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

CNNSI.Com potential "grades" for teams so far this season

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

  • CNNSI.Com potential "grades" for teams so far this season

    Nice article. Bit too nice for Isiah, but still decent

    "Realizing potential
    Let's see how teams have lived up to preseason expectations
    Posted: Wednesday March 24, 2004 1:07PM; Updated: Friday March 26, 2004 11:46AM


    It's report card time, fans. True, the regular season isn't over for a couple of weeks, but this may be the last opportunity to throw darts at the dregs of the league.

    Keep in mind that grading was not done on a curve -- my schoolteacher wife doesn't like curves -- even though this is a curve year, particularly in the Western Conference, where, as San Antonio coach Gregg Popovich observed recently, "We all seem to be blowing it."

    Keep in mind, also, that the best teams aren't receiving A's and the worst aren't receiving F's. Grading was based on how far above, or below, its potential that a team has played. Report cards, incidentally, have to be signed by parents and returned by next Tuesday.

    F

    ORLANDO MAGIC: Yes, it was a tough blow losing Grant Hill, who is costing the Magic $13 million this year even though he's walking around in a cast. But the franchise has to get over it. Although Tracy McGrady leads the league in scoring, he's had an uneven season -- more than one rival coach has commented that T-Mac is prone to laziness on defense -- and none of Orlando's personnel moves (trading Mike Miller and Gordan Giricek, losing Darrell Armstrong in free agency) has paid dividends.

    PHILADELPHIA 76ERS: Remember all that preseason optimism when Glenn "Big Dog" Robinson arrived as the player who would have Allen Iverson's back? Well, he's done that all right -- they have both have been injured pains in the butt. This is a franchise that has gone down, down, down since it made the NBA Finals in 2001.

    D-

    PHOENIX SUNS: They traded away their best player (Stephon Marbury), and they're the worst team in the Western Conference. So why aren't they getting an F? Because they have the cap room necessary to make a bold free-agent move -- and they better make one.

    CHICAGO BULLS: For every step forward taken by the backcourt, rookie point guard Kurt Hinrich and the volatile Jamal Crawford, the bonus-baby frontcourt of Eddie Curry and Tyson Chandler takes a step backward. The Bulls have a long way to go to get back to playoff contention, never mind back to the glory days of the '90s. Sadly, the Bulls have been so mediocre that Scottie Pippen's announcement that he will retire at the end of the season was all but ignored.

    D

    SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: I see these guys all the time on the nightly highlights, Ray Allen smoothly sinking jumpers and Rashard Lewis dunking on somebody's head. But what I don't see is a fairly talented team making a real push. Perhaps it will happen next season if Allen, who missed the first 26 games of the year with an injury, is healthy.

    WASHINGTON WIZARDS: Kwame Brown is at last realizing his potential. Wait a minute, no he's not. Gilbert Arenas is ready to become one of the league's most outstanding players. Wait a minute, no he's not. This up-and-down team never made a move this season, and the only reason they don't get an F is because Jerry Stackhouse has missed 50 games because of injury.

    BOSTON CELTICS: I'm willing to give director of operations Danny Ainge a season to see if his long-range plan will work out. But the fact is, this once proud franchise, which made the Eastern Conference finals just two seasons ago, is fighting for its playoff life against Miami and Cleveland, two teams apparently going in a different direction than the Shamrocks.

    D+

    GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS: There was a lot of life in this franchise last season; now there is little. We didn't exactly expect the Warriors to vault to the top of the Western Conference, but it's doubtful they'll get more than the 38 wins they had last season.

    LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS: Corey Maggette has emerged as a possible star. Elton Brand is as solid as a rock. And still the Clippers cannot challenge for a playoff spot. Attention, this is a recording, this is a recording, this is a recording.

    ATLANTA HAWKS: They weren't supposed to be very good this year, which is the reason they're not getting an F. Their best player, Shareef Abdur-Rahim is gone, and they couldn't hold on to Rasheed Wallace, though I'm not sure I blame Atlanta for that. New ownership has taken over. Be afraid for them. Be very afraid.

    C-

    NEW ORLEANS HORNETS: This team is a puzzle. It has a chance to match last year's win total of 47 under first-year coach Tim Floyd, but the Hornets should be better, even allowing for Jamal Mashburn's sketchy medical situation. One is tempted to call them a dark horse in the playoffs, but they should be riding into May as one of the Eastern favorites.

    C

    DALLAS MAVERICKS: They get an A for offense and an F for defense -- that balances out to them being an average team, albeit one capable of making some kind of playoff run. Remember, though, that they've been a poor road club this season, and the spat between Antoine Walker and coach Don Nelson is not over.

    PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS: Jim O'Brien could be replacing Maurice Cheeks as coach next season. O'Brien is an excellent candidate, but for all he's been through doesn't Cheeks deserve the chance to coach the team now that the Blazers have traded some of the poison players? I still think Portland will grab that eighth playoff spot in the West.

    TORONTO RAPTORS: With a league-low 85.4 points per game, they are the Team That Can't Shoot Straight. The Raptors are still fighting for a playoff spot, but the deal that secured Donyell Marshall and Jalen Rose and unloaded malcontent Antonio Davis hasn't paid the dividends that it should have.

