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

Where do you rate Kobe all time?

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

  • #76
    Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    You can go on Youtube and see Chamberlain. I saw him in the early 70's and believe he was clearly better than Kareem. A lot more physical and athletic. He was like a bigger and much more skilled Dwight Howard. If he played in the 90's during the big man era, he would totally dominate Ewing. He would be better than the other centers with Hakeem, Kareem and a young Shaq coming in 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

    Edit: people who never saw Wilt play may not realize how mobile he was. Ewing was nowhere near his level. Imagine LeBron James with about 5 more inches. No, not quite that mobile. But he was a track star before he played basketball and was extremely athletic.
    I also saw Wilt go against Kareem at the end of his career and you are correct, Wilt was a whole lot better. Wilt was the best rebounder to ever play the game. He was also a great defender and shot blocker. He was as strong or stronger than Shaq and much more mobile. They changed the rules for Shaq. If he had played like that in Wilt's day, he would have fouled out of every game in the first quarter..... ...

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

      Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
      I'm surprised Oscar is so high on some of the lists.
      Oscar was one of the very best. He scored 30 points a game and still averaged ~ 9.5 assists, not to mention his rebounding. He was cursed by playing on a team that was not quite good enough to beat the Celtics in the playoffs. When he teamed with a young Jabbar he won the championship. He is the only player in the history of the NBA to have a triple double in his first game. He was the most dominate guard I ever saw play in the NBA.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        I also saw Wilt go against Kareem at the end of his career and you are correct, Wilt was a whole lot better. Wilt was the best rebounder to ever play the game. He was also a great defender and shot blocker. He was as strong or stronger than Shaq and much more mobile. They changed the rules for Shaq. If he had played like that in Wilt's day, he would have fouled out of every game in the first quarter..... ...
        Very well put.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

          Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
          sixth.... wow
          Yeah, I've moved him up a bit on the list after listening to the folks up here for a decade or so blab on about his overrated airness.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

            Some of these lists....well I don't even think they deserve to be commented on.


            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

              He's in my top ten for sure, but I really can't rank guys too much more specifically than that. TBH I have a ton of common ground with Bill Simmons as far as how guys like Jordan and Russell are ranked, but below those two I think the next 10-15 guys are all relatively even. For modern, active players, I think Duncan has had a better all-around career, and LeBron at his peak has been better than Kobe at his peak. FWIW

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                Just as good as Jordan. 5 rings to 6 is close
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                  Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                  Please. No hand checking? MJ would have a field day with the likes of every defender in this league.
                  That's not what I meant.

                  If MJ played in an era where fans and media demanded likeability from an athlete 24/7 in order to be considered "a legend" or top 5 all time, he wouldn't be. Because quite frankly, MJ makes Kobe look like a sweet heart. (although, funny enough, I find Kobe to be his most likeable when he's being an *******. )

                  I mean heck, look at Lebron. Sure, he has some entitlement issues, but for most of his career being liked was more important to him than being the best. The worst thing the guy ever did was move to Florida to play with his BFF...and he still managed to have a time period where he was the most hated athlete in America.

                  Right now, Kobe isn't ranked where he should be, in terms of "all time great" because of that whole "likeability" thing. Don't get me wrong, it's partially (mostly) his fault. He has zero charisma or really any social skills. He's arrogant, cheesy, demanding, intense..and when he tries to appear nice, it comes off as being fake.

                  I mean heck, I love Steve Nash, I do. But the media essentially made up reasons as to why Nash deserved MVP over Kobe, twice. Because they didn't want to give Kobe the award. Because they didn't like him. (Because apparently, taking a team that plays Smush Parker, Chris Mihm, and Luke Walton, rotation minutes to the playoffs isn't making the team better..)

                  Measure Kobe's career up to anyone's in the areas that he can control (IE, not media awards), and I don't know how he's not at least top 5.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    his overrated airness.
                    What more could Jordan have possibly done? Guy was still dominating the league in his mid 30's. He was basically perfect in every conceivable way.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                      Originally posted by Eddie Gill View Post
                      Controversial opinion alert: Wilt Chamberlain is overrated. In interest of full-disclosure, I never saw the man play - way before my time (like, I presume many others in this thread). I would merely suggest that had he played in an era with Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, even a guy like Ewing, many of these All-Time Greatest lists might look very different. He was a 7'2 giant playing in an era when the average height of a starting center was 6'7. Also, any list with Russell over Wilt is nonsensical. I understand the argument that Russell played on vastly superior teams, but 9 championships to 2 pretty much speaks for itself.

