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

Walton on Reggie Miller

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

  • Walton on Reggie Miller

    http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/columns...ill&id=2031968
    Miller facing crunch time on retirement decision

    "Playing in the NBA, like most things in life, is a choice to be made by the individual. It's Reggie Miller's life and who are we to tell anyone what to do with his time. As a fan of the NBA and Miller, I would love to see this ageless wonder continue on forever, but he's already given us everything he has, and more, for the last 19 years. Far too often, we think that athletes and entertainers in the public domain owe us what we want. That's true, to the extent that once they have signed a contract to perform, we can then reasonably expect a consistent and professional effort to produce their best until the expiration of that contract.

    Every player is different. Some play until they have nothing left, often leaving under sad and crippling circumstances. Some walk into the sunset with nary a glance over their shoulder.

    Miller is more than capable of playing in the NBA at a very high level for at least a few more years. There are very few players in the history of basketball who have come close to producing what Reggie has given us. His unparalleled game of movement, skill, physical fitness and commitment to the team is perfect for the long run that he's given us. A testament to his fitness is the fact that while Reggie is 39 years old, one could never tell by watching him play.

    Because of all the problems this year that have ruined the Indiana Pacers' championship aspirations, many of them self-inflicted, he's been asked to do more than reasonably could be expected. He's playing extremely heavy minutes – 32 mpg, the most he's played in the last three seasons – and this was supposed to be a year of coming off the bench in spurts and mentoring for him.

    Miller is a class act who never had the privilege and opportunity to play with a truly great teammate or in a major media market. Yet his numerical accomplishments are simply staggering and all this from a guy who was booed by the fans on the day the Pacers drafted him 11th overall in 1987 out of UCLA. The same fans who, today, can't get enough of him, were clamoring for Steve Alford almost two decades ago. Thank goodness for Donnie Walsh!

    I would like to say that Reggie Miller is a sure first-ballot Hall of Fame inductee, but after the disgrace of what happened to Dominique Wilkins this week, I'm not sure of anything anymore! But it is safe to say with certainty that Reggie is one of the absolutely best at what he does. Like David Robinson and John Stockton, Reggie is leaving on his terms, with his head held high and what could be better than that.

    Reggie still has many options open. He could change his mind and stick around for what promises to be a better ending than what the Pacers are facing this season or he could go play for another team, with better players who can possibly carry him to the championship. Or he can do what he's said all along and just walk away at the end of the day.

    Admirably, Reggie has not tried to do anything to draw attention to himself as the end draws ever near, just letting the team, the playoffs and the game be the story. Whatever happens, we are better off for what Reggie has given us … his best. It's his life, please thank him for his many gifts to us, and respect his decision whatever it might be.

    I do think, though, that he does owe something – and that's a public apology to sideline reporter Craig Sager for denying the very true report that he was going to retire. "

  • #2
    Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

    Originally posted by NotLosingButWinning
    I do think, though, that he does owe something – and that's a public apology to sideline reporter Craig Sager for denying the very true report that he was going to retire. "

    I've been thinking the same thing. He tried to make Sager look like a fool, when it's pretty obvious that he got a scoop. Reggie just didn't like the timing of it.
    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

      Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
      I've been thinking the same thing. He tried to make Sager look like a fool, when it's pretty obvious that he got a scoop. Reggie just didn't like the timing of it.
      A scoop that Reggie was probably wanting his sister to break. I think that's why it upset him, it was supposed to be Cheryl breaking the news to fans, not Sager. If Sager knew he had a scoop, he also knew who it was for. I'm not up on the ethics of journalism (HA!) but this sounds fishy to me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

        didn't sager say that reggie announced to walsh and the team that he was retiring? as i recall reggie said that he never made that announcement, not that he wasn't going to retire. this is reggie's career and he deserved to make that announcement how and when he wanted to.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

          "or he could go play for another team, with better players who can possibly carry him to the championship"

          Which team would that be, mate?

          Regards,

          Mourning
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

            I don't think Reggie owes any one an apology.

            Everyone keeps clamoring about how great it is for Reggie to go out on his own terms. I feel that by Sager trying to get the "scoop" he didn't let that happen.

            If we respect his desire go out on his own terms, shouldn't he be able to announce his retirement the way he wants to? Really, Sager took that away from him by trying to get the scoop. I think what Sager did was kind of selfish and crappy...

            **I haven't enjoyed a Bill Walton article in a long time....

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

              **** Bill Walton. The guy's a douche bag.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

                Originally posted by Harmonica
                **** Bill Walton.
                Ibidem!'

                Regards,

                Mourning
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

                  I usually like Walton (unlike most of you), but this time around I think he's an idiot.

                  Not for any one thing he said, but I'm getting tired of the "Reggie should not retire" talk. Will we miss him? Duh.

                  The man has made his decision, and announced it publicly. Show him some repsect and let it be.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

                    Originally posted by NotLosingButWinning
                    didn't sager say that reggie announced to walsh and the team that he was retiring? as i recall reggie said that he never made that announcement, not that he wasn't going to retire. this is reggie's career and he deserved to make that announcement how and when he wanted to.
                    Yeah - Sager asked Reggie to comment on what he'd heard from Walsh. What would have made that exchange really interesting would have been Sager replying, "So, are you saying that Donnie Walsh is a liar?"
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

                      Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                      Yeah - Sager asked Reggie to comment on what he'd heard from Walsh. What would have made that exchange really interesting would have been Sager replying, "So, are you saying that Donnie Walsh is a liar?"
                      Actually... what supposedly transpired was word filtered (directly and/or indirectly) to Sager that Reggie was retiring. He was making comments to teammates and the players believed this was Reggie's last season. Sager went to Walsh with that info and asked Walsh to comment. Walsh (supposedly) wasn't aware that Reggie had made a final decision and told Sager he'd want to talk with Reggie over the All Star break about this.

                      So Sager reported Reggie was planning to retire and Walsh would have a meeting over the All Star break.

                      Some people (I believe) jumped to the conclusion that Walsh knew of Reggie's retirement and the meeting was already in place and that Walsh had confirmed Reggie's retirement. I don't think Sager exactly said that but I'll leave that for those with better memories than me.

                      If my version is true then Sager couldn't have asked Reggie if Walsh was lying because Walsh wouldn't have been a source and Reggie would not have even known (yet) that Walsh wanted to meet with him over the All Star break. Walsh only 'knew' of the retirement because Sager told him his scoop in seeking a comment.

                      Hey... but maybe I was just fed the 'spin' version... But it sounds right to me.

                      -Bball
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

                        He does not owe him an apology. He wanted to wait till the end of the season and he had no class when he broke that story.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

                          Bball, your story matches my recollections.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

                            Originally posted by Anthem
                            Bball, your story matches my recollections.
                            The only recollection I have is that Sager asked Reggie to respond to Donnie Walsh's telling him (Sager) that Reggie had announced to his teammates that he was going to retire.

                            As to what really happened, I have no idea though most analysts said that Sager's only fault was that he isn't Reggie Miller's sister.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Walton on Reggie Miller

                              Well, here is the deal... nothing is official until A.) Reggie gives his consent for the story or B.) He announces it himself. Reggie could have told everybody he was retiring and then changed his mind. He has the right to do it under his own terms, and if it is okay for Sager to be totally disrespectful to Reggie with his "scoop," than turnabout is fair play for Sager.

                              I don't understand how somebody can exploit a very private decision, yet that is okay, but when Reggie tries to pay him back by denying it... that it is objectionable. Screw Sager and Walton, and long live Playoff Reggie!
                              “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                              motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                              Reggie Miller

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X