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

Shaq and Wade had issues?

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

    Shaq and Wade had issues?

    http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/ba...ry/933528.html

    Eventually, we'll know what happened with Shaq, Wade


    Buy PhotoPhoenix Suns center Shaquille O'Neal defends Miami Heat guard Dwyane Wade late in the fourth quarter of a game Wednesday night, March 4, 2009 at AmericanAirlines Arena in Miami. JOHN VANBEEKUM / MIAMI HERALD STAFF
    Photo
    Related Content
    Dwyane Wade scores 35 as Miami Heat spoils Shaq's return
    BY ISRAEL GUTIERREZ
    igutierrez@MiamiHerald.com
    There's something there.

    As much as neither wanted to admit to even the slightest bit of dislike for each other, there's something between Shaquille O'Neal and Dwyane Wade that has somehow remained trapped in the confines of the locker room they used to share.

    The encounters are becoming a little less friendly each time, and they are heading to the verge of just plain chilly.

    That was Udonis Haslem, not Wade, whom O'Neal spent the pregame chatting up for several minutes, with Dorell Wright coming in late for a few words of his own. And the pretip handshake was typical, a hand slap, a halfway man hug and a tap from Wade on Shaq's bald head. Not much different from what Wade would have done to Rasheed Wallace before a game.

    During the game, Wade broke the cardinal rule of playing against O'Neal, which goes something like this: Thou shalt not attempt to dunk on Shaq, at least if you want to retain consciousness and four healthy limbs. Wade knows that. He said as much before the two played against each other for the first time this year in Phoenix.

    Yet there Wade was in the fourth quarter, elevating a few feet from the rim, with O'Neal standing in his way. Wade got the expected treatment, taking a shot near the face and falling to the floor as a result.

    A MESSAGE

    It was the foul before that when O'Neal knocked Wade to the floor and stood over his former teammate's body for a few extra moments staring down at him.

    Playful? Maybe. A message? Probably that, too.

    And it's not just a one-sided distaste.

    Wade has continuously stated that the relationship between the two has died down some since O'Neal was traded to Phoenix last year.

    And he said twice before Wednesday's game that his grandmother taught him to forgive but not forget.

    What exactly did he need to forgive O'Neal for?

    Was it strictly for bailing on the sinking ship that was the 15-victory Heat last season, or is there more to it?

    Are those rumors of O'Neal mockingly calling Wade ''Wonder Boy'' toward the end of their tenure together true, and is that sticking with Wade? Maybe it's how O'Neal gushes over Bryant these days and never brings up the other two-guard with which he won a title.

    Even Wednesday, O'Neal went as far as to mention Alonzo Mourning, Antoine Walker, Gary Payton, James Posey and Haslem as parts of his most vivid memories of the 2005-06 championship season.

    Wade? He only spoke of him when asked specifically about him.

    There must be something there. And if it isn't coming out yet, it eventually has to.

    O'Neal's not one to keep those feelings hidden for long.

    All it took was one comment from Stan Van Gundy, his former coach, about O'Neal's flop against Dwight Howard on Tuesday for Shaq to unleash fury on Van Gundy.

    ''One thing I really despise is a front-runner,'' O'Neal said of the Magic's coach. ``I know for a fact he's a master of panic, and when it gets time for his team to go into the postseason and do certain things, he will let them down because of his panic. I've been there before. I've played for him.

    ``Yeah, it probably was a flop, but flopping is wrong. Flopping would describe his coaching.

    ``I'm not going to let anybody take shots at me. He's a nobody to me.''

    That's pretty harsh, even coming from Shaq.

    It's also more of his revisionist history at work. Van Gundy is hardly a front-runner.

    He has been successful with every NBA team he coached, including the Heat team that reached the conference semifinals the season before O'Neal got to Miami.

    It's a comment like that, one which O'Neal clearly has been holding back since Van Gundy stepped down as the Heat's coach in 2006, that makes you reconsider exactly why Van Gundy left.

    NOT SURE NOW

    All the speculation then was Riley-related, but now you can't be so sure.

    Who knows what it will take for him to unload on Wade, but there has to be something that remains unspoken.

    At least the Heat crowd Wednesday had its cathartic experience. Yeah, there was the pleasant greeting when the big fella was officially introduced. But the boos started pouring down when O'Neal hit the foul line for the first time.

    And by the time he knocked down Wade on that final foul, the chants of ''Shaq, you [stink],'' -- the calls usually reserved for the officials -- filled the arena.

    At least the fans aren't holding back their disgust for the player who couldn't withstand one losing season and bolted toward a then-contender.

    Talk about a front-runner.

    Maybe nothing will ever be unearthed. Maybe there isn't even anything between the two former championship teammates.

    But Shaq's history shows otherwise. And their actions lately tend to support that.

    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

    definately belongs in the fiction category..

    its nothing but conjecture and speculations. and doesn't even read that well
    Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

      I didn't believe the hype around it myself but you have to wonder after the way Shaq looked at Wade on that last foul.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

        Shaq and Penny (Hardaway) @ Magic...

        Shaq and Kobe @ Lakers...

        Shaq and DWade @ Heat...

        Shaq and Amare @ Suns...

        Anyone notice a pattern here?

        If you hadn't guessed it, everywhere Shaq goes there seems to be some form of descention in the ranks between himself and the (other) star player. I'm just surprised that it's btwn himself and Amare and not Nash this time around. But then again, Amare was the primer Big Man in Phoenix before Shaq arrived. So, there is probable cause for a riff to form there. Still, Shaq has a very big ego - the biggest! It stands to reason he'd want - DEMAND - the spotlight w/every team he goes to.

