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

NBA 2005: A peek ahead at future immortals

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

  • NBA 2005: A peek ahead at future immortals

    December 17, 2005

    By Chris Bernucca
    SportsTicker Pro Basketball Editor

    BRISTOL, Connecticut (Ticker) -
    Did you know this is the NBA's 60th season?

    You may be a bit confused, because the league held its "NBA at 50" celebration nine years ago. But it actually staged its season-long golden anniversary at the outset of its 51st season, having turned a full 50 years old.

    That was quite a spectacle. Plans were announced at the 1996 Finals. As the next season began, all-time lists voted on by an impeccable panel were released. The Top 10 Teams. The Top 10 Coaches. The 50 Greatest Players.

    Now that the NBA is on the verge of turning 60, shouldn't that last list have an appendix? When it was first released, Tim Duncan was a senior in college. Kobe Bryant was six months out of high school. LeBron James was 11 years old.

    Fifty years, 50 players. Sixty years, 60 players. Makes sense, right?

    TNT seems to think so. The network plans on developing its own list as part of its coverage of All-Star Weekend in February. Guess we beat 'em to it.

    The appendix doesn't simply list 10 contemporary players. It tries to right some wrongs from the first list without doing a disservice to anyone already selected.

    It also does some speculating, as the first list did with a young fellow named Shaquille O'Neal, who was just beginning his fifth season. That worked out pretty well, don't you think?

    However, before the appendix is revealed, we should acknowledge those who were considered but did not make it. Jo Jo White, Dan Issel, Maurice Cheeks, Sidney Moncrief, Dominique Wilkins, Kevin Johnson, Mark Jackson, Dennis Rodman (yes, Dennis Rodman), Ray Allen, Steve Nash and Alonzo Mourning all made the short list.

    However, the list had to be shorter, and they did not make the cut.

    Behind the velvet rope is a guy wearing a black turtleneck and an ultra-light earpiece with a thin microphone. He is holding a clipboard with the names of 10 men who are allowed entry into a highly exclusive club known as basketball immortality.

    The list includes two retired players, another hanging on for a last chance at glory and one whose star does not burn so brightly anymore. It also has five players at the absolute peak of their game and another whose ceiling cannot be predicted.

    The first limousine is pulling up now. A tall, elderly man is getting out. It's ...

    BOB MCADOO: If you are under 40 years old, just shut up and listen. McAdoo was a face-up 6-10 center who won three straight scoring titles in the early 1970s with the Buffalo Braves and was the only MVP not chosen the first time around. (Nash can have that dubious honor now.) Early in his career, he also was consistently among the league leaders in rebounds, blocked shots and shooting percentage.

    McAdoo kept putting up numbers, but a series of trades to bad teams diminished his value. When he latched on with the Lakers in the early 1980s, he became one of the most lethal bench players in the NBA, averaging double digits even though he played no more than 20 or so minutes per game.

    REGGIE MILLER: Besides Ronald McDonald and Michael Jordan, who else can say he is the face of a successful franchise? Miller can. He is one of just 12 players to score 25,000 points, and although he has the lowest scoring average among the dozen, only Jordan made more clutch shots. Not Jerry West. Not John Havlicek.

    GARY PAYTON: When the first list was released, Payton probably was the game's second-best player behind Jordan. He clearly is slowing down as he chases a championship, but runway models eventually get crow's feet, too.

    Payton came into the NBA as a playmaker and stopper. He is in the all-time top six in both assists and steals and has crashed the top 25 in scoring as well. While you are remembering his nine All-Star berths and First Team All-Defense selections, don't forget his durability and competitive streak.

    JASON KIDD: The closest thing to Magic Johnson in a point guard actually has won more assist titles (five). He also continues to rack up triple-doubles at a rate exceeded only by the man who invented them (Oscar Robertson) and the man who perfected them (Johnson).

    Those who question his occasional prima donna behavior tend to forget his seven All-Defense selections and one-man transformation of a league laughingstock into a back-to-back conference champion. In his 12th season, he still plays at an All-Star level.

    KOBE BRYANT: There is a perception, somewhat self-imposed, that Bryant must succeed on his own in order to validate his greatness. But do you know any contemporary player that would not have to ride shotgun to O'Neal? The fact that Bryant challenged that notion tells you all you need to know about his drive to be the best.

    In Game Four of the 2000 Finals, Bryant took charge in overtime after O'Neal had fouled out, maturing in a matter of minutes before our eyes. He has seven All-Star berths, five All-Defense selections and two All-NBA nods and is just 27. He has plenty more to show us.

