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

05-20-04 Kings Blueprint + EMuss

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

  • 05-20-04 Kings Blueprint + EMuss

    The end of the Kings?

    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Wednesday, May 19
    Updated: May 20
    12:13 PM ET

    In and out.

    It's the story of Chris Webber's career. He has the pedigree. The smile. The good looks. He says all the right things. His game is pretty. So was the 3-pointer he took as the buzzer sounded on the Sacramento Kings' season Wednesday night.

    Summer Blueprints
    What will your team be up to this summer? NBA Insider Chad Ford breaks it down

    # Utah Jazz
    # Philadelphia 76ers
    # Atlanta Hawks
    # Washington Wizards
    # Phoenix Suns
    # Cleveland Cavaliers
    # Seattle SuperSonics
    # Chicago Bulls
    # Golden State Warriors
    # Los Angeles Clippers
    # Orlando Magic
    # Boston Celtics
    # Portland Trail Blazers
    # Charlotte Bobcats
    # 2004 Free agents

    The ball rattled in and out. The Kings (once again) are dead. The fingers (once again) are pointing C-Webb's direction.

    "I definitely thought the last shot was good," Webber told reporters after Minnesota beat Sacramento, 83-80, in Game 7 of their semifinal series. "It did everything but go in."

    That, in essence, is the story of the Kings and Webber. They do everything but win Game 7s.

    How will Webber and the Kings respond to yet another season of disappointment? Will they circle the wagons and claim a few bad breaks and one bad injury (this year to sixth-man Bobby Jackson) robbed them of their throne?

    Or will owners Joe and Gavin Maloof and GM Geoff Petrie decide it's time to lay this version of the Kings to rest and start over?

    Either way, the answer starts with Webber. Can Webber overcome the worst season of his professional career to lead the Kings on a revenge tour next year? Or has the injury- and scandal-ridden star worn out his welcome in Sacramento? Here's a look at what to expect, as Insider continues its summer blueprint series.

    Kings Summer Blueprint

    DRAFT: The downside of being consistently good every season? It leaves the Kings very little wiggle room when it comes to rebuilding. Teams that can find a real sleeper late in the first round (as the Nets did with Nenad Kristic two years ago) come away with an enormous benefit. The Kings haven't even had a first-round draft pick since taking Gerald Wallace in 2001. For a guy who has a reputation as a draft guru, Petrie has been relatively quiet.

    This may be the year to awaken the beast. As evidenced by the slim rotation coach Rick Adelman used in the playoffs, the Kings need depth everywhere, but especially in the frontcourt, where the fragile Webber and the aging Vlade Divac command the most attention.

    The great news is this draft is filled with big guys who, down the road, could be special. The key for the Kings is finding the right one late in the first round.

    Several big (but not big-time) prospects should be hanging around when the Kings pick 26th, including high schooler Robert Swift and international players such as Peter John Ramos, Anderson Varejao, Johan Petro, Uros Slokar and Ha Seung Jin. American players such as David Harrison, Lawrence Roberts and Brandon Bass also could be around.

    All of them have the upside not normally found late in the first round, but all also have the usual risks and caveats intrinsically entwined with drafting that late.

    FREE AGENCY: The Kings have only one major free agent going into the summer, but he's a doozy. Divac's contract is expiring, and there are big question marks about whether he'll be back next season. Divac, 36, still has some fight in him, but the Kings are ready to hand over the starting center duties to Brad Miller next season.

    Divac, who is most effective when he's playing 25 or fewer minutes a night, is probably OK with a reserve role, but it may come down to money.


    Vlade Divac
    Center
    Sacramento Kings
    Profile


    2003-2004 SEASON STATISTICS
    GM PPG RPG APG FG% FT%
    81 9.9 5.7 5.3 .470 .654

    The Maloofs have stretched themselves thin by offering big deals to Webber, Peja Stojakovic, Mike Bibby and Doug Christie. Can they afford to keep Divac?

    Several other teams looking for a veteran presence in the middle will come calling. The Kings have been good to Divac, and it makes sense for him to stay. Still, if he has a chance to win a title elsewhere, it's not inconceivable he could bolt. Darius Songaila also is a free agent, but it's likely the Kings will re-sign him to a reasonable deal.

    Sacramento's payroll will be around $57 million next season, about $12 million over the projected $45 million salary cap. There's no end in sight. The team's payroll isn't expected to dip below the cap until the 2008-09 season, barring trades. The Kings do have their full mid-level exception. Will the Maloofs give Petrie the green light to use it?

    This isn't a great free-agent class, and there aren't many players on the market who really would be worth the money for the Kings. A player such as Adonal Foyle or Antonio McDyess could add some toughness. Don't be surprised if the Kings scour the international market for a free agent. Players such as Andres Nocioni (Argentina), Fabrico Oberto (Argentina), Sarunas Jasikevicius (Lithuania) and Arvydas Macijauskas (Lithuania) could provide veteran leadership and toughness.

    Nocioni is a tough swingman who dominates international competition. Oberto is a tough, wiley center cut out of Divac's mold. He just turned 30, so it's now or never for him. Macijauskas is another interesting prospect. Described as the best shooter in Europe, he could give the Kings another long-distance option besides Stojakovic.

