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.com's top 15 championship contenders

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

  • Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

    http://www.nba.com/2013/news/feature...f:nbahpt3a#top



    3) Indiana (49-32, first place, Central Division; lost Eastern Conference Finals): The Pacers are the quintessential team-with-no-holes entering this season. They're deep, they're big, they're experienced, they play championship-level defense, they like their coach and they addressed their bench shortcomings. And, they get Danny Granger back. There's no reason they shouldn't be right where they were last season: playing in late, late May for a shot at The Finals.


    great read check it out guys.
    Impossible Is Nothing

  • #2
    Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

    Link didn't work for me...who's #2?
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
      Link didn't work for me...who's #2?
      Spurs.


      http://www.nba.com/2013/news/feature...f:nbahpt3a#top

      TOP O' THE WORLD, MA!
      We restart our top 15 power rankings this week, taking into account all of the moves made by teams since the end of the postseason -- the Draft, trades, free agent signings, coaching hires (and firing), everything. Now you can get on me if I have your team ranked too low (or not at all); this is my top 15 in the league with preseason play underway.

      1) Miami (66-16, first place, Southeast Division; won NBA championship): As Shane Battier said this week, complacency is not going to be the Heat's issue this season. What will be is the wear and tear of three straight years that ended in The Finals (not to mention USA Basketball competition) on James, Wade and Bosh. But the Heat is well-positioned to sacrifice regular season wins (the rending of garments by the 24-hour media following a Miami loss no longer registers in SpoelstraWorld) to assure health going into the postseason.

      2) San Antonio (58-24, first place, Southwest Division; lost NBA Finals): It says here that Marco Belinelli is going to be a perfect fit for the Spurs, providing Popovich with some special moments with great offensive plays and all kinds of new cussing out opportunities when he blows the occasional defensive assignment.

      3) Indiana (49-32, first place, Central Division; lost Eastern Conference Finals): The Pacers are the quintessential team-with-no-holes entering this season. They're deep, they're big, they're experienced, they play championship-level defense, they like their coach and they addressed their bench shortcomings. And, they get Danny Granger back. There's no reason they shouldn't be right where they were last season: playing in late, late May for a shot at The Finals.

      4) L.A. Clippers (56-26, first place, Pacific Division; lost in first round): Can you imagine what the Clippers would be like if they'd pulled off the Doc Rivers-KG Daily Double? As it is, just adding Rivers to bring his coaching and psychological chops to a team that hasn't heard them over and over is worth a few more regular season wins -- and more importantly, a real chance to go deep into the playoffs. The Clips have all they need.

      5) Memphis (56-26, second place, Southwest; lost in Western Conference finals): On the surface, the Grizz should switch relatively seamlessly from coach Lionel Hollins to Dave Joerger, who has won wherever he coached in basketball's minor leagues. But you can't know how a coach will do in the NBA until you see him do it under the most intense spotlight and pressure. At the least, Joerger is certain to try and get more offense and more Ed Davis into the Memphis rotation.

      6) Golden State (47-35, second place, Pacific Division; lost in conference semifinals): My only question with the Warriors is the whole Harrison Barnes-Andre Iguodala dynamic, which Mark Jackson (see below) doesn't seem to think will be a problem. Time will tell. But a healthy Andrew Bogut could be a difference-maker in the West. He is one of the best two-way centers in the game when he's on, which hasn't been the case for the last three seasons.

      7) Oklahoma City (60-22, first place, Northwest Division; lost in conference semifinals): Presti insisted last week that Westbrook's repaired meniscus is fine, and that it was a "loose stitch" that caused the soreness which required another arthroscopic procedure on Westbrook's knee. Any hopes of a return to The Finals hinge on Presti and Westbrook's doctors being right.

