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

Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

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

  • Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

    http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celt...format=&page=3

    A big Pierce of puzzle: Celtics star changes to fit new coach
    By Mark Murphy
    Friday, April 22, 2005

    Sometimes you see darkness before crawling out into the sun.

    Paul Pierce admitted yesterday that during the lowest points this season, he thought about playing somewhere else.

    ``You think about all of that,'' the Celtics captain said after yesterday's practice, on the eve of his team's third straight first-round playoff series against Indiana. ``At times I thought this was not the best situation for me. What veteran player wouldn't if his team wasn't doing well?

    ``I never asked to be traded, though. I never lulled, and I never missed a practice.''

    He admittedly chafed, though, under the direction of his fourth NBA coach, Doc Rivers. There were fights between the two - some apparently over the top.

    ``I guess I got a little hot,'' he said of a contentious situation that carried beyond two brief courtside flare-ups with Rivers after he was benched this season. ``I know of one - no, two - arguments that ya'll don't know about.''

    Arguments, perhaps, that made it difficult to stay in the same room with his coach?

    Pierce paused, smiled quizzically, and said, ``I'll have to talk to you about that later.''

    To hear Pierce describe his situation now, it's like last Monday's cloudless marathon weather. He's going to the playoffs for the fourth straight time, with a third seed that flies in the face of the Celtics' struggle to move over .500 the first half of the season.

    Back then he was asked to sacrifice points for balance, ego for the greater good, and Pierce wasn't always the good soldier. He often came across as petulant and reluctant, despite a pressing desire to carry the team somewhere better.

    ``It was a huge adjustment for me,'' Pierce said of dealing with Rivers and his unsparing approach. ``It was not only his style, but also adjusting to the players.

    ``It was tough on me, because I had to be out here and take a lesser role to guys who were pretty much unproven, and that was hard for me. Once I got past that, I started to feel more comfortable in my role.''

    Setting the Pacers

    Funny how all routes lead back to the Indiana Pacers.

    In more secure times, when the Celtics upset the Pacers in the first round of the 2003 playoffs, Pierce was the most relentless driver in the league. He won the man-to-man battle with Ron Artest, in part because the Pacers couldn't or wouldn't help their stopper, and Pierce pitched a tent on the foul line as a result.

    With Antoine Walker gone, the load fell on a dejected Pierce during last spring's sweep by the Pacers. His press conference after Game 3 in the FleetCenter - highlighted by the comment ``this isn't why I signed a long-term contract'' - was as dour as his four-game 34.2 shooting percentage.

    His moodiness seemed to worsen this winter. By the time Walker returned via a Feb. 24 trade, Pierce was a drowning, disillusioned star.

    Walker, however, chose to look the other way yesterday.

    ``He's been fine,'' the Celtics forward said. ``When you don't win it's frustrating. Paul's a competitor, and he wants to win. That's a frustrating season when you hover around .500.''

    The Walker trade's effect on Pierce's game has been well documented. Double teams have been virtually scrapped. Not coincidentally, Pierce is getting his best looks at the basket in two years, with defenses now pinned by a pick-your-poison rotation that includes Walker, Ricky Davis, Gary Payton, Raef LaFrentz and rookie Al Jefferson.

    Perhaps the most notable sign of change is the fact that Pierce, thanks to an 8-of-14 shooting performance against New Jersey Wednesday, finished the regular season with the highest shooting percentage (45.5) of his career.

    Rivers admitted there were some hot moments, but he said to look at the end result. With the suspended Artest on the shelf until next fall, Pacers coach Rick Carlisle will have to be particularly inventive to devise a workable Pierce double team.

    ``I was asking him to do things he never did before, but his numbers improved, and he's a more efficient player now,'' Rivers said. ``One thing I give Paul credit for is that he was not frustrated with the changes, but that the changes weren't working. None of that credit goes to me - it's all for Paul.

    ``I think he saw us scoring more points, saw his field goal percentage going up, and then making the changes were easy. But he was the guy who made the changes. Last year he got the ball and then everyone stood around and watched him play.''

    Beyond the arguments, according to Rivers, there has been plenty of communication.

    ``We've had a ton of meetings - on planes, in my hotel room, just talking things over,'' Rivers said. ``I want to know, sometimes, where he's at. Sometimes it can be hard to tell. But as coaches we believe in communication.

    ``I know there were arguments, with me taking him out of a game one time. But I also knew that I had to do what I had to do. At times you know you won't make someone happy. But that's sports. That's what business is, too.''

