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

A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

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

  • #91
    Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    I placed him Top 10. He might be top 5, but I'm not 100% convinced of that for several reasons.

    First, his career from 3 is 29% and has been even worse the last 4 years. He may get his numbers with a fantastic midrange game, but not being at least a threat from 3 hurts his true value to a team. It's not that he's not been effective. As great as he was, it's that his game isn't helping his team mates as much as it could by opening up the floor.

    Second, he benefitted a great deal from playing in an era that was pretty weak in terms of interior defense. With his midrange and rim game, I'm not sure it would have worked out well. Bill Laimbeer would have ripped his head off and put him in the hospital. Derrick Rose would be in a coma. Compare that to Iverson, Ray Allen, Drexler and others who had to deal with much more difficult interior defense of the 90's when centers were centers and power forwards were not CJ freaking Miles.

    Third, looking back through the years he has only averaged 60 games per year. He's basically taken 25% of his career off while still getting paid. If other players had that much rest, their numbers and performance may have been better. That's a lot of time off to get yourself 100% healthy and rested to beat other players who actually play through injuries.

    Fourth, he got to play with both Shaq and LeBron...two of the greatest to take the load off of him while he rested from the sidelines. Iverson never had that luxury and neither did Ray Allen as both guys carried their teams for years. Even Reggie had to carry the Pacers and could have used Shaq to distract the defense.

    So, yes, DWade was a great SG. I think he's nothing close to Jordan and Bryant. Jerry West was better too. Some of the other shooting guards who didn't take 25% of their entire career off to rest and didn't play with all-time greats and had to play in the 90's against real bigs...and could actually shoot from 3 may have seen their numbers quite a bit higher in this era.
    So he's 4th best and thus, a top-5 SG of all time. This isn't difficult.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
      So he's 4th best and thus, a top-5 SG of all time. This isn't difficult.
      That isn't what my post is saying.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

        There is a very strong argument to be made that Wade is 3rd behind Jordan and Kobe. He might be 4th or 5th behind West and/or Iverson. I never saw West, but I'd say that Wade was a better overall SG than Iverson, with AI clearly being the better scorer.

        I don't see how there can be an argument that he's worse than that.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          That isn't what my post is saying.
          Then make a post saying who the 5 better shooting guards are. You've said Jordan, Kobe, and West. Don't think you'll get any major arguments on that. Just name the other two.

          47 people so far have said they don't think Wade's a top-5 shooting guard. 0 people so far have been able to name 5 better shooting guards.
          Last edited by BRushWithDeath; 11-13-2015, 10:35 AM.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

            Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
            I certainly didn't see any claims to Dampier being the "2nd best player".
            Guess you're just twisting things to suit your argument again.

            There's no doubt Wade has come through with many great performances
            and put up big numbers throughout his career. He is also considered by
            many though to be one of the top 10 floppers as well as top 10 douchbags
            in NBA history. That's not just my opinion, try googling it.

            He undisputedly has solidified his reputation as one of the dirtiest players
            in the history of the game, and has had plenty of negatives to offset his
            positive contributions to the game. You'll be hard pressed to find other
            great shooting guards who have gotten where they are by using such
            unsportsman-like tactics.

            Case closed? Hardly.
            Congratulations. You have a personal beef with Dwayne Wade. Pick a number and get in line.

            Unfortunately, "I don't like how he plays" is not a valid argument against the quality of his play. It's just sad and childish.
            Last edited by Kstat; 11-13-2015, 11:42 AM.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              That was perhaps the easiest path to the title in NBA history.
              A 64-win pistons team and a 60-win Mavs team that knocked off the defending champion Spurs to get to the finals...uh yeah, okay

              It was so easy a path that they were underdogs in the last 2 series....

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                Because of Lebron's dominance, I don't think people give Wade near enough credit for how great he was in the 2012 Miami championship run.

                Also, in 2011 (the year the Heat lost to Dallas), Wade actually averaged more points in the playoffs than Lebron (24.5 for Wade, 23.7 for Lebron).

                It's definitely a top 5 all time career for a shooting guard.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Congratulations. You have a personal beef with Dwayne Wade. Pick a number and get in line.

