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

The MVP Debate

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

    The MVP Debate

    As Uncle Buck posted earlier, Rick (and Donnie) have been busy touting JO, Ron, and Al for postseason awards. Here's an article from Peter May...

    KG's Campaign for MVP Should Prevail

    By Peter May
    Special to ESPN.com

    The lobbying has begun. The phone rang the other day and Indiana Pacers coach Rick Carlisle was on the line. He wasn't asking for any help in trying to figure out why his team could score only 61 points against the Pistons.


    He was boosting some of his players for NBA postseason awards. He did the same thing two years ago in Detroit. And, much like then, he missed out on one viable candidate -- himself.


    Then came an e-mail, addressed to me personally, by Pacers president Donnie Walsh. I always wondered what he was doing with all the time on his hands since Larry Bird came on board. Walsh's cyber missive contained three, spiffy PDF files -- I don't think the one promoting Ron Artest had a virus -- which, on paper, endorsed the same three Pacers (Jermaine O'Neal, Artest and Al Harrington) in the same fashion as Carlisle did through conversation and not-so-subtle persuasion.


    They tried to make a case for all three, offering up O'Neal for Most Valuable Player and first-team All-NBA. I'm here to say that while he may be a legit candidate for both awards, you cannot possibly pick an MVP out of the Eastern Conference. (Unless, of course, it's Rasheed Wallace.)


    That is not to say that the MVP award we all thought was already engraved with Kevin Garnett's name on it may be sort of like that Claret Jug that had Jean Van de Velde's name on it before he misplayed the 18th at Carnoustie in 1999. Tim Duncan is making his annual March/April charge. Kobe Bryant has been otherworldly since the All-Star break. The guess here is that Garnett has had a full-season's body of work for one of the top teams in the undeniably tougher conference and that he should win his first MVP.


    Sorry, Donnie. Sorry, Rick. While it's tempting to think of an Eastern Conference MVP, the math -- not to mention the logic -- just doesn't add up. O'Neal has had a terrific season. It just hasn't been better than Garnett's and, in the end, it may not be better than Duncan's. In other words, O'Neal might finish among the top three in MVP voting (he's certainly no worse than fourth) and he still won't make first-team All-NBA because of the position (forward) he plays.


    If you go by the test that the MVP is the best player on the best team, then O'Neal is a safe, if flawed, choice. The Pacers should finish with the league's best record, but after what happened to them last Sunday in Detroit, do you think they're a deadbolt lock to even make it out of the East? Then again, Indiana can't be the best team in the league no matter how many games it wins because it plays in the New York-Penn League Eastern Conference.


    The Pacers argue that their Eastern Conference-best 20-8 record against the Western Conference this season makes O'Neal a viable candidate. True, but against the West's Big Four (Lakers, Kings, Spurs, Wolves) the Pacers are 3-5, including 0-4 on the road. Even the Celtics won in Minnesota.


    In the area of double-doubles, Garnett is the runaway leader. Duncan is in second place, well ahead of O'Neal who, as Walsh sat down to carefully craft his letter, was tied with, um, Erick Dampier for third place. In the East, O'Neal is the King of the Double-Doubles; but he's beating out Jamaal Magloire and Carlos Boozer.


    Still, O'Neal shouldn't be eliminated from consideration simply for playing in the weaker conference (although he could have moved to the Men's Club last summer when he was a free agent.) But maybe it's time the Pacers advocate for two MVPs, two Rookies, two Coaches, etc. Baseball does it. And, for the last couple of years, the NBA's weekly and monthly honors have been along conference lines. Why not continue it into the postseason?


    In that case, there would be no MVP argument in the East. O'Neal has been the undeniable Beast of the East all season, or at least until he got defanged last Sunday (nine points, nine rebounds) by the Pistons. The Pacers have been pretty consistent winners since the bell rang. And, as most of us grudgingly have to admit, we may have a competitive, hotly contested NBA Finals this year because each team out West has its warts.


    But if you split the postseason awards into conferences, you'd avoid the LeBron-Carmelo debate; they'd each be Rookies of the Year. The coaching situation would probably boil down to a Jerry-Hubie contest in the West and a Carlisle-Stan Van Gundy contest in the East.


    But as long as we're picking one winner, not two, the guy who makes the most sense for MVP is Garnett. That's a hard admission for someone who considers himself to be a dues-paying member of the Tim Duncan Fan Club. But Garnett has been spectacular all season long. He doesn't miss games. His team has been at or near the top of the toughest conference all season long. He's leading the league in rebounding. He plays outside and inside. He's a leader on and off the floor. It's been his year.


    We always wondered what the Wolves would do if good players surrounded Garnett. We now know. Garnett may still be a bit too unselfish for some of us -- OK, he should be more assertive when the game is on the line -- but he has driven Minnesota to a possible division title. Even more critical, maybe, just maybe, he can lead them to a victory in the first round of the playoffs. Can a parade be far behind?


    Let's put it this way: If we're going to give him the MVP award, he'd better lead his team out of the first round. The last MVP not to do that was Moses Malone in 1982, when his Houston Rockets were ousted in a best-of-three series by Seattle in the first round. (Six teams had better records that season than the 46-36 Rockets, yet Malone won his first of two consecutive MVPs.)


    But, as we all know, the MVP is based on what happens between Games 1 and 82. And no one has been more consistent, more productive, more dominating and more successful this season than Garnett. He may not get as far in the postseason as O'Neal does. But he has made an emphatic statement in the regular season that can't be overlooked.

