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

NBA's Most Disappointing (SI.com)

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

  • NBA's Most Disappointing (SI.com)

    Tinsley is #4

    NBA's Most Disappointing Players

    1 Boris Diaw
    Diaw's subdued 2006-07 run seems to typify all that's wrong with the players on this list. Flush with a nice contract extension, Diaw came into camp out of shape and has battled injuries all season, indifference for parts of it. All this while struggling to fit in with a team that has (willingly, we're sure) had to adjust to the addition of Amare Stoudemire's 33 minutes, 21 points, and 10 rebounds per game. The most worrisome trait of Diaw's season is his obvious regression to the meek, wannabe point guard we saw for two seasons in Atlanta. The Suns aren't really hurting for easy buckets, but Diaw should be demanding that the ball run through his big mitts more often when Steve Nash isn't running things -- as his shot attempts, assists, points and rebounds per minute are all down significantly from last season.

    2 Vince Carter
    Basketball, more than any other professional team sport, allows players in contract years a chance to significantly alter their financial outlook. Usually this isn't a perk for the team that currently employs the contract-year athlete. But for the New Jersey Nets, who were 22nd in offensive efficiency last season, a revved-up and gunning Vince Carter could do nothing but help the bottom lines for both franchise and player alike. Instead, VC has floated, showing signs of inspired play, but usually preferring to let the game come to him (especially in the fourth quarter, sadly), and let the game stay far, far away from him on defense.

    3 Darko Milicic
    Overall, Darko has played better this season than in 2005-06. He's outplayed the guy to whom he was needlessly losing minutes earlier in the year (Tony Battie), and he's still only 21. But these facts don't go far toward explaining away what should have been a breakout year for the Magic forward. Per 40 minutes, Milicic is averaging 13.4 points, 9.1 rebounds, and 2.9 blocks -- solid numbers -- but a step back from the 14.6 points, 7.8 rebounds, and 3.9 blocks per 40 he gave the Magic for 30 games last season. Throw in the often listless play, and the idea that the 20-year-old Darko is currently outplaying the 21-year-old version, and you've got yourself a disappointing season.

    4 Jamaal Tinsley
    We half-expected Larry Bird and Donnie Walsh to take a blowtorch to the Indiana Pacers last summer. Or, at least try to, anyway -- because trading some of those contracts would have been pretty tough. Instead, they kept nearly everyone, even adding a player (Al Harrington) who spent the first six years of his eight-year career in Indianapolis. And, after passing on Marcus Williams in the first round of last June's Draft, it became obvious that the Pacers' braintrust still thought of the 29-year-old Tinsley as the team's point guard of the future. Tinsley has repaid that support with sub-40 percent shooting, a pitiful (and aggressive, at 2.8 3-pointers per game) outside touch, bad defense -- and, worse, two incidents at local pubs that left observers wondering if Tinsley isn't really the best influence on young shooting guard Marquis Daniels, who tagged along on both nights out.

    5 Andrei Kirilenko
    It's pretty obvious what's happened to AK47: he's playing more minutes at small forward, 50 percent of Utah's entire minute allotment at the position, in fact, and he's not that great on the wing. Or, more specifically, he's not as great on the wing when Carlos Boozer is at power forward. With Boozer scoring and rebounding down low, the Jazz are winning, but Kirilenko is struggling through a tough season. Kirilenko isn't seeing the ball as much, and when he does he's actually turning the ball over more (in 16 percent of the possessions he uses, as opposed to 14 percent last season) despite being less involved in the Jazz offense. His three-point shooting (31 percent career entering 2006-07, 19 percent this season) has fallen off the proverbial cliff, his rebounding is down (fewer rebounds to get with Boozer around), and he's well on his way to establishing a career-low in blocks per minute. Could all these back and knee injuries have finally caught up to the relatively young (turned 26 in February) Kirilenko?

