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 top ten shooting guards SI.COM

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

  • #16
    Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

    I have no idea why Wade is above Kobe, or why Iguodala is on the list at all. He isn't even a shooting guard.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

      Originally posted by spreedom
      Iguodala is on the list at all. He isn't even a shooting guard.
      He is now.

      The whole 5 specific "positions" thing has gotten pretty outdated anyway. There's point guards (maybe), wings, and bigs for the most part.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

        Originally posted by spreedom View Post
        I have no idea why Wade is above Kobe, or why Iguodala is on the list at all. He isn't even a shooting guard.
        Put me in the 'Kobe should be ahead of Wade' camp too

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

          Originally posted by spreedom View Post
          I have no idea why Wade is above Kobe, or why Iguodala is on the list at all. He isn't even a shooting guard.
          Sure he is. I think Iguodala is a more natural 2 guard than Paul George is. If we call it "shooting" guard, then no, probably not

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

            Not to mention, Iggy was pretty fantastic in the playoffs.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

              Originally posted by Derek2k3 View Post
              You genuinely believe Dwyane Wade is the best 2 guard in the NBA?

              I personally do not. Give me Kobe or Harden, than you very much.
              Did you not see Wade torch us in the playoffs? I don't like the guy, but it isn't absurd to rank Wade #1
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                I think you have to give more consideration for injurys. If a player is never on the court they can't impact a game. EG doesn't belong on any top list until he proves he can play a full season. Iggy as usual is over rated.
                Last edited by Pacerized; 10-15-2012, 09:18 PM.
                Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                  What has EJ even done period to be top 10?

                  I just ran an eFG% list (FGM plus bonus .5 make for each 3PM/FGA) for all G or G-F with at least 30 games played for the last 3 seasons, meaning players can have 3 entries on the list.

                  Gordon's 1st appearance is 68th. 68th from a top 10 SG who's main role is shooting/scoring? Even if every other guy ahead of him had 3 listings, that still puts him at 23rd. Now maybe if it also features not only PGs and SGs but also all SFs (it doesn't) then he might be hitting into the 7-10 range.

                  But guys like Wes Matthews, Jodie Meeks, JJ Redick, Afflalo, JRich, and Sefalosha all show up with recent seasons shooting better than him. His 10-11 season is 16th in Points per Minute among 30 games played guys with at least 15 mpg, but it's no better than Jamal Crawford's season. Kobe, KMart, Wade and Ellis all have multiple appearances before him on that list.

                  And he doesn't have a season in the top 100 by those same criteria (last 3, 30 GP, 15 mpg) when you go by 3P%. For that you want Ben Gordon, Courtney Lee, Avery Bradley, not to mention Ray Allen, Matthews, Affalo or even OJ Mayo.

                  By Basketball-Ref Paul George is a straight F and doesn't show up on these queries. Expanding it to include F and F-G adds in not only Paul George but other shooters like Mike Miller and Kyle Korver, as well as Brandon Rush (F-G). And they all shoot the deep ball better and natually maintain a higher overall eFG%.


                  Tony Allen and Paul George also make a nice case due to steals.


                  Eric Gordon is a nice kid, but he's only been really an average scoring guard who is injured a lot. He's not proven to be any more unstoppable than a lot of other players when he's on the court, and being at his best maybe 12-15th in wing/SG style scoring is not enough to overcome his injuries and push him into a top 10 SG ranking.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                    I'm sorry, Manu Ginobili is still pretty disrespected. Am I overrating him by saying I'd take him over anyone not named Wade and Kobe?

                    Paul George..um...you know what, I do think he's in the top third of starting shooting guards, so if you think about it that way, maybe the ranking isn't that off.

                    And I think I'd take Kobe with one arm and one leg (which is essentially what he is) over any other shooting guard. Wade is often injured and is losing his athleticism himself - and he's not nearly as skilled as Kobe.
                    Last edited by Sookie; 10-16-2012, 12:51 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                      I'm sorry, Manu Ginobili is still pretty disrespected. Am I overrating him by saying I'd take him over anyone not named Wade and Kobe?

                      Paul George..um...you know what, I do think he's in the top third of starting shooting guards, so if you think about it that way, maybe the ranking isn't that off.

                      And I think I'd take Kobe with one arm and one leg (which is essentially what he is) over any other shooting guard. Wade is often injured and is losing his athleticism himself - and he's not nearly as skilled as Kobe.
                      Kobe's athleticism has all but left him, and he's still probably the best pure perimeter scorer not named Durant right now. His use of angles, shot fakes, and pace is fundamental to a Tee.

                      Wade has relied on his strength and athleticism for years, and it's finally starting to catch up to him. If he doesn't make some changes to his game, his scoring numbers will fall off as he continues to age and his athleticism erodes.

                      Also: I don't think Ginobili has "it" any more. Can he get up for a playoff game or two? Sure. But during the reg season, and over the course of a series, he wears down. Maybe he was still recovering from his injuries the times I saw him last year, but he definitely didn't seem like Manu of old.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                        Wade at #1 is right. He's freaking amazing. His only issue is health, and that comes from just playing hard and giving it his all.

                        Look at Granger, he's already admitted he doesn't play hard all the time to play longer. Not something I want or want to hear from the leader of my team.
                        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Kobe's athleticism has all but left him, and he's still probably the best pure perimeter scorer not named Durant right now. His use of angles, shot fakes, and pace is fundamental to a Tee.

                          Wade has relied on his strength and athleticism for years, and it's finally starting to catch up to him. If he doesn't make some changes to his game, his scoring numbers will fall off as he continues to age and his athleticism erodes.

                          Also: I don't think Ginobili has "it" any more. Can he get up for a playoff game or two? Sure. But during the reg season, and over the course of a series, he wears down. Maybe he was still recovering from his injuries the times I saw him last year, but he definitely didn't seem like Manu of old.
                          I'd still take Manu over Harden (albiet, for now), Johnson, and Iguadala. He's as broken down as Kobe but he's similar to Kobe in that he doesn't need to be healthy to be good.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                            Next year I think PG is pushing the top 5 of this list, but suprised he made it based on last year. He was solid, no doubt, but too inconsistent, I think he was just on the outside of this list looking in.

                            Next year though, if he gets 15+ without suffering in efficiency and keeps up his reputation as a defensive stopper I see no reason why him vs. Iguodala, or him vs. Manu with another year of age on his back couldn't at least be entertained.

                            I'll take this slot as making up for Roy being so low in their lists.
                            Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                              I didn't think they would put PG above Shumpert. Not that he doesn't deserve it, but with all the hype Knicks and their players get, its a nice surprise.

                              Also, good heavens SG's are awful... I thought DeRozan was pretty good?
                              //

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: NBA top ten shooting guards SI.COM

                                Originally posted by Pace Maker View Post
                                I didn't think they would put PG above Shumpert. Not that he doesn't deserve it, but with all the hype Knicks and their players get, its a nice surprise.

                                Also, good heavens SG's are awful... I thought DeRozan was pretty good?
                                Shumpert was horrific offensively and Derozan was horrific period last season a "scorer" posting 16.7 ppg on .503 TS% not a good defender rebounder, passer or shooter. Just bad bad bad.
                                Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X