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

Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

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

  • Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...-cheap-jewelry
    The gravity of Kevin Durant's decision to join the Golden State Warriors hit me on Tuesday when a friend texted me, saying: "Holy s--t! What an NBA weekend. KD is crazy. Will they lose a game?"

    I wrote back: "It's a bad look for the league once again. Between the huge signings of mediocre players and now KD defecting to the Warriors, there are really only five or six teams you are interested in watching—and only three of those have a real shot to win the championship. It's going to be a boring season unless the Warriors, Cleveland Cavaliers, San Antonio Spurs, New York Knicks or Boston Celtics are on TNT or ESPN every week."

    He wrote back: "The rich get richer. If you're KD, would you go for the ring?"

    And then I responded: "At the end of the day, what's more important, rings or legacy? The media only cares about rings, and rightfully so. We are judged on jewelry, so that's why I can't argue with it. From a personal standpoint, I'm upset that a small market will never recover from it.

    "I like having stars/superstars in small markets. It evens the playing field and helps the overall product. It's why having Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay is great. In today's age of social media, you don't need to be in L.A., New York City or Chicago to get all the endorsements. Case in point: LeBron James and KD. Both have been the faces of the league in small markets."

    That's the conversation that really got me thinking.

    Look, I understand this isn't about money, because people like LeBron, Durant, Russell Westbrook and the retired Kobe Bryant make more money through their shoe contracts than they do on the court. So yes, we know this decision isn't about money.

    To me, it's about your legacy versus rings.



    Durant would have been a god if he stayed in Oklahoma City. People always say to me, "I'm so glad you stayed with us"—that I stayed for 18 years with a small-market (Pacers) team in Indiana.

    But the media, of which I am a part, always says, "Well, he never won a championship." And I get that; I understand that. Not winning a championship burns me to this day.

    After reaching six Eastern Conference Finals and an NBA Finals only to finish without a title, I sympathize with Durant's dilemma. A rebound, loose ball, free throw, missed assignment, missed box-out can change everything. Being so close and ultimately losing sucks.

    Nevertheless, it was the fight to put Indiana on the map that, in my mind, is my greatest accomplishment.

    I lost to Michael Jordan. I battled Patrick Ewing and his Knicks. I lost to Larry Bird and his Celtics. I lost to Isiah Thomas and his "Bad Boys" Detroit Pistons. I lost to Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway's Orlando Magic.

    You want to go against those guys, against the absolute best, even if you don't win.




    That's what Durant gave up by leaving the Thunder. And that matters. Had he stayed in Oklahoma City, people would have said, "He spurned all the other offers and continued to fight the giant."

    Even if Durant didn't win a championship like me, John Stockton or players who briefly spent time elsewhere like Ewing, Karl Malone, etc. the rest of the world would have looked at him in a different light because he fought, rather than joined, the giants—LeBron, Stephen Curry, Draymond Green, Chris Paul, etc. And to me, that's a true legacy.

    It would obviously be great to have both—your kingdom and an untarnished legacy. But there are only so many people who enjoy that luxury.

    Jordan had both, because he already won six rings before going to the Washington Wizards. Magic Johnson. Larry Bird. Kobe Bryant. You can even put Hakeem Olajuwon in there, since he won two championships before going to the Toronto Raptors.

    But I can't loop LeBron into that company. He left his kingdom in Cleveland for Miami, which was Dwyane Wade's kingdom.

    Yes, LeBron did win two titles with the Heat. So I get why Durant, like James, decided to go elsewhere. And I'm not here to say he cannot redeem himself, or that everyone will look back on his decision to leave and focus on that alone.

    Winning solves everything.

    Let's say the Warriors go out and win the next three NBA championships. Will people really look back and only think about Durant defecting from OKC? Probably not.

    And here's the other thing: Owners turn their backs on players all the time. So as a player, you have to do what's right in your heart. I get that 100 percent.

    Still, there's a difference when you are "the man" and everything about a team is built around you. It's even more different for Durant. He had the best of both worlds: the reins of a franchise and another top-10, maybe top-five player in Westbrook.

    When LeBron left Cleveland, the Cavaliers had Mo Williams, Anderson Varejao, Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Daniel Gibson, among others. His running mates were not of Westbrook's caliber—or even on the same level as Steven Adams.

    Comparatively, it isn't like Durant spurned a team that needed to be redone. The Thunder finished with the league's fifth-best record in the regular season and were up 3-1 on the Warriors during the Western Conference Finals. They would have been right there again next season.

    That's why I can't help but wonder if he had a conversation with Westbrook.

    I'm speculating, but maybe he found out Westbrook planned to leave in free agency next summer if the duo couldn't win a title after what would be nine years together. Though Durant could've still signed a one-plus-one deal that would've put him in free agency with Westbrook, their conversation would at least shed some more light on why he left.




    Maybe this has nothing to do with Westbrook potentially leaving—or even any existing rivalry or conflict between the two. Perhaps Durant's desire to win rings is just that strong, or maybe he took this past postseason as a sign.

    I am only here talking about Durant joining the Warriors thanks to a perfect storm of circumstances: a salary-cap spike, Oklahoma City's collapse in the Western Conference Finals against Golden State and the Warriors' NBA Finals collapse versus the Cavaliers. Durant isn't a Warrior without all of those things happening.

