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

Warren Jabali

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Warren Jabali

    I'm surprised this has not been posted before.

    http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/jabali_friedman.htm

    HoopsHype.com Articles

    Warren Jabali in his own words
    by David Friedman / August 31, 2005

    Warren Jabali (known as Warren Armstrong before he became a Muslim and changed his name), averaged 17.1 ppg, 6.7 rpg and 5.3 apg while making the All-Star team four times in his seven-year ABA career. He produced 21.5 ppg, 9.7 rpg and 3.5 apg in 1968-69, winning the ABA Rookie of the Year award. That year, with star forward Rick Barry sidelined by a knee injury, he averaged 33.2 ppg in the ABA Finals, winning the Finals MVP while leading the Oakland Oaks to a 4-1 victory over the Indiana Pacers. The nucleus of that Indiana team – Mel Daniels, Roger Brown and Freddie Lewis – led the Pacers to three ABA titles in the next four seasons.

    Despite being only 6-2, Jabali played a very physically imposing game. He had point guard skills, but spent a lot of time at forward because of his powerful build and ability to rebound and dunk over players who were much bigger. He developed a very intimidating reputation that caused many players to tread lightly around him.

    "Yeah, I was aware of it and of course it doesn't hurt for a person to have a reputation that is going to cause someone else to pause," Jabali says. "I didn't seek it. I played tough because that's the way Alex Hannum taught me to play. Remember, he was my first coach in Oakland. He said that KC Jones would start out the game with his fingertips on a player and by the end of the game he was grabbing the player. So you get the referees used to seeing it a certain way and, by the end of the game, you are able to slide and get away with stuff that you normally wouldn't be able to get away with. So I started trying to control the movement of smaller players by holding them with my hand and, obviously, they didn't like that, but referees let me get away with it. So I kept doing it and over the years it kind of became my trademark. They felt that I was trying to be tough because I really didn't communicate with the players about the game and the kinds of things that they were talking about. I don't know what they were talking to each other about, but I didn't have any line of communication with any of the other players. When you don't know something, you tend to fear it. Yeah, I was aware that I had this reputation and I think that I tried to use it to my advantage. I really do not have any regrets today about being perceived that way because, after all, the game was about winning. We were not at a social tea or something."

    One violent encounter during Jabali's rookie season added an unsavory element to Jabali's reputation.

    Here is Jabali's account of what happened: "What went on with Jim Jarvis was, 'How do you handle anger when you are not able to articulate it?' That was my problem then. I was watching what was going on in the ABA. Rick Barry shot anywhere from 10-15 free throws a game and then he would make 10-12 baskets and, voila, he's got 35 points a game. The reason why he was getting all of these 35 point games is because he was shooting 15 free throws and making 12 or 13 or all 15 of them some nights because he shot real well. So, I began to realize that I was getting beat up and I needed to shoot some free throws. It got to the point that Alex Hannum made a comment that was published somewhere in which he said that what he liked about Warren Armstrong was that Warren Armstrong was able to go to the basket, take a blow and still make the basket. But there wasn't a foul being called. I was just taking the blow (Jabali laughs ruefully). The thing about guys like Jim Jarvis is that they had to scrap and hustle and do everything that they could in order to stay in the league because they really couldn't play. He was harassing me and hacking me and trying to steal the ball. One time he did get the ball, but he had almost taken half of my arm with it. I turned around and looked at the ref and the ref just turned his head. So I turned back around and impulsively swung and knocked Jim Jarvis down and went over and stomped him. That was an example that I offer no defense for; I mean that is something that I shouldn't have done."

    Jabali's straightforward statement that he offers no defense for his actions toward Jim Jarvis and that he was wrong is much different than the typical apologies from public figures that are spoken in the passive voice lamenting "what happened" and regretting "if anyone was offended."

    Jabali takes issue with being characterized as a "thug" in Terry Pluto's book Loose Balls, an oral history of the ABA (there is a Bob Ryan quote on page 286 referring to Jabali and John Brisker as "thugs" and the chapter titled "The Meanest Men in the ABA" is about Jabali and Brisker).

    "To now start categorizing it as a result of the thug life – it wasn't a result of the thug life," Jabali says. "I wasn't a thug. It was a result of political thoughts. The thing that had me thinking the way that I was thinking was not being a thug and robbing or stealing or anything like that. It was that these people who were in control of the league were messing me around. Why is it that I don't get a foul called when there is a foul? And here's a person (Jim Jarvis) who is trying to take advantage of the fact that he knows that they won't call a foul. So he's going to come and assault me because he knows that he can get away with it."

    DEFINING BASKETBALL GREATNESS

    Other than Magic Johnson, Jabali is the only rookie guard in the NBA or ABA who won the Finals MVP. So it is surprising to hear Jabali's greatest memory from his ABA career.

