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

Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

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

  • Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

    Shareef Abdur-Rahim is listed as a center on NBA.com. Last year he started at center when Brad Miller was injured. However this year Miller is healthy and projected to start at C. I'm requesting that SAR be switched from straight center to C-F.

    Here is ESPN.com's Sacramento depth chart where he's projected to start at F: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/depth?team=sac

    Here is Sportsline's: http://www.sportsline.com/nba/teams/depth-chart/SAC

    Here is Sacramento's team roster page on NBA.com where he's listed as a forward: http://www.nba.com/kings/roster/roster.html

    I can come up with more if you like - he's listed as a CF on espn.com: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=0003

    and as a forward on sportsline where they say "he also has center eligibility in most leagues.": http://www.sportsline.com/nba/players/playerpage/6455

    edit: Not saying this should or should not pass (actually I think it should which is why I put it up) but it's the general format. Also, once the season starts, quotes from local news media (in this case the Sacramento Bee) supporting the position change can be useful.
    11
    Yes
    100.00%
    11
    No
    0.00%
    0

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 10-22-2007, 11:32 AM.
    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

  • #2
    Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

    I don't care that fantasy sites call him a guard or a wedgy, but if his team's site has him as a F then that is what he is IMO
    so I vote yes
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

      I found the site that statistically evaluates what positions players are used. I don't know how they get their information, but from the guys I looked up, it seems to make sense.

      It is hoopsstats.com

      Not that you need any help for this vote, but just as an example, they list Abdur-Rahim as playing 59 games at Center and 21 games at PF, and I am assuming that they are analyzing last season.

      http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...file/07/25/355

      This site is interesting for a number of reasons. They analyze whether or not a player won his positional matchup for each game. For example, Tinsley lost 16 of 19 matchups vs. top 10 point guards (he is ranked #21).
      http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...file/07/11/163
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-22-2007, 01:34 PM.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

        Originally posted by able View Post
        I don't care that fantasy sites call him a guard or a wedgy, but if his team's site has him as a F then that is what he is IMO
        so I vote yes
        For these votes, would it help you if I started a thread titled "Vote Results" or something like that or is it just as easy to pick them up as we go?
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
          I found the site that statistically evaluates what positions players are used. I don't know how they get their information, but from the guys I looked up, it seems to make sense.

          It is hoopsstats.com

          Not that you need any help for this vote, but just as an example, they list Abdur-Rahim as playing 59 games at Center and 21 games at PF, and I am assuming that they are analyzing last season.

          http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...file/07/25/355

          This site is interesting for a number of reasons. They analyze whether or not a player won his positional matchup for each game. For example, Tinsley lost 16 of 19 matchups vs. top 10 point guards (he is ranked #21).
          http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...file/07/11/163
          Thanks!
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

            I need some clarification on Rahim:

            NBA.com list him as a center on his bio page: http://www.nba.com/playerfile/sharee....html?nav=page

            But on the actual NBA.com roster he is listed as strictly a forward: http://www.nba.com/kings/roster/roster.html

            Then on the NBA.com depth chart he is listed as a PF/C: http://www.nba.com/fantasy/depthcharts_wc2.html

            My question is, what is the source of our initial player positions?

            It was my understanding that NBA.com was the source, but here's an example of where he's listed three different ways on their site.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

              Originally posted by Mistachill View Post
              I need some clarification on Rahim:

              NBA.com list him as a center on his bio page: http://www.nba.com/playerfile/sharee....html?nav=page

              But on the actual NBA.com roster he is listed as strictly a forward: http://www.nba.com/kings/roster/roster.html

              Then on the NBA.com depth chart he is listed as a PF/C: http://www.nba.com/fantasy/depthcharts_wc2.html

              My question is, what is the source of our initial player positions?

              It was my understanding that NBA.com was the source, but here's an example of where he's listed three different ways on their site.
              I took his current position from his player page - the fantasy depth charts are definitely out according to able.

              Good question though - part of this reason for an early vote thread is to figure things out (and hopefully it's pretty much a no-brainer so the questions don't get lost in the rest of the discussion).
              Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 10-22-2007, 03:43 PM.
              The poster formerly known as Rimfire

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

                Rim, you mentioned where you pulled his initial position from, but what I'm not clear on is what is the official source of a players initial position designation in what ever system we're using. The roster page or the bio page? To me that is actually very important.

                Take Rahim for example. On the roster page he is listed as a F, on the bio page he's a C.

                Personally I think it would have been more difficult to get him voted from a F (his natural position) to F/C than it would from a C to F/C.

                If someone could post a link as an example of where we starting from on this initial position designations that would clear up a lot for me.
                Last edited by Mistachill; 10-25-2007, 11:00 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

                  I understand wanting to use NBA,com as the source for this information, but I don't think what they have is really realistic. I pulled up the Nuggets, not sure why, and looked at their rosters, not fantasy but regular team pages, on 4 different sites.

                  http://www.nba.com/nuggets/roster/

                  http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/de...AnVGgHAvB70bYF

                  http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams/roster?team=den

                  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...s/nuggets.html

                  As you can see, NBA.com had the least amount of multi position listings. In fact, the other 3 sites seem to have almost identical listings. Steven Hunter not a F/C? Only on the NBA site. When you look at Toronto's roster they only have one center listed on NBA.com.

                  I'm not saying this to change the site we use for initial position selections, but if I am like everyone else, it would be nice not to have to vote on 80% of the players that actually play more than one position.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

                    Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                    I'm not saying this to change the site we use for initial position selections, but if I am like everyone else, it would be nice not to have to vote on 80% of the players that actually play more than one position.
                    I'm not sure we'll have to vote so often as much as have to give up getting gifts from the site we use.

                    I don't know about anyone else but from my roster, in the past I've had these 2-position players:

                    G-F
                    Lebron
                    Josh Smith
                    Joe Johnson

                    F-C
                    Boozer
                    Okur

                    Honestly, I don't think any of the above 3 are true 2-position players - or have been for some time. Lebron and JJ play SG, Josh Smith plays at SF and PF, Boozer plays at F and Okur at C. Smith has played SG when JJ started at PG or was injured (like last year). It's been a nice benefit and one I've built my team around but I can't scream too much at the fact that I probably can't justify a vote right now for any of the above players.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Keeper League Position Vote - Abdur-Rahim

                      So is it safe to assume based on the following link, Al Horford is going to be identified as a F/C from day one without a vote?

                      http://www.nba.com/hawks/roster/

                      Excuse my ignorance and maybe it was clearly posted somewhere and I missed it, where do I need to go to determine my player's current position designations absent any voting.

                      I apologize for being so confused about this issue.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X