    TRADES: If the Kings are going to have a major shake-up this summer, it's probably going to happen with a trade, and it likely would involve Webber.


    Trading Chris Webber (left) will be tough, but the Kings should at least explore the possibility.
    Injuries and scandals have tarnished Webber's reputation in Sacramento. The Kings thrived without him and struggled when he returned. No one is second guessing how effective Webber can be when he's healthy, but lately his health and his passion for the game have been legitimate questions. Are the Kings better off trading him?

    The answer may be yes, if they can get a talented, and perhaps younger, player in return. That's easier to write than to accomplish. Webber will make $17 million next season. Few teams are going to offer a young, big post player in return for Webber and his contract.

    Still, there may be a few options worth exploring. Making a run at Washington's Kwame Brown could make some sense for the Kings. Brown has struggled in Washington, but there's no doubt he has talent. Perhaps a different town and less pressure to be "The Man" would suit him.

    Swapping Brown, Larry Hughes and Christian Laettner for Webber would give the Kings significant cap savings, and could give the Wizards the missing piece to be a contender in the East. Webber's relationship with the club was rocky during his first tenure in Washington, but on a more veteran team, he should be OK.

    If the Nuggets are willing to give up Nene Hilario and Nikoloz Tskitishvili for Webber, that also would be another good option for the Kings. However, don't expect Denver GM Kiki Vandeweghe to give up the future for the immediate gains Webber would bring.

    Oher options aren't as attractive for Sacramento. Teams such as the Mavericks, Magic and Bulls would love to acquire Webber, but it's doubtful they could offer enough in return to make it worthwhile for the Kings.

    COACHING: Rick Adelman has done a great job in Sacramento, and his players seem to be fond of him. There's going to be talk that perhaps the system is stale or the Kings need to try something else, but the truth is Adelman is a big part of the Kings' success. When they're playing the right way, they're one of the best teams in the NBA. Dumping Adelman at this point would be a mistake.

    FRONT OFFICE: The Kings have been a model NBA franchise for the last few years. Another painful loss is discouraging, but the team is in pretty good shape. A shake-up may be in order, but not an overhaul. Petrie is going to have to be savvy about how he drafts, who he signs and who he's willing to move.

    However, history suggests he's up to the task, and even minor modifications could make a big difference next season. Critics will continue to say the Kings' window of opportunity is closing, but with a young core of Bibby, Stojakovic and Miller, and veterans such as Webber, Christie and Divac still capable of playing important roles, I expect the Kings to keep competing for another three or four more years.

    ---

    College coaches struggle with NBA demands

    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Thursday, May 20
    Updated: May 20
    11:47 AM ET

    There was no surprise Wednesday when the Warriors fired head coach Eric Musselman. The writing had been on the wall for months, and the minute the team officially hired Chris Mullin as GM, Musselman knew it was time to pack his bags.

    The only real mystery is why it took them so long to pull the trigger. I've been saying for months that firing Musselman was a terrible idea. He got more out of the Warriors than any coach in the last decade. His players didn't always agree with his methods, but it was hard to argue with the results. Musselman never led the Warriors to the playoffs, but Mullin & Co. are fooling themselves if they believe any coach could have reached the postseason with that roster.


    Eric Musselman got the most of a thin roster. Will Mike Montgomery be able to do more?
    The surprise, though, came when word leaked that Mullin had targeted Stanford coach Mike Montgomery to replace Musselman. You'd think Mullin would've fired Musselman only if he had another, experienced head coach waiting in the wings, a coach he believed could get more out of the team. Instead, it looks as if Mullin is tapping Montgomery, a very experienced college coach with a great reputation in the Bay Area.

    The problem? A number of "highly respected" college coaches have fallen flat on their faces when making the jump to the NBA. Rick Pitino, Lon Kruger, Tim Floyd, John Calipari and Leonard Hamilton were just the latest in a long and ugly line of top college coaches unable to make the transition to the pros. What makes Mullin think Montgomery is different?

    The way Montgomery turned Stanford into a consistent national power has been amazing. He truly is one of college basketball's finest coaches. But so were Pitino, Kruger, Floyd and Calipari. His hiring will be popular in the Bay Area, but so was Pitino's hiring in Boston.

    The NBA game is so different these days. Relating to good players on bad teams in the NBA is an area in which most former college coaches struggle. The losing gets to them. The demands from front offices to develop and play young players at the expense of winning wears on them. They often flame out within two seasons. Given the direction Mullin seems to be leading the Warriors, and the current trend of firing a coach the second things start going poorly, you've got to wonder if Montgomery would last even one season.

    Musselman's future
    Don't be shocked if Musselman resurfaces soon somewhere in the Eastern Conference. The Atlanta Hawks, New Orleans Hornets and Toronto Raptors are all looking for new coaches, and several other jobs could open up this summer, especially now that someone as respected as Musselman is available.

    Look for the first buzz about Musselman to come out of Atlanta. The Hawks already have interviewed John MacLeod and Del Harris, but they likely will talk to Musselman. He was a very popular assistant there and is the type of young head coach who could get the most out of a very young squad in Atlanta next year.
    Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel
Working...
X