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

Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

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

  • #16
    Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

    I don't think there's a place for him in the Hall of Fame. Aside from 4 or 5 productive years in the NBA, he hurt his teams as much as he helped them.

    And if the Pistons ever retire #10, it'll have Hunter's name on the banner - not Rodman's.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

      Originally posted by Grey
      I don't think there's a place for him in the Hall of Fame. Aside from 4 or 5 productive years in the NBA, he hurt his teams as much as he helped them.

      And if the Pistons ever retire #10, it'll have Hunter's name on the banner - not Rodman's.
      You're right. Aside from those 8 years with the bulls and Pistons where he got to the conference finals 8 times, got to the finals 6 times, and won the championship 5 times, he was generally a cancer.

      And if the Pistons retire Hunter's #10, I will personally burn it to the ground. Rodman burned a lot of bridges here, but that was due to a lot of mental immaturity. He was the best defensive player on the best defensive team in league history. If thats not grounds for honoring him I don't know what is.

      If Vinnie Johnson and Laimbeer get their numbers retired, dennis better be eventually.

      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


      • #18
        Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

        I don't think Rodman had the career Reggie did. His stats don't compare. He was a distraction so many times that like someone else said he hurt teams. He was great rebounder (no doubt) but he didn't lead teams. He didn't take the big shot. He didn't cause teams to change their defense when he entered the game. He didn't do alot things. He was a role player, would you put Jeff Foster or Dale Davis in the Hall.

        Winning a ring is sometimes about being on the right team. Look at what Shaq has done for Wades career. Not that Wade isn't a great player but he's opened things up for him. Look at Kobe this year without ShaqDaddy.....
        "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
        Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

          Originally posted by Kstat
          You're right. Aside from those 8 years with the bulls and Pistons where he got to the conference finals 8 times, got to the finals 6 times, and won the championship 5 times, he was generally a cancer.

          And if the Pistons retire Hunter's #10, I will personally burn it to the ground. Rodman burned a lot of bridges here, but that was due to a lot of mental immaturity. He was the best defensive player on the best defensive team in league history. If thats not grounds for honoring him I don't know what is.

          If Vinnie Johnson and Laimbeer get their numbers retired, dennis better be eventually.
          I completely agree.

          (runs off to clean myself, EWWW!)

          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

            Originally posted by Kstat
            ....because he was going on 38 years old when the Bulls broke up?



            Both the Lakers and Mavs were a joke WITHOUT Rodman, in those years. He was an oddity to be sure, but he STILL averaged 11 boards on the '99 Lakers and 14 boards on the '00 Mavs. Not bad for a "strung out oddity past his prime."

            I can recall MANY worse falls from glory, as far as play is concerned. Try Moses Malone, or Patrick Ewing.
            So no team was willing to pick him up after the Bulls run because he was able to average 11 boards and later 14 rebounds? Which was it was he wash up or not?

            I wasn't considering his play when I was speaking of his decline. I was thinking that two teams dropped him rather than have him on thier rosters.

            If these weren't real concerns why else would there be a question about his going into the hall of fame?
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

              Originally posted by aceace
              I don't think Rodman had the career Reggie did. His stats don't compare. He was a distraction so many times that like someone else said he hurt teams. He was great rebounder (no doubt) but he didn't lead teams. He didn't take the big shot. He didn't cause teams to change their defense when he entered the game. He didn't do alot things. He was a role player, would you put Jeff Foster or Dale Davis in the Hall.
              Role players don't win DPOY multiple times. If Dale had half the career Rodman did, he damn well better be in the HOF.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                Originally posted by Arcadian
                If these weren't real concerns why else would there be a question about his going into the hall of fame?
                I wouldn't go there. Up to and including last season, there were still respected journalists that questioned why Reggie should make the Hall.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                  Originally posted by Kegboy
                  I wouldn't go there. Up to and including last season, there were still respected journalists that questioned why Reggie should make the Hall.
                  That's not what I am saying. People questioning whether Reggie should be in the hall was based on on-the-court play.

                  Here people are asking does Rodman's character issues factor into the voting. Most have said it shouldn't which I agree with. However, if the character issues don't factor in why would people seem to think they will? My answer is that they do and will matter in the minds of voters.
                  "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                  "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                    I don't know many role players that managed to average 17 rebounds per game over a 7-year span.

                    How dominant is that? The average margin in rebounds per game between rodman and the #2 rebounder in the NBA each of those 7 seasons, was 3.5

                    For seven season, rodman was nearly 4 rebounds per game better than any other player in the NBA, and he was only 6'8." If thats a role player, what exactly is a superstar?

                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                      Kstat, Rodman's numbers are somewhat skewed because he padded his rebounding stats like no other. If you recall back to his playing days, remember the way he used to tip the ball up into the air until only he had possession...? Ah yes, but that's not the worst example of this. A lot of bigmen in this league camp out in the paint rather than stepping out to challenge the pick and roll. People complain about Shaq doing this, but Rodman was perhaps the most egregious example of a defensive 3 seconds violater once he left Detroit. In San Antonio, I recall him costing his team a crucial playoff game because he was camping under the basket for rebounds, didn't step out to guard his man - Robert Horry - and thus the legend of Big shot Rob was born as he drilled the game winner.

                      Don't get me wrong, he was a tremendous player and rebounder, but in those years specifically he sacrificed the good of the team for his rebounding titles. Truth is he was closer to a 12 or 13 rpg player than he was a 16 or 18 rpg player. Still excellent for his size. Bob Hill was no Chuck Daly and certainly no Phil Jackson, it took a hall of fame coach to rein him in and get him to fit a team, and when he did usually those teams were downright dominating.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                        Dennis Rodman + Offense + Defense = Shawn Kemp
                        We should ask ourselves about Shawn Kemp instead to be in the hall of fame.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                          I just can't believe someone compared Rodman's play to that of Jeff Foster and Dale Davis.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                            I'm going to try and find the article, but someone at ESPN proved statistically that DRod was the greatest rebounder of all time...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                              Originally posted by King Mob
                              I'm going to try and find the article, but someone at ESPN proved statistically that DRod was the greatest rebounder of all time...
                              Does it take pace/size factors into account? Otherwise I am invoking the name Wilt Chamberlain all over this thread

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                                One more thing, Rodman literally could not play basketball, he didnt even touch the ball as a teenager... he could ONLY Rebound and yes that is "one dimensional".

                                Cant believe you compare him to Reggie...so u mean Reggie is one dimensional to? This proofs to me how underrated he is on doing other things... So hee could only shoot 3PT shots but couldnt do a layup? but couldnt dunk? but couldnt play defense? but couldnt be clutch? but couldnt be the best player ever to use the screens and move the best without the ball? but couldnt be one of the best scorers in history? Comon........... so Shaq is also "one dimensional", he can only Dunk?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X