        I'm not in the least bit surprised to learn of some tension btwn himself and D-Wade any more than I was concerning himself and Kobe. Shaq needs to be the "big man on campus". His pride and ego won't stand for anything less.
        Last edited by NuffSaid; 03-06-2009, 07:47 PM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

          Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
          Shaq and Penny (Hardaway) @ Magic...

          Shaq and Kobe @ Lakers...

          Shaq and DWade @ Heat...

          Shaq and Amare @ Suns...

          Anyone notice a pattern here?

          If you hadn't guessed it, everywhere Shaq goes there seems to be some form of descention in the ranks between himself and the (other) star player. I'm just surprised that it's btwn himself and Amare and not Nash this time around. But then again, Amare was the primer Big Man in Phoenix before Shaq arrived. So, there is probable cause for a riff to form there. Still, Shaq has a very big ego - the biggest! It stands to reason he'd want - DEMAND - the spotlight w/every team he goes to.

          I'm not in the least bit surprised to learn of some tension btwn himself and D-Wade any more than I was concerning himself and Kobe. Shaq needs to be the "big man on campus". His pride and ego won't stand for anything less.
          again, who cares whether shaq had issues with those players or not...let's see, shaq led the magic to the finals - check...shaq led/helped lead the lakers to the finals and won 3 championships - check...shaq helped lead the heat to the finals and 1 championship - check...i'll gladly take some of this dissension if it helps the pacers to a championship or two.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

            I'm sure Shaq could be a hard guy to get along with, but his track record of excellence speaks for itself.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

              Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
              Shaq and Penny (Hardaway) @ Magic...

              Shaq and Kobe @ Lakers...

              Shaq and DWade @ Heat...

              Shaq and Amare @ Suns...

              Anyone notice a pattern here?

              If you hadn't guessed it, everywhere Shaq goes there seems to be some form of descention in the ranks between himself and the (other) star player. I'm just surprised that it's btwn himself and Amare and not Nash this time around. But then again, Amare was the primer Big Man in Phoenix before Shaq arrived. So, there is probable cause for a riff to form there. Still, Shaq has a very big ego - the biggest! It stands to reason he'd want - DEMAND - the spotlight w/every team he goes to.

              I'm not in the least bit surprised to learn of some tension btwn himself and D-Wade any more than I was concerning himself and Kobe. Shaq needs to be the "big man on campus". His pride and ego won't stand for anything less.
              You beat me to it.

              There is an established pattern here. Shaq has always known how to play the media, but at the end of the day, he believes that he is the best player on every team he's on, and he grows increasingly jealous if someone else shares, or God forbid "steals," the spotlight from him. He's always been a "me first" player, and he always will be. His ego was too big for Orlando, too big for Miami, and too big for Phoenix. His ego was too big for freaking L.A.! Humble the man is not.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

                Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                I'm sure Shaq could be a hard guy to get along with, but his track record of excellence speaks for itself.
                As is his track record of always being on a team with one of the best players in the league.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  As is his track record of always being on a team with one of the best players in the league.
                  what were the magic, lakers, and heat without shaq. shaq may have had some help, but without shaq, none of those teams sniff the finals. but i mean if you want to go there, look at jordan, magic, and bird, they all had help too.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

                    Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                    what were the magic, lakers, and heat without shaq. shaq may have had some help, but without shaq, none of those teams sniff the finals. but i mean if you want to go there, look at jordan, magic, and bird, they all had help too.
                    Great point. None of those teams won w/o Shaq. The Lakers could have still beat the Pacers in 2000 w/o Kobe. I don't think the Heat would have won w/o Wade though. Shaq had peaked by then.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      what were the magic, lakers, and heat without shaq. shaq may have had some help, but without shaq, none of those teams sniff the finals. but i mean if you want to go there, look at jordan, magic, and bird, they all had help too.
                      I could easily say that w/o Penny, Kobe, or Wade, none of those teams sniff the Finals, either. In fact, in the case of the Heat, Wade was clearly the better player.

                      The point is, being a great player doesn't entitle you to be a big jerk. I guess Shaq's uncle taught him that with great power comes a great big head.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        I could easily say that w/o Penny, Kobe, or Wade, none of those teams sniff the Finals, either. In fact, in the case of the Heat, Wade was clearly the better player.

                        The point is, being a great player doesn't entitle you to be a big jerk. I guess Shaq's uncle taught him that with great power comes a great big head.

                        You can say that about any great player. Does Jordan win as many titles w/o a Pippen type player? Probably not. Does Bird win without McHale? No. You could go on and on and on with those comparisons.

                        What happened to the Lakers when Shaq left? They went to the lottery while the Heat won 59 games and went to 7 games in the ECF's against Detroit (Shaq was the true MVP that season, not Nash). And Miami was a very good team with Wade at the helm (as 04 showed with him taking them to the semis) but Shaq turned that into an elite team. Let's not forget Shaq ABUSING Ben Wallace and co in game 6 of the 06 ECF's to put the Heat in the finals.

                        Like I said, I'll freely concede that Shaq can be rather difficult to get along with. Many great players can be douches to their teammates. One time after MJ called out Bill Cartwright infront of their teammates Cartwright told him that he would break his legs and make sure he'd never play basketball again if he did it another time.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Shaq and Wade had issues?

                          They can all be douches, but Shaq's doucheness knows no bounds. As for his on-court success, KEEP IT. I don't want to have Shaq on the Pacers. Didn't want him when he was the best player in the league and a douche, and I certainly don't want him now when he's washed up (but still a decently great player) and an even bigger, older douche.

                          He's the douche, and the cause of the majority of the problem when there is a rift. JMO, but this time I happen to be right!

                          I've tried to like the guy, but every time I start to, he does or says something to make me feel otherwise.



                          RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X