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

Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

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

  • #16
    Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

    Just to fill you in on some of the things I've learned through some of the statistical analysis/history circles:

    The APBR (Association for Professional Basketball Research) will be holding a meeting in Las Vegas to determine their actions going forward when it comes to measuring and suggesting Hall-worthy candidates. This meeting is scheduled to coincide with the NBA pension/old-timers meeting also scheduled in Vegas.

    The APBR is trying to establish itself as a historical repository and association in much the same way that SABR has for baseball. There is a number crunching group associated with APBR that is very similar to the SABRmetrics/Money Ball movement started by Bill James.

    It has become apparent to many in the community that the Hall is somewhat 'broken' because it tries to represent a very diverese list of inductees: players, coaches and contributors from the international, modern professional, old professional, collegiate, and women's ranks.

    I'm not trying to discourage anyone here, but there is a lot of difficulty associated with proposing a candidate for induction. First, you can document items and send them to the hall, but everything is screened by the research staff and condensed into a resume of no more than three pages. Second, the reserach staff is under no obligation to forward this information on to the committee or to even look at it. Third, the committees are anonymous and often represent the old-school interests of the original NBA teams, in particular, the Knicks, Lakers, and Celtics. Fourth, even if a candidate moves through the committee, they are often tied up in the general induction process when candidates from all of the committees are pooled together. People aren't well-versed in all of the candidates and it becomes nearly impossible to differentiate between a Spanish coach, a female collegian, and an ABA coach, for example.

    The only point in the process where you guys have any direct influence is obstacle one above. I would suggest two things:

    1-make a resume for Leonard and document/footnote everything in it do as much of the work for the researchers as possible. Present every aspect of his career. Address his deficiencies and strengths equally and put him in a historical context at his retirement as well as today. For example:

    -Currently ranks 22nd all time in combined ABA/NBA career victories, ahead of hall of fame coaches Bill Sharman, John Kundla, etc.
    -At retirement, ranked behind only Red Auberbach, Red Holzman, and Alex Hannum in career victories.
    -At retirement, ranked behind only Red Auerbach for career playoff victories.
    -His career playoff winning percentage of .596 places him ahead of hall of famers Red Auerbach, etc.
    -Compare his 3 professional championships and 5 finals appearances with guys like Holzman, Hannum, and Bill Sharman who are his contemporaries and already in.
    -Try to find quotes from Hannum and Sharman, both of these guys are in, both respected the ABA and Slick, and both had success in the ABA and NBA. The Hall doesn't take letters of rec. Hannum is dead anyway, but recs are looked at as lobbying. A quote/comment from history doesn't necessarily constitute lobbying.

    2-This point depends upon how ambitious you guys want to be about pursuing this. Try to get others outside of PD involved. I think you need to promote Gilmore and Slick together to draw more people in. Shop it to the 3 other former ABA fanbases in the NBA, and some of the former markets like Utah, Dallas, Louisville, and Carolina. The only way to get pub to the voters is through press in multiple cities.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

      Originally posted by RWB View Post
      Maybe I believe in too many conspiracy theories, but I also believe the ABA didn't get any respect from the HOF because of the Red Auerbach's down the road influence with the Boston media. Can't forget this dumb comment by the legendary Red.

      http://www.remembertheaba.com/Tribut...l/Leonard.html

      In 1975 the war of words between the ABA and the NBA was heating up. In a quote that appeared in Sports Illustrated, the Celtics' Red Auerbach said that Pacers' coach Slick Leonard was a "bad coach when he was with Baltimore in the NBA and he must be a dog now too." Auerbach also said that "Julius Erving is nice kid but not a great player." In January 1976, Dan Pattison interviewed Leonard to get his reaction to Auerbach's comments.
      I always hoped Red would die a slow, painful death so that I could send a bunch of dead roses to his family "courtesy of Slick Leonard's fans" while he was on his deathbed. Too bad he went quickly.

      Reason #1 why I despise the Green Guys more than any team in the league.

      I know, I know, I should tell you how I really feel about things. Not pull any punches. Whatever...

      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

        By the way, Slick's comments were:

        "I had an expansion team in Baltimore and Auerbach was sitting in Boston with a monster," Slick pointed out. "I've been at odds with him for a long time. I never put him on a pedestal like others. I took a team of rookie players and battled his championship club to four or five point games.

        "Ask Kevin Loughery (New York Nets coach) and Rod Thorn (Spirits of St. Louis coach), they were my backcourt. Check Auerbach's record before the Bill Russell era. He never won a championship. The one thing about him is what one guy said to me quite a while ago: 'He's got the biggest mouth and the strongest hands in the NBA. He held onto Russell's jersey for 13 years.'

        "He can say all he wants but he was no tactician. He ran a low post with Russell -- that wasn't hard to figure out -- a fast break and with those guys (Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, K.C. Jones, and Sam Jones) put a little pressure on the ball. There was nothing tactical from him. His comments are so ridiculous.

