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

5-13-04 A new answer for Philly's woes?

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

  • 5-13-04 A new answer for Philly's woes?

    A new answer for Philly's woes?

    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Thursday, May 6

    There was a point toward the end of the season when it appeared Allen Iverson had run out of answers.

    Broken down, defiant and, for the first time in his career, downright lethargic, the Sixers' icon looked like toast.

    GM Billy King had shopped him before the February trade deadline. When nothing materialized, Iverson began fighting with head coach Chris Ford. His shocking decision to sit out a game because Ford refused to place him in the starting lineup seemed like the final straw in a long, tumultuous love-hate affair between the Sixers and Iverson.

    Iverson sells tickets. He dazzles, does things that most players in the league only can perform on a PlayStation. But could the Sixers ever really win with Iverson? With head coach and therapist Larry Brown gone, King began to legitimately wonder -- is there another coach in the league who can keep Iverson's head in the game?

    When season ended, King met with Iverson and had a heart-to-heart. Most expected it to be a preliminary divorce hearing. Instead, King and Iverson emerged hand-in-hand, and King told reporters Iverson would remain a 76er next season.

    "He said he wants to be a part of it," King said. "He's been here when it was bad, when it was good, to now when we're not in the playoffs. He says he loves it and doesn't expect to see himself ever playing for another team."

    King then said he had no plans to trade Iverson. "My intention is, Allen will be on the roster."

    To make sure things stayed that way, King quickly went about finding a replacement for Ford, who had tangled with Iverson too many times. Mo Cheeks, a close friend of Iverson's, was rumored to be the front-runner, but King pulled a stunning reversal and hired former Celtics head coach Jim O'Brien.

    O'Brien is King's insurance policy. Iverson, who over the space of one year has killed three coaches -- Brown, Randy Ayers and now Ford -- won't be killing a fourth. At least not in Philly.

    O'Brien said all the right things in his press conference. He said he wanted to coach Iverson. In fact, he insisted on it before he'd agree to join the Sixers.

    "When you're dealing with somebody like Allen, I really wanted to be as close to 100 percent sure as I possibly could that I'd be coaching him," O'Brien said. "Billy obviously makes those decisions, but I wanted Billy to understand what I thought of Allen."

    "He said to me, 'If I'm going to take this job, I want to have the chance to coach Allen Iverson,' " King said. "He said, 'I think he's one of the best offensive players, and an underrated defensive player. You don't get players like that, and I think I can win with him.' I don't think it was a [hiring] condition, but he made his point clear what he would like."

    O'Brien appears, on paper, to be the perfect fit for the job. He'll ask his team to give its all on defense. In return, he'll let players do pretty much whatever they want on offense. Both roles should fit the Sixers. The team has a number of very capable defenders, including Iverson, Eric Snow and Samuel Dalembert. The team also has one very creative scorer who is at his best when he's improvising on the floor. After watching O'Brien let Antoine Walker and Paul Pierce jack up shots in Boston the past few years, the O'Brien-Iverson combo should be a match made in heaven.

    Will O'Brien's presence be enough to get Iverson and the Sixers on the rebound? Here's a look at what to expect as Insider continues its summer blueprint series.

    76ers Summer Blueprint

    DRAFT: The Sixers likely will have the ninth pick in the upcoming draft. Local media has been lobbying the Sixers of late to consider drafting Saint Joseph's point guard Jameer Nelson with this pick. That seems downright silly on a number of different fronts.

    One, if the Sixers really wanted Nelson, they probably could trade down 10 spots and still get him. Two, Nelson, a 5-foot-11 scoring point guard, isn't a good backcourt fit with the 6-foot-1 Iverson at shooting guard. Also, with Eric Snow firmly entrenched at the point for the next five seasons, it would be pretty hard to believe the Sixers would take Nelson unless they planned to move Snow or Iverson this summer.

    Remember, the Sixers tried the small, scoring point guard thing several years ago when they drafted Speedy Claxton. We all remember how well that worked out.

    More likely, the Sixers will try to fix what has been a constant problem over the past five years -- the small forward position. The Big Dog, Glenn Robinson, has just one year left on his contract, and there's no guarantee he'll be on the opening-night roster. The good news is a perfect fit might fall right into the Sixers' lap at No. 9. Stanford's Josh Childress is long, athletic, can shoot the ball, play multiple positions and uses his huge wingspan to play great defense.

    The key for Childress is he doesn't need to shoot 20 times a game to be effective. He needs to get stronger, but I think this pick would be a slam dunk for the Sixers. If Childress is off the board, more depth in the paint is probably the way to go. A big, young Euro like Kosta Perovic, Andris Biedrins or even Damir Omerhodzic could make some sense.