      8) Brooklyn (49-33, second place, Atlantic Division; lost in first round): The greatest experiment since Mike Farrell replaced Wayne Rogers on M*A*S*H begins on Atlantic Avenue. Could it work? Sure; any team with an in-shape Deron Williams, Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce, Garnett and Brook Lopez as its starting five, with Andrei Kirilenko and Jason Terry coming off the bench, is one to be reckoned with. Will it work? I have no earthly idea. I don't know if any of those starters will stay healthy all season. I don't know what kind of coach Jason Kidd is going to be. I don't know if Pierce is still capable of staying in front of his man. I don't know who takes the shot with the game on the line. We'll all find out together.

      9) New York (54-28, first place, Atlantic; lost in conference semifinals): Why James Dolan decided to shake up a perfectly good front office by demoting Glen Grunwald is beyond knowing. (And this is nothing against Steve Mills, who I know and like a lot.) The Knicks have a strong team and a superstar that people pay top dollar to see, and a very good coach in Mike Woodson. What exactly was the problem?

      10) Houston (45-37, third place, Southwest; lost in first round): Dwight Howard has all the money, a superstar entering his prime playing next to him (James Harden), a point guard who should thrive playing screen-roll with him (Jeremy Lin/Patrick Beverly), shooters that will surround him (pick one) and give him space to operate in the paint, a coach (Kevin McHale) who understands the plight of a big man and the low-post game better than anybody and a fan base that will adore his every move and utterance because he spurned the Lakers to come to Houston. Nothing less than an MVP-caliber season in return will suffice.

      11) Chicago (45-37, second place, Central; lost in conference semifinals): Rose is back. The Bulls are contenders again. 'Nuff said.

      12) Denver (57-25, second place, Northwest; lost in first round): The Nuggets will still be more than athletic enough to give most teams fits on many nights, even with Iguodala gone and Danilo Gallinari coming back from his ACL tear. But Ty Lawson has to avoid the shooting slumps that plagued him at points last season.

      13) Atlanta (44-38, second place, Southeast, lost in first round): Danny Ferry now has a coach of his choosing in ex-Spur Budenholzer and started remaking the roster, bringing in Paul Millsap and Elton Brand and rookie guard Dennis Schroeder. With holdovers Al Horford, Jeff Teague and Kyle Korver, the Hawks shouldn't drop off too much from last season.

      14) L.A. Lakers (45-37, third place, Pacific; lost in first round): For the first time, probably, since 1998 -- the year before Phil Jackson's arrival -- the Lakers enter a season with no expectations or belief that they're a legit title contender. They have some talent here and there, but it's hard to see it all fitting into something cohesive that will scare anyone -- especially until Kobe Bryant's return.

      15) Dallas (41-41, fourth place, Southwest; did not make playoffs):*The Mavs got Dirk Nowitzki some help, especially at point guard, bringing in a ball handler in Jose Calderon that does not -- does not -- turn the ball over. That will make coach Rick Carlisle happiest of all.
      I think the list overrates some Teams ( Dallas and Lakers ) and underrates others ( Bulls ).
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

        Top 15

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

          At the bottom of that page there was a quote from Chandler on getting beat by Hibbert last year. Links to the article from last week.

          http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...icle-1.1476594

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

            Why not make it top 16 and be done with it?
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

              11 is way too low for Chicago. Chicago should be fifth at worst.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                11 is way too low for Chicago. Chicago should be fifth at worst.
                having bulls that low is a joke.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  Why not make it top 16 and be done with it?
                  ideally top 30.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

                    I think the Bulls aren't top title contenders because if you can limit Rose, the whole team suffers
                    Smothered Chicken!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

                      The Bulls and Rose still have a lot to prove before they deserve the respect most people are giving them. Yeah I would bet they end up better than Brooklyn and New York, but I wouldn't put them as being clearly above them until they prove it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

                        Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                        I think the Bulls aren't top title contenders because if you can limit Rose, the whole team suffers
                        We've been through this, remember what Danny said a few years ago?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Nba.com's top 15 championship contenders

                          Originally posted by pumpk35 View Post
                          We've been through this, remember what Danny said a few years ago?
                          Nope, what did he say?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X