                  Unfortunately, "I don't like how he plays" is not a valid argument against the quality of his play. It's just sad and childish.
                  Once again twisting things to suit your argument..typical, but to be expected.
                  Where in what I said did I say "I don't like how he plays"?

                  To put it in clearer not so easily misconstrued terms for you, I was saying that
                  his unsportsmanlike conduct that has been clearly documented on many occasions
                  negates alot of his basketball accomplisments when it comes to being a player
                  I would personally consider "great".

                  If you want to call Dwyane Wade great, just like if you want to call someone sad
                  or childish who disagrees with you, that is certainly your prerogative.

                  It just reflects back on you Mr. Pistons fan, oh ye who idolizes the Wallaces and
                  Laimbeers of the basketball world. It's no wonder you love Wade...

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                    Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                    Once again twisting things to suit your argument..typical, but to be expected.
                    Where in what I said did I say "I don't like how he plays"?

                    To put it in clearer not so easily misconstrued terms for you, I was saying that
                    his unsportsmanlike conduct that has been clearly documented on many occasions
                    negates alot of his basketball accomplisments when it comes to being a player
                    I would personally consider "great".

                    If you want to call Dwyane Wade great, just like if you want to call someone sad
                    or childish who disagrees with you, that is certainly your prerogative.

                    It just reflects back on you Mr. Pistons fan, oh ye who idolizes the Wallaces and
                    Laimbeers of the basketball world. It's no wonder you love Wade...
                    Sorry, wrong again.

                    I don't love or hate Wade any more than, say, Reggie Miller. Neither guy was a choirboy when it came to tactics that other fans didn't care for. Doesn't mean I'm going to disingenuously argue against each guy's place in history because I'm still bitter about losing to them.

                    And yeah, Love Laimbeer and Big Ben to death. Both were champions in their day. I'll gladly admit to that with pride. I don't blame you for not personally liking either guy. I also don't care
                    Last edited by Kstat; 11-13-2015, 01:05 PM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      A 64-win pistons team and a 60-win Mavs team that knocked off the defending champion Spurs to get to the finals...uh yeah, okay

                      It was so easy a path that they were underdogs in the last 2 series....
                      The Heat that year was one of the worst teams to win a title and they did have an easy route in comparison to running up against a dynasty. Dallas was good but no team with Erik Dampier starting is at that level. Smooth path to the finals.

                      Comment


                      • Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        The Heat that year was one of the worst teams to win a title and they did have an easy route in comparison to running up against a dynasty. Dallas was good but no team with Erik Dampier starting is at that level. Smooth path to the finals.
                        "Screw the numbers and the facts, Miami had the easiest path to the finals because it fits my argument and I say so."

                        Got it.

                        Dallas managed to beat the Spurs with Dampier starting at center, but they obviously had noooo chance against Miami...

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                          I meant to vote top 10 instead of top 20, not sure that you are able to change votes..
                          #LanceEffect

                          Comment


                          • Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                            47 people so far have said they don't think Wade's a top-5 shooting guard. 0 people so far have been able to name 5 better shooting guards.
                            Probably because so far the only argument for him has been along the lines of, "Your opinion of him is wrong, you only hate him because he beat your team." It is obvious where the debate will go when someone is proactively calling everyone who doesn't agree with them haters.

                            Comment


                            • Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                              I can see an argument for out of top 5, no way out of top 10. I don't like Wade at all for many reasons, but it is what it is.

                              Comment


                              • Re: A continuation of a conversation from last weekends gathering

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                Probably because so far the only argument for him has been along the lines of, "Your opinion of him is wrong, you only hate him because he beat your team." It is obvious where the debate will go when someone is proactively calling everyone who doesn't agree with them haters.
                                This shouldn't be a debate to begin with. It's like arguing grass isn't green. Obvious hall of famer is obvious. It isn't even worth taking seriously.

                                The poll itself is basically troll bait to see just how far people will bend reality to get some personal measure of revenge against a player that they don't like.

                                Dwayne Wade is a pompous jerk that carries himself in annoyingly pretentious fashion and he's a habitual flopper. He's also one of the 5 best players to ever play his position, and there is zero logical argument whatsoever to place him outside of the top 10. Reality is reality. Deal with it.
                                Last edited by Kstat; 11-13-2015, 02:19 PM.

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X