        Well that's a lot of height, and a lot of rebounds.

                        I really don't know how anyone can watch Howard play and not see remarkable similarities to Tyler Hansbrough.

                        It isn't an insult to Tyler to say that. It's praise for Howard.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          Well that's a lot of height, and a lot of rebounds.

                          I really don't know how anyone can watch Howard play and not see remarkable similarities to Tyler Hansbrough.

                          It isn't an insult to Tyler to say that. It's praise for Howard.
                          I still see more Brian Cardinal with a better motor and better post game.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                            I see an NBA journeyman. I'll come out to Conseco for him like I came out for Gordon Hayward. Howard is an awesome guy and a legend. He's in his 2nd Sweet 16 and it wouldn't surprise me if he's playing in his 2nd Final Four in 2 weeks.

                            GO DAWGS!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                              Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                              The kid is the Academic All-American of the Year, has scored the winning points in two straight NCAA tournament games.

                              Even Charlie Sheen thinks that guy is #winning.

                              Yet its ludicrous to compare him to Jeff Foster and Tyler Hansbrough, when you have a carbon copy in Tom Pritchard just 60 miles away.
                              Please never compare Matt Howard to Tom Pritchard ever again. That's a slap in the face to Butler Basketball and what they've accomplished.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pro Potential of Matt Howard: Is he Foster 2.0?

                                Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                                Please never compare Matt Howard to Tom Pritchard ever again. That's a slap in the face to Butler Basketball and what they've accomplished.
                                That was his point.

                                He was ridiculing the IU fan who made that exact comparison. And rightfully so.
                                "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                                -Lance Stephenson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X