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

Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

    http://www.nba.com/2010/news/feature...s=iref:nbahpt1



    DALLAS -- Dealing a very public rebuke to Dennis Rodman with very private methods, a screening committee from the basketball Establishment ended the debate over his candidacy for the Hall of Fame by indicating there was never really much debate in the first place.



    The lightning-rod question of whether Rodman would make the Hall or fall just short as payback for years of controversy and antics as an immensely productive power forward was answered Friday as 19 finalists from across the sport were announced and he was nowhere to be found.

    Seven consecutive seasons of leading the league in rebounding is the greatest streak ever, first- or second-team All-Defense in a coaches' votes eight seasons in a row, Defensive Player of the Year twice in a media vote, an important member of five title teams with the Pistons and Bulls, but bounced in the first elimination.

    That wasn't the only surprise when the list was released as part of All-Star weekend. Mark Jackson -- No. 3 all-time in assists Mark Jackson -- likewise went from apparent close call