        "The point I'm trying to make is if you can coach, fine. It still takes talent to win. There are no geniuses in this business. There are some better than others. I always considered Red Holzman (New York Knicks coach) a great coach, but he's under a different situation without Willis Reed or Dave DeBusschere. The same with Larry Costello at Milwaukee without Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson."
        And look up there at that last paragraph, especially those of you that over-rate Rick Carlisle... just as Slick says, an average coach with talented players will look better than a "great" coach with average players.

        After Riley, JVG, Sloan and perhaps the perpetually overrated Phil Jackson (who looks mortal now), there's a lot of coaches that are interchangeable. And Rick is one of them. (and so is the overrated-on-here Avery Johnson.) The realistic answer is that he's in the middle of tight pack that ranges from #5 and #25. Clearly ahead of the Terry Stots' and Brian Hill's of the league. But not the others.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

          I've always thought Jackson was overrated. Looking more and more like he can't pull off championships with just one superstar - he needs two (i.e. Jordan/Pippen, Shaq/Kobe). But then again, he's just laughed all the way to the bank.
          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: HEY ABADays

            Star article from April 1 talking about the difficulty of getting ABA players in the HOF.


            http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04

            I think it was ABADays (?) who mentioned Pat Cosgrove before trying to get something done. ABA, ddn't you know this guy?
            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

              Ok for now I registered 2 domains, which should help us on our way

              www.slickinbhof.com and www.abaintohof.com


              I will try and set up a "quicky" site for both, but need a lot of stuff from people, I will also ask permission from other sites that are abot the ABA to share data and files.

              Anyone any good at making websites, now's the time to step up, as I have little time for it.
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

                While I don't know about permisions to use materail from other sites, you guys should consider making a wiki. That way anyone could contribute, and you wouldn't need a web designer. This would be a good first step to at least collect the information. Then the wiki could become a kind of scratch pad for the web page that Able is hosting.

                http://www.wik.is/

                I've been using this site for a while now, and find it very easy.

                Instead of Making a web page, you just make pages. YOu can put photos, etc. It's kind of a mix between a community Blog and a web page.

                No, no, I don't work for the company. Just thought it makes sense for what you are trying to do.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

                  Here's an intersting one to look at, but it's just a start

                  http://mrkeatley.wik.is/Home

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

                    I can setup a complete tiki-wiki whenever anyone wants that, in fact there are several running, just depends on what most here want i guess
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

                      Recently I'd been thinking (but not talking obviously) that it would be cool if we started a PD wiki for info on past Pacers players, teams, and coaches. I picture like, for instance, there'd be a Mark Jackson page with some photoes, stats, bio, links, etc. You could have one on the 2000 Finals team, the '94 team, etc, etc. I think that'd be kind of fun, actually. We'd just need to limit it to registered PD members who can edit the pages to keep it from getting messy by outsiders and I think that'd be pretty fun.

                      How do you all feel about that idea?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Can PD be a catalyst for Slick Leonard

                        We can focus mostly on his ABA coaching career, but also he was a good college player in his own right and the HOF is not just for pro accomplishments.

                        Here's a good recap of his contributions to the 1953 national champions. He was a guard called "pound-for-pound the best player in America" and was All-Big Ten and All-American in both 1953 and 1954.

                        Slick and big man Don Schlundt were the key players.

                        http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/sports/hh/1953/

                        Leonard move a key
                        The next fall, McCracken moved Charlie Kraak in at forward, allowing the shift of the 6-3 Leonard to guard, where he became an All-American - "pound for pound" the best college player in America, Chicago sportswriter Jimmy Enright, who doubled as a colorful Big Ten referee, called him...

                        The brash Leonard, master of the long, two-handed set shot, misfired on his first two tries. The Illini crowd jeered "Shoot! Shoot!" when he got the ball again. Leonard sank seven straight shots, ten field goals in all, in a 23-point contribution to a 91-79 Hoosier victory that - with four games still to play - clinched another item of history: IU's first-ever clear-cut Big Ten championship....


                        In the semifinals, Indiana met Southeastern Conference champion Louisiana State and its great All-American center, Bob Pettit. Pettit matched Schlundt's 29, but no one offset Leonard's 22 as IU cruised, 80-67.

                        then the game-winning point in the championship againsy Kansas:

                        With 27 seconds to go, the score was tied at 68 when Leonard drew a two-shot foul.

                        The first one missed.

                        The second one didn't.
                        -------

                        a bio from his IU Hall of Fame induction:

                        Bobby Leonard
                        Basketball 1953-54, captain 1953-54...Indiana Most Valuable Player in 1952...All-Big Ten and All-American in 1953 and 1954...played on two Big Ten championship teams and NCAA championship team in 1953.


                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X