    Growin' on each other

    Rivers said that if nothing else, ``We always have respect for each other.''

    For Pierce's part, ``I guess I got it, to use one of Doc's favorite terms.''

    Rivers' ``They don't get it'' remark - which he pinned on the entire team following a dismal loss in Philadelphia April 12 - clearly grated on Pierce.

    But at the same time he said, ``Yeah, I'm happy. We are where I knew we could be. I like our chemistry now, our team. I can't wait to see where we go now. I think we match up with Detroit, Miami and Indiana. This team is the best team I've played on since I've been a Celtic.''

    He even smiled when asked about dodging the trade bullet and remaining a Celtic. Then again, he's been around long enough to understand that life is much like the New England weather.

    ``I could see myself here next year,'' Pierce said with an emphatic but unconvincing nod, as a cloud moved overhead. ``But you never know.''

  • #2
    Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

    I agree with Pierce this is the best Celtic team

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

      Let's hear his tune after the series. If the Pacers beat them I bet he demands a trade.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

        Originally posted by travmil
        Let's hear his tune after the series. If the Pacers beat them I bet he demands a trade.
        Pierce has never demanded a trade, even on bad teams prone to dealing away talent and getting nothing in return (Billups, Joe Johnson, etc.)

        People have extrapolated a few international games in which PP was not on the same wavelength with his coach and teammates and extrapolated what they saw to assert that he is some type of eternally crying malcontent.

        Pierce's main weakness is not that he is a jerk or selfish, it is that he is not particularly a leader and doesn't thrive on being the sole focal point of the offense. He likes having a guy like Walker to defer to when he is a little off his game.


        About this being the best Celtics team, it is certainly the deepest and the best offensively in the last 10 years. The ECF team played much better defense though. Dick Harter defense.
        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


        • #5
          Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

          One of the reasons I predict a Celtics win (sorry) is... I hate Ron Artest. I'm done with him. But I know what kind of difference-maker he is. He can limit Pierce to 20 on very poor shooting. Without him to stop Pierce, this series could be a nightmare because Doc Rivers is going to look to go to him more now that it's the playoffs. Gonna be tough to stop this guy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

            I don't buy that one bit pacertom. Put yourself in Pierce's shoes. He knows that Boston's management was prepared to blow this team up at midseason rather than retool for the playoffs. That means he was inches from being traded so the Celts could build from the ground up. I highly doubt that Pierce would have been part of those plans because as you pointed out, he's not a leader, and deferrs when his game is off. Let's say that after the Celts season is over, and they've been dispatched by the Pacers yet again, and the team is showing no signs of improvement significant enough to move up in the rising east. If that happens, and there's a good shot it will, if you were Paul Pierce what would you do? I'm not saying the guy is a malcontent jerk by any stretch. I'm saying he's a realist, and knows he's at the point in his career where he needs to find a team and a situation that will get it done for him, since it isn't going to happen in Boston.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

              Do I recall that last year we were all raving about C Mark Blount? Whatever happened to him.

              IIRC, there was lots of talk on this board about how impressive he looked and how much we'd like to find a way to acquire him - talk that was quelled when we drafted Harrison.

              I haven't heard anyone mention him - what happened to him?
              "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

                Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                I haven't heard anyone mention him - what happened to him?
                He's had an awful season. Very soft, no defense, and phoned in the last 30 or so games.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

                  Originally posted by btowncolt
                  A shiny new contract.
                  That too, classic Dampier syndrome...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

                    Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                    Do I recall that last year we were all raving about C Mark Blount?
                    Nope, it wasn't "we all." It was just me.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

                      Originally posted by Anthem
                      Nope, it wasn't "we all." It was just me.
                      Can you blame me for my mistake, then? You speak with such authority and power, I assumed you spoke for everyone!
                      "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

                        Originally posted by Vicious Tyrant
                        Can you blame me for my mistake, then? You speak with such authority and power, I assumed you spoke for everyone!
                        I'm not sure if I should be honored or embarrassed...
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

                          Originally posted by Anthem
                          I'm not sure if I should be honored or embarrassed...
                          "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Boston's Paul Pierce, "This team is the best I've played on."

                            Blount is a plodding half-court player. He doesn't fit into River's system at all. LaFrentz beat him out as soon as hid knee got near 100%. Next year he will be behind BOTH Kendrick Perkins and Al Jefferson at backup 4/5.

                            Blount would be better under Carlisle, but he was still way overpaid. He milked a good second half of a contract year for all it was worth. He is their best option as a low post defender however.
                            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

                            Working...
                            X