    FREE AGENCY: The good (or bad) news is the Sixers won't lose any significant free agents this summer. They have team options on Willie Green and Kyle Korver and likely will pick both of them up.

    Thanks to King's free spending last summer, the Sixers are once again about $20 million over the cap. That means the most they'll have to spend in free agency is their mid-level exception. Now that there's a decent chance there will be a luxury tax next year (thanks to reduced revenues league-wide) the Sixers may not be able to, or be allowed to, spend it. They already are luxury-tax payers, and adding an extra $5.1 million to the payroll is really more like adding $10.2 million once the tax is figured in.

    It's also unclear where they would spend the money. The best option would be to make a run at Celtics center Mark Blount, who has a great relationship with O'Brien and could give the Sixers another big weapon in the paint. But is he really worth his $5 million per year asking price?

    Adonal Foyle might be a more economical fit, if they want to add a big man. Small forwards like Stephen Jackson, Eric Williams and Morris Peterson could fit, if they choose to use their mid-level exception. But big men like Erick Dampier, Marcus Camby and Mehmet Okur will be out of their price range.

    TRADES: King was very active before the February trade deadline trying to shake up this roster. However, his inability to make any deals happen before the deadline could be telling this summer.

    For the first time in several years, the Sixers seriously considered trading Iverson, but they couldn't work out a deal that made sense for them. With O'Brien in the house, look for them to hold onto Iverson unless someone gives them an offer they simply can't refuse. Given the lack of interest in Iverson in February, that isn't likely.

    The Sixers would love to dump Robinson this summer, but trading him might not make much sense. Robinson was a terrible fit in Philly last year, and King should've known he was making a big mistake in signing him. Both the Bucks and Hawks, Robinson's previous teams, couldn't wait to dump him. He's a team cancer both on and off the court. His -4.2 plus/minus rating was the second-worst (behind Zendon Hamilton) of any player on the team.

    Robinson is in the last year of a contract that pays him $12.1 million this year. So why don't they trade him? He will be difficult to move unless the Sixers are willing to take back a bad long-term contract in return. That would probably be a mistake, given their precarious cap position. Waiting for Robinson to come off the books next year will drop the Sixers below the luxury-tax threshold and give them the flexibility to re-sign Dalembert. If they take on a huge contract, that might not be financially possible.

    The other player who should keep his luggage handy is Snow. There was a time Snow was the most underrated point guard in the league. But the combination of a bad year in 2003-04 and a huge five-year contract extension has killed most of his trade value. Plenty of teams are still interested, but the only way they'd trade for him would be if the Sixers take back a bad deal -- and a less-talented player -- in return.

    Coleman, Greg Buckner and Aaron McKie also are candidates to be traded. However, their big, long-term deals also make them very difficult to move. Anything the Sixers get back in return will have little value.

    COACHING: With not much expected to happen in the draft, free agency or trade-wise, the burden is going to fall squarely on the shoulders of O'Brien. The situation shouldn't be too unfamiliar to him. Several seasons ago he took over an underachieving Celtics team rocked by the resignation of Rick Pitino and quickly turned it into one of the hardest working, overachieving teams in the league without many changes to the roster.

    O'Brien knows the key to his success in Philly is motivating veterans like Iverson, Snow, Robinson and McKie and developing young talents like Dalembert, Kenny Thomas and John Salmons. If he can just do that, the Sixers should be able to get back into the playoffs next season.

    FRONT OFFICE: Hiring O'Brien was a great move by King, but long term, the Sixers are in a lot of trouble. O'Brien might be able to get this Sixers team to overachieve and get back into the playoffs, but no one is under the illusion it will be a Finals contender. The problem is that King has painted the team into a corner financially and has too few assets or financial flexibility to make changes. His decision to throw huge, long-term contracts at Snow and Thomas will come back to haunt the Sixers down the road.

    The draft will be huge for King. He has one very nice young player in Dalembert, who, if he improves, could turn into a big star. He needs to add one more. If he can weed through all of the young players in this draft and pluck out a star, the Sixers' future will become immediately brighter. If he strikes out (and the Sixers have a history of that in the draft) his days in Philly will be numbered. Having mismanaged the cap will leave the team with few options, and someone else likely will have to come in to save a slowly sinking ship.

  • #2
    Re: 5-13-04 A new answer for Philly's woes?

    Thanks for posting Rag.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 5-13-04 A new answer for Philly's woes?

      I figured you would be interested in that one. Glad to see your "in the club" so you can see it.

      Comment

      Working...
      X