                      Maybe one of the old-timers on here can set me straight, because I just don't get Wilt being a top 5 player all time.
                      I agree. Championships matter far more in basketball than football or baseball when it comes to ranking all-time greats. In football you can only play one side of the field and in baseball you can only bat 4 or 5 times. But in basketball you have the opportunity to dominate both ends of the court.

                      Winning only two championships in an era where there were like 14 teams just isn't enough to be labeled a top 3 all time player, IMO. I don't see how anyone could put him over Jordan when Jordan won 6 championships in an era where there were far more teams, not to mention a far better talent pool of athletes. There was literally nothing else that Jordan could have accomplished in his career. The man did it all. With Wilt OTOH, there will always be a "yeah, but....." Wilt is not top 3.

                      Now I obviously never saw Wilt play, but I'm going to presume that the majority of the people commenting here didn't either. He last played in 1973, so you'd have to be in your early 50's to have any memory of him. You'd have to be closer to 60 to have any clear memory of him during the prime of his career.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 12-07-2012, 05:01 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                        I know Russell played with atleast 6-7 other HOF players on the Celtics, but I'm not sure how many Wilt ever had. Anyone know?

                        When you compare individual stats, Wilt blows Russell out of the water. They both averaged 22rebs for their entire careers (crazy) but Wilt doubled Bill's scoring average. 30.1ppg average compared to 15.1ppg average.

                        Russell's fg% of 44% isn't very good, compared to 54% for Wilt.
                        Last edited by Since86; 12-07-2012, 05:05 PM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I know Russell played with atleast 6-7 other HOF players on the Celtics, but I'm not sure how many Wilt ever had. Anyone know?

                          I'm not for sure. He did have Elgin Baylor for 3 of his 5 Laker years and Jerry West for all 5 of them.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                            It took Russell and seven other HoF'ers to beat Wilt's one-man teams in Philly and SF. Championships are a team award, not an individual award and to rank Russell higher than Wilt simply because Russell had better teammates is something that misses the mark.

                            If that's your criteria, just run a link to this page: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...pionships.html I don't agree with this concept as teams win championships and plenty of great individual players haven't been blessed to be on championship-quality rosters.

                            And if that's your criteria, you're seriously underrating Kareem Adbul Jabbar as well. With six championships each, you couldn't have him much lower than Jordan. Hey, Kareem won championships without Magic. (He won them with Oscar. )

                            It always comes back to this for me: The NBA kept changing the rules (three seconds, widening the lane, etc.) to make it more difficult for Wilt to dominate. And they kept bending the rules (an extra step, generous foul calls) to help Jordan dominate. Wilt was often playing 1-on-7 (or 1-on-8 if there were three refs, don't remember when that changed). Jordan was playing 8-on-5.

                            Much more respect for Wilt.

                            (End note, Wilt was probably the third or forth best player on those Lakers teams at the end of his career, that wasn't Wilt at his prime.)
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              I know Russell played with atleast 6-7 other HOF players on the Celtics, but I'm not sure how many Wilt ever had. Anyone know?
                              Also, yeah Russell definitely played with better players. But Wilt often didn't even get far enough to play Russell. He was on the Warriors for 6 years, but they only made the Finals one time. And that's when there were like 5 teams in a conference.

                              Look at his 1962-63 season for example. He averaged 44.8 pts and 24 boards. Those are cartoon-ish stats, but they didn't translate to wins. The Warriors went 31-49 that year. I get that he didn't have as great of a cast as Russel, but 31 wins?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Where do you rate Kobe all time?

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Look at his 1962-63 season for example. He averaged 44.8 pts and 24 boards. Those are cartoon-ish stats, but they didn't translate to wins. The Warriors went 31-49 that year. I get that he didn't have as great of a cast as Russel, but 31 wins?
                                You asked a question earlier about Jordan that is pretty applicable here. What else did he need to do? His freakish stats not translating to wins indicates that his teammates were horrible, not that Russell was better.

                                Sure, one player is equal to 20% of production on the floor, but that means 80% comes from others. How many championships someone wins, or how many games they win, doesn't tell me much about how good an individual player was, it tells me how good his team was.

                                I'm not arguing one way or the other, I think UB's rule about not commenting on people you haven't seen is a pretty good rule for this type of discussion, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the argument.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X