    KEVIN GARNETT: The contemporary McAdoo, with passing ability to boot. His streak of 20-10-5 seasons is at seven, two longer than that of Larry Bird without the benefit of a pair of 50 Greatest Players sharing the frontcourt. And Garnett's run of All-Defense First Team selections is six and counting, which is six more than Bird.

    That is about perspective rather than comparison. However, Garnett - like Bird - also changed the finances of the game. He still needs to update his postseason resume to something more than appearances, but at 29, he has lots of time.

    TIM DUNCAN: Perhaps the most complete big man to play the game. Aside from his occasional free-throw shooting funks, there is not aspect of his game that you would not classify as a strength because his intelligence refuses to allow him to try things he knows he cannot do.

    When Duncan makes First Team All-NBA after this season, he will match Bird's mark of nine straight selections at the outset of a career. With two MVPs, three championships, three Finals MVPs and still not yet 30, he is on his way to joining Jordan, Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the pantheon of winning while dominating.

    ALLEN IVERSON: The most talented small man to play the game. Better than Bob Cousy, Nate Archibald, Isiah Thomas or John Stockton, Iverson has an MVP, four scoring titles, three steals titles, six All-Star berths and a career playoff average of better than 30 points per game.

    Now 30, Iverson also has one of the greatest motors in sports history. There are those who say he will burn it out or break down the same way Archibald and Thomas did. The truth is that playing point guard may extend his career rather than shorten it.

    DIRK NOWITZKI: The original list had just two international players - Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing, both representative of the beginning of the foreign influence on the NBA in the 1980s. However, one in every six players today is from somewhere other than the United States, and they aren't just centers.

    No player is more representative of the foreign invasion than Nowitzki, the best shooting big man in the history of the game. Just 27, the four-time All-Star has added post play and rugged rebounding to his unstoppable perimeter attack and has made the Mavericks his team, the same way Olajuwon and Ewing did with theirs.

    LEBRON JAMES: Yes, we know he has yet to play 200 games. Yes, we are aware that he has yet to visit the playoffs. And yes, we know he can't legally buy a drink. Did you know that if James maintains his current career average of 24 points, remains relatively healthy and play until he is 36, he will have nearly 35,000 points?

    He won't get there, because somewhere along the way he will realize that his long-term future - and the key to becoming a perennial winner - is to be less Michael and more Magic. Don't doubt him. He has figured out everything else so far, and he is just 20.

    Updated on Saturday, Dec 17, 2005 11:37 am EST

    LINK
    12/27/2005 at Spurs - SamBear - 3

    1/2/2008 vs Memphis - SamBear - 19


    4/9/2014 - Luis Scola also recorded a season high with 24 points and Evan Turner added 23 for Indiana.

  • #2
    Re: NBA 2005: A peek ahead at future immortals

    I'd switch GP & Nash.

    GP is standard. He stunk it up in Seattle when Denver beat them. He stunk it up in the Finals. I never liked him.

    Nash brings a whole new trend to the league. Like it or not - Phoenix's small-ball, quick offense, high-scoring, 3-pt shooting and making mediocre players get $70M contracts after one good year.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA 2005: A peek ahead at future immortals

      His list is fine, I have some quibbles, but it's fine. However, as we've discussed in the past, the top-50 list needs a redo. James Worthy?!
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NBA 2005: A peek ahead at future immortals

        Originally posted by Kegboy
        His list is fine, I have some quibbles, but it's fine. However, as we've discussed in the past, the top-50 list needs a redo. James Worthy?!
        Worthy will always be a question mark do to who he played with. Is he underated because he played with Magic or overrated because he played with Magic? The world will never know.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NBA 2005: A peek ahead at future immortals

          Originally posted by SycamoreKen
          Worthy will always be a question mark do to who he played with. Is he underated because he played with Magic or overrated because he played with Magic? The world will never know.
          Maybe someone needs to go ask Mr. Owl?

          Anyways, I say a bit overrated. He was always a very good player, but not top-50 all-time worthy (sorry) IMO. He had some big playoff games, but thats not enough.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NBA 2005: A peek ahead at future immortals

            The guy was one of the great clutch players of his era. He deserved his recognition.

            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


            • #7
              Re: NBA 2005: A peek ahead at future immortals

              Originally posted by Kstat
              The guy was one of the great clutch players of his era. He deserved his recognition.
              He's gotten plenty of recognition. He was part of some of the greatest teams ever in both college and the NBA. He was a multi-time All-Star, All-NBA talent. He's in the Hall of Fame.
              He's not one of the 50 greatest NBA players of all-time, and anyone who says he is is flat out wrong. Dominique was better, yet where's his recognition? Oh thats right, he didn't ride coattails like "Big Game" James did.

              Comment

              Working...
              X