    Peter May, who covers the NBA for the Boston Globe, is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.


    Some Stats:

    THREE-HORSE RACE FOR MVP?
    Duncan Garnett O'Neal
    Points 22.4 24.2 20.0
    Rebounds 12.4 13.9 10.0
    Assists 3.1 5.1 2.1
    Steals 0.88 1.44 0.72
    Blocks 2.6 2.2 2.6
    Dbl-Dbl 52 68 42
    W-L 53-25 54-24 58-21
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The MVP Debate

    In terms of MVP, Larry and Donnie are going to have a hard sell to get a lot of votes for JO. It's not a knock against JO, but KG has just had an unbelievable season.

    Also, even if JO is relegated to 2nd Team All-NBA, that will be quite an accomplishment, especially given the position he plays. Uncle Reg has never made it above 3rd Team. Just the fact that there is a strong argument for JO to make 1st team says a lot about the year the Pacers are having.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The MVP Debate

      I swear to God that article was the man's own personal "how many times in one piece can I belittle the East" contest.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The MVP Debate

        question: are the all-nba teams by position? can not all 3 of garnett, duncan and jermaine be named to the first team? i ask because i've read one writer (i think it was stein) who had peja pencilled in as first team guard.

        i think the all-stars go strictly by position, as determined by the league. is it the same for all-nba?

        also, is anyone else bothered that donnie walsh is sending out promotional material to promote the players? it seems so impersonal, like the shiny catalogues that businesses mass mail. is it standard practice among teams? anyway, i think carlisle's approach (direct and personal) is way more appropriate.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The MVP Debate

          I swear to God that article was the man's own personal "how many times in one piece can I belittle the East" contest.
          Sometimes you have to wade through the crap to get to the meat of an article. Although it's hard to debate anything about the East when there are only 3 teams with winning records.

          That said, if the Pacers meet the Pistons in the ECF, a lot of these pundits are going to be in for a wake-up call.

          EDIT: Is anyone else intrigued by the idea of having separate awards for each conference? i.e. Two MVP's? I don't think that would do anything besides promote the disparity between the two conferences and would make the East's awards appear to be equivalent to Junior Varsity awards in the public's perception.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The MVP Debate

            Although it's hard to debate anything about the East when there are only 3 teams with winning records.
            As a whole, yes. But to bash this team because we're in the East bothers me. "They won 60 games, but ohh they're in the East that doens't count" is essentially what most think.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The MVP Debate

              Although it's hard to debate anything about the East when there are only 3 teams with winning records.
              As a whole, yes. But to bash this team because we're in the East bothers me. "They won 60 games, but ohh they're in the East that doens't count" is essentially what most think.

              Agreed. May and 99% of all other writers use that fact to further their own arguments. You seldom hear any of them bring up the fact we're 20-8 against the West and that just happens to be the best of any team in the league.

              To penalize a team for the conference they play in is just lazy. I bet 90% of these guys haven't seen more than 2 Pacer games all year. Their loss.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The MVP Debate

                The Pacers argue that their Eastern Conference-best 20-8 record against the Western Conference this season makes O'Neal a viable candidate. True, but against the West's Big Four (Lakers, Kings, Spurs, Wolves) the Pacers are 3-5, including 0-4 on the road. Even the Celtics won in Minnesota.
                What exactly is wrong with splitting with the Lakers, Spurs and T-Wolves? Seems like that means they must've split with us, too. I guess none of their guys are legit. The loss to the Spurs was by 1 in OT at their place. We destroyed the Wolves here, they returned the favor there.

                Or losing two to the Kings, both without Artest (at least partially in the first one) with one by 3 and one on a buzzer-beater at the end?

                And "Even the Celtics won in Minnesota"? How about their 116-95 loss at home?....Sheesh.......
                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The MVP Debate

                  He is an idiot.
                  Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The MVP Debate

                    If I had a dollar for every time I have heard a media type in print, on radio, on TV mention the Pacers scoring 61 points against the Pistons. I would be a millionaire.

                    What is that the only game the Pacers have played.


                    I can hear it now, "here are your 2004 World Champions, the 61 point scoring Indiana Pacers.

                    "Well, yes the Pacers won the championship and yes they had the best record in the whole NBA, but they only scored 61 points against he Pistons"

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: The MVP Debate

                      With the exception of the Pistons and the Pacers I still think the East is kinda crappy. I do feel however that KG deserves the MVP this year.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: The MVP Debate

                        IF KG's team does not get past the 1st round, with all the surround cast hired for that purpose then he failed in the most important part of being an MVP; to carry your team.

                        That being said, this article is obvioulsy written by a guy who lives in Boston, well at least writes there, and is sick and tired of the fact that he has no decent team to go watch or get invited to.

                        His "east vs west" debate is old and defintely growing a beard of mold that does not get overshadowed by his illogical ramblings.

                        The article would be digestable had it been written with some insight, however he displays such a total misinformed stupdity that it us hurting hte entire game and not just one or two team/players.

                        and to think that such a dimwit actually get's paid for what he is doing is amazing, they must have strange laws there when it comes to actual deluvery of the purchased goods, then again; Boston, look at the Celtics, the total picture explains something.
                        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: The MVP Debate

                          JO makes Mike Kahn's All-NBA starting 5.
                          Plenty of Pacers Honorable Mentions as well.

                          http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/7239305
                          Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X