    "The thing that probably stands out the most for me is the recognition and realization that I could play," Jabali says. "That happened in the first training camp. Alex Hannum already knew pretty much who he wanted to start. He would split Rick (Barry) and I up. I would be on one squad and Rick would be on the other squad. We would win our share of the scrimmages. Then he would put all of us together– Larry (Brown), Doug (Moe), Rick and I on the same squad – and of course we would dominate. What began to become clear was that there was nobody in the practice, save Rick, who was performing any better than I was at that point. Subsequently, going through the beginning of the season – after going through the cycle once and seeing everybody – it became clear that I could actually play the game. That was a high point."

    Despite his accomplishments, Jabali does not consider himself a great basketball player: "I'm probably a mid-level professional basketball player; I'm certainly not a great basketball player."

    Jabali adds, "Oscar (Robertson) is certainly the greatest player who ever played. They want to give that to Jordan, but Jordan really did not have to play against the same type of players. If somebody were to really study it – and I'm talking off the top of my head, so maybe statistically people can refute this – when Magic left, who were the great players? I think Karl Malone was the greatest player still circulating around when Jordan was doing all those things. Who was Jordan playing against?"

    Jabali does not rank Jordan second, either.

    "The person who is right behind Oscar as far as I am concerned is Walt Frazier. Walt Frazier had an equal impact on the game offensively and defensively. Nobody did that. Walt Frazier is the one who made me realize that I was never in condition to play the game. This man would play just as hard on the defensive end as he would play on the offensive end and would beat you either way."

    Jabali explains, "Michael Jordan is a great player, but I always look at it from the point of view of impact on the game. If you look at impact on the game and you have someone who is capable of averaging a triple-double for the entire year, then you have a tremendous, great player. Michael Jordan was great because he was clutch. Jerry West also has that reputation. Michael Jordan happened to be in those situations. I don't think that anybody will ever be able to be compared to Michael Jordan unless they happen to be in those situations. I think LeBron James is going to be unable, the way that it looks now, to actually be compared to Michael Jordan because (the question is) what do you do in championship situations? Michael Jordan was in so many championship situations and came through that, unless you are doing that, how can you compare?"

    Jabali realizes that not everyone will concur with his views on the subject: "Anyway, that's my point of view. It might be a little biased because of the time that I came up in. I think that there are two different things: Rick Barry used to argue that in All-Star Games there should be a Most Valuable Player and there should be a Most Outstanding Player. I think that Michael Jordan is the most outstanding player that has ever played, but that Oscar Robertson in his prime was the best basketball player."

    Asked who he would take between Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson in an all-time draft, Jabali admits that he would take the Big Dipper: "I think what you have to realize is that at the end of the game you need to be close to the basket."

    Jabali concludes, "If you think in terms of the skills that are required to play the game of basketball – that's the best way for me to break it down – Oscar had mastery over all of the skills. I don't know of any skill that Oscar didn't have. The reason that I said that I would take Chamberlain first is because you have to start in the middle. If that's a contradiction, then I would say Chamberlain, Oscar, Frazier and then Jordan."

    What about Bill Russell? Jabali offers this assessment: "Because Russell won all the championships he is supposed to be the greatest player. Well, he's not the greatest player. Chamberlain was the greatest player. You take that team away from Russell and let Russell play with some mediocre players, what is Russell going to do? If you put Chamberlain and Russell with the same mediocre players, Chamberlain's team would win more games."

    David Friedman is a Contributing Editor at Suite101.com in charge of the topic "Basketball Spotlight." His work has also appeared in Basketball Digest and Sports Collectors Digest. He wrote the chapter on the NBA in the 1970s for the anthology Basketball in America: From the Playgrounds to Jordan's Game and Beyond (Haworth Press, 2005)
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Warren Jabali

    Thanks for posting the article James. Warren( Armstrong ) Jabali is one of my favorite All Time NBA players. I know few will remember his days as a Pacers -but if you read how he played ( if you never saw him),as a totally aggressive , hard nosed player you'll find it fitting that as a Pacer , Warren wore uniform #15 as does Ron Artest.

    Even the inability to always control his anger runs true with Ron. I met Warren in 1968 , at an exhibition game here in Greencastle (yes, for younger folks the Pacers played exhibition games away from Indy ,long ago). Warren , did indeed have an edge to him . This was during the height of civil unrest Warren , was at the time an angry young man.

    Those who remember Warren Armstrong , knew his choice of Jabali as his Africian name was fitting. It means "the Rock" and in both his physical stature 6'2 210 and attitude he was that.

    He was a very exciting player to watch as a high flying 6-2 sf/sg who latter became an All Star point guard leading the ABA in assists.

    It was very nice to read something about him after all these years. Thanks again , James for posting the article . By the way I agree with Warren , Oscar Robertson was a better all around player than Michael Jordan.

    Comment

    Previous template Next
    Working...
    X