    6 Sean May
    We hoped May would have learned his lesson after a tough rookie season, one that saw him show up to camp out of shape, suffer the requisite achy knees, and play in just 23 games. Now, when he can stay on the floor this season, May has been playing at a per-minute level that suggests a future All-Star appearance (12 points, 6.7 rebounds, two assists in only 24 minutes per game, at age 22). But he can't stay on the floor for long because of those bad knees, and he's still out of shape. As it stands, May has played five times over the last two months, 35 games overall in his second season, so maybe this year will serve as the wake-up call. Sometimes it takes a couple of rings to wake the big guys up.

    7 Mike Bibby
    Also in a contract year, Bibby busted out of the gate shooting a woeful 36 percent in the month of November. No problem, it seemed, because Bibby had started 2005-06 shooting poorly after spending more time in the weight room than on the basketball court over the offseason, and he'd righted the ship by mid-December. This year? It took him a little longer -- Bibby only recently pushed his shooting percentage past the 40-percent barrier, bad news for a player who was hitting 45 percent of his career looks entering 2006-07. And the fact that Bibby kept chucking through the slumps even while the misses piled up -- instead of finding more looks for the sweet-shooting Kevin Martin -- probably cost the Kings a few wins, and another trip to the postseason.

    8 Ricky Davis
    Davis' averages of 16.6 points, 4.8 assists and four rebounds in 37.6 minutes per game aren't bad, they're pretty solid in fact. But the T'wolves guard is offering about the same per-minute production at age 27 that he was giving teams in his early 20s. Davis is supposed to be entering his prime, playing for a team that runs plenty of plays for him, so shouldn't we see some sort of statistical spike at some point? Davis is still skirting by on the same raw talent he showcased mere weeks after joining the NBA in 1999, though he should approach the 20 points per game barrier in 2007-08, a contract year.

    9 Speedy Claxton
    Claxton's knees have been killing him all season, his first as a Hawk, taking the lift off an already shaky jump shot and robbing him of the potential for the sort of pell-mell drives that allowed him to flourish in years past and grab a four-year, $25-million dollar deal from Atlanta. Claxton has been among the worst rotation players in the game since the season's outset. He's shot 32.7 percent from the floor, and is probably going to sit out for the rest of the season after a March that saw him score two points in nearly 35 minutes of court time.

    10 Andrew Bogut
    We carped endlessly about Milwaukee's insistence on handing Jamaal Magloire 30 minutes a game last season. How it made no sense for someone like Mags to see the ball so much when he struggled to score and remained turnover prone, especially while rookie center Bogut was stuck playing out of position at power forward. The offseason hits, Magloire is traded for (essentially) three road alternate jerseys and a roll of ankle tape, and this is how Andrew takes to the pivot: 12.3 points, 8.8 rebounds, 2.9 assists, and half a block a game. Not bad -- he's still only 22 -- but he seems way too content to let Milwaukee's cast of guards chuck 17.4 3-pointers a game, while Bogut has to subsist off put-backs and broken plays. Even worse, and this is no exaggeration -- Andrew makes Zach Randolph look like Bo Outlaw defensively. He might be the worst help defender in the NBA.


    On the cusp: Stromile Swift, Nazr Mohammed, Larry Hughes

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ing/index.html
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: NBA's Most Disappointing (SI.com)

    Originally posted by SI.com
    after passing on Marcus Williams in the first round of last June's Draft...
    Get off it already, Marcus Williams is a THEIF!!! For me and many others, that is ENOUGH of a reason to pass on the guy. There are some things that you call bad judgement, or not thinking...BUT STEALING in the manner that he did is beyond reproach. To go out and plan ripping off computers is not a guy that this team should have ever considered.

    Before you even tell me about the bad apples that are currently on the team, I can at least say the situations they were in were impulsive poor decisions, not thought out attempts of theivery.

    Screw Marcus Williams!
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA's Most Disappointing (SI.com)

      Gnome, the problem is there's a half dozen other good PG's we passed on too.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NBA's Most Disappointing (SI.com)

        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
        Gnome, the problem is there's a half dozen other good PG's we passed on too.
        Can you name a couple. I'm not saying there aren't, I just don't remember. (Keep in mind I'm not too big a fan of Rajon Rondo)

        And even then, the question becomes: better pick than Shawne?

        Comment

        Working...
        X