    B-

    NEW JERSEY NETS: Now that coach Lawrence Frank has come back to earth after his initial winning streak, reality has set in. The standard set in New Jersey by fired coach Byron Scott was making it to the Finals, and that will be impossible for the Nets to do this year if Jason Kidd doesn't get healthy.

    HOUSTON ROCKETS: This could easily be a C team, which it will indeed be if it somehow misses the playoffs. But I think they'll hold on and improve on last year when a 43-39 record kept them out of the postseason. If Steve Francis was playing better, the Rockets would be battling for first in the Midwest instead of scrambling to make the playoffs.

    B

    NEW YORK KNICKS: This is one of the grades I could hedge on; they will be an A if they clinch a postseason berth (I think they will), and a C if they don't. But one thing is for sure: They were an F before Isiah Thomas took over for Scott Layden as general manager.

    SAN ANTONIO SPURS: It hasn't been easy going for the defending champs, what with the injury to Tim Duncan and a rare contretemps between Popovich and one of his loyalists, backup forward Malik Rose. But through it all, the Spurs persevere and prosper, and their stubborn defense can still lock down good teams when it has to.

    LOS ANGELES LAKERS: Through this ongoing soap opera of Kobe Bryant's legal troubles, feuds and injuries, the Purple and Gold is still in position to claim one of the top three seeds in the West, though I doubt that they will catch Sacramento for first place in the Pacific Division. Trust me on this: Nobody wants to play L.A. in the postseason.

    CLEVELAND CAVALIERS: This may seem like a high grade for a team that might not finish with 40 wins, but remember that they tied Denver for a league-worst 17 victories last season. Once maligned general manager Jim Paxson has made some other savvy moves besides calling out "LeBron James" on draft day.

    B+

    DETROIT PISTONS: I have consistently undervalued Detroit over the last two years, as a certain Pistons official has let me know. I even did it after they traded for Rasheed Wallace, who has made a tough Detroit defense even tougher. But as good as Larry Brown's boys have been, remember that this was a team that didn't exactly underachieve last season and one that must amp up its offense in order to reach the Finals.

    A-

    MILWAUKEE BUCKS: The Beer Town Team has faded a bit of late, but let's consider what they've done without Gary Payton, Ray Allen and Sam Cassell. Michael Redd has turned into an All-Star and the Bucks have turned into an opponent that no one wants to play in the first round of the playoffs.

    MIAMI HEAT: The South Beachers didn't exactly crawl into a hole when Pat Riley left the bench for the front office, did they? The Heat play tough defense under Stan Van Gundy, they're getting consistent play from the enigmatic Lamar Odom and they have the third-best rookie in the league in Dwyane Wade. I can see Miami getting to the second round.

    MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: The T'wolves' extensive offseason cosmetic surgery was successful enough that they're challenging Sacramento and Indiana for most wins in the league and Kevin Garnett is a lock for MVP. The only reason they're not awarded a straight A is that they must advance out of the first round for the season to be called a success.

    SACRAMENTO KINGS: Their best player misses 59 games and almost no one would've noticed had Chris Webber not managed to get suspended for legal problems and drug issues. The Kings' defense, though, hasn't been as strong as it was last season, and, unless Sacramento makes it to the NBA Finals, it will have nothing to brag about.

    A

    INDIANA PACERS: The Pacers had a nasty public relations problem to clear up when the season started -- star Jermaine O'Neal's dissatisfaction with the firing of coach Isiah Thomas. But they started tough, stayed tough, and they're the only Eastern team that consistently amps it up against the powers in the West. If O'Neal is healthy, the Pacers will be the Eastern Conference representative in the Finals.

    MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES: The easiest grade in the league. Most observers thought they didn't have a chance to get 30 wins, yet they might reach 50. Here's another easy pick: Hubie Brown as Coach of the Year.

    UTAH JAZZ: And if not Hubie, then Jerry Sloan. How many teams could lose two Hall of Famers (Karl Malone and John Stockton) and the player (Matt Harpring) who was destined to be their leading scorer without collapsing? In addition, Sloan is dealing with the ongoing cancer battle being fought by his wife, Bobbye. If the Jazz holds on to make the playoffs, it will be one of the feel-good stories of the year.

    DENVER NUGGETS: But, then again, so would a Nuggets playoff appearance, which hasn't happened since '95. Persistent rumors have put coach Jeff Bzdelik's job in jeopardy, particularly if Denver slides out of the playoffs, but for the life of me I can't figure out why. Carmelo Anthony is a terrific player and he's going to get better, but it's not as if he's turned around the franchise all by himself.

    Sports Illustrated senior writer Jack McCallum covers the NBA for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com."


    One of the few articles that gives Indy some true props for what has been accomplished so far this season and for what might be later in the playoffs.

    Regards,

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

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

  • #2
    Re: CNNSI.Com potential "grades" for teams so far this season

    hehehe, beat you too it.....

    http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1669

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: CNNSI.Com potential "grades" for teams so far this season

      :censor:















      Regards,

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

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment

      Working...
      X