    And while I get all of this, stars in small markets have a greater obligation to their fans.

    People always ask, "What made you stay in Indiana for all those years?"

    This is the best way I can answer that question: Your checkout teller at the grocery store, the attendant at the gas station, the ushers, the waiters, the waitresses—all these fans laughed and cheered with me, and they cried with me after the losses to Shaq, MJ and the Knicks.

    We were in it together.

    I could not look at those fans had I gone somewhere else. I could not win a championship in Miami like LeBron, popping bubbly and all that, knowing there's a group in Indiana that stayed with me when I wasn't able to win a title. I couldn't turn my back on that fanbase and say, "Yay, I got a ring!"

    That's why I believe Durant took an unnecessary shortcut by joining the Warriors. Fans in smaller markets live and die with their teams. Going to playoff games and driving through the neighborhood, almost every house has signs and banners from kids.

    It gives me chills thinking about those experiences in Indiana. And that's not to say Durant won't encounter this with Golden State. He might. But he's in someone else's kingdom now.

    Don't get me wrong, Durant will be the alpha dog. On the court, the pecking order will be Durant, Curry, Green, then Klay Thompson. But Durant will forever play in Curry's kingdom. He was with them first. He won a title for them first.

    If Durant would have won in Oklahoma City, it would just be better. It would have been better if he joined any team that wasn't a ready-made contender.

    But in Oklahoma City, winning one title would be like getting three or more in Golden State.

    Failing to win one with the Thunder would arguably be more admirable than collecting any number of titles with the Warriors.

    This is just my opinion. Others will feel differently. People will read this and say, "This is coming from a guy who never won a championship." That's fine with me. And again, I get Durant's decision. I understand that temptation.

    The Celtics wanted me to come out of retirement in 2007-08, when they won a title with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. I couldn't do it. There was an opportunity to join the Lakers at one point. I couldn't do that, either. And maybe I should have.

    But to me, a king should never leave his kingdom.
    #LanceEffect

  • #2
    Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

    Wow, I actually got chills.

    Someone forward this to Paul George.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

      Yeah, what Reggie said.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

        NEVER FORGET!
        Reggie Miller loves you Indiana. He may call the shores of Malibu his home now, but he made is life in Indiana.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

          No offense to Reggie, but the only thing I see when I read this is "This guy doesn't have a ring" I know that's unfair and Reggie's legacy is special, but everyone is allowed to choose their own legacy just as Reggie did, just as Durant has.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

            Couldn't of said it any better. You're the man Reggie!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

              Also, why does Reggie call the Knicks interesting lol


              And someone should probably tell Reggie that Chris Paul doesn't have a ring.


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                This.

                I just think KD is going to look back on this decision and wish he had won it with OKC. They were so close. A victory there would be epic and well deserved after years of battling.

                Maybe I just think differently because I grew up with Reggie as my hero.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  No offense to Reggie, but the only thing I see when I read this is "This guy doesn't have a ring" I know that's unfair and Reggie's legacy is special, but everyone is allowed to choose their own legacy just as Reggie did, just as Durant has.
                  The article is more referring to the Reggie's take on the character of the man who makes such a decision. He doesn't begrudge the decision.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Also, why does Reggie call the Knicks interesting lol
                    I think he was just talking about ratings. Big market pulls in more viewers regardless of the crap storm that is their team right now.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      The article is more referring to the Reggie's take on the character of the man who makes such a decision. He doesn't begrudge the decision.
                      Yeah, I get that and certainly I appreciate Reggie's decision to stay a Pacer. And I hope Paul does the same. There is obviously something special about playing, competing and potentially winning in a smaller market.

                      I think my issue is more with the titling. Cheap jewelry? It's an NBA championship....nothing cheap about that. Durant's legacy is still to be written. I feel uncomfortable tossing it in the ground. What if Durant plays a decade in Golden State and wins 5 titles? Is his legacy not going to be sacred to those Warriors fans? It's an interesting topic.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I think my issue is more with the titling. Cheap jewelry? It's an NBA championship....nothing cheap about that.
                        So you view LeBron's rings in the same light as Dirk's ring?

                        I certainly don't. I have much more respect for Dirk, and place a lot more value on how he achieved his ring than how LeBron got his.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          Yeah, I get that and certainly I appreciate Reggie's decision to stay a Pacer. And I hope Paul does the same. There is obviously something special about playing, competing and potentially winning in a smaller market.

                          I think my issue is more with the titling. Cheap jewelry? It's an NBA championship....nothing cheap about that. Durant's legacy is still to be written. I feel uncomfortable tossing it in the ground. What if Durant plays a decade in Golden State and wins 5 titles? Is his legacy not going to be sacred to those Warriors fans? It's an interesting topic.
                          I for one think it is an excellently written title. When you are writing a piece in the vain of this one, it is important to stake a claim that is arguable and perhaps unpopular.

                          This title is obviously written as hyperbole in order to show very concisely where the author stands on the matter, while drawing the reader in with a controversial claim.
                          #LanceEffect

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                            Like a boss

                            Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Reggie Miller: Kevin Durant Traded a Sacred Legacy for Cheap Jewelry

                              I just can't believe Reggie is so jaded that KD didn't pick Reggie's favorite team. F***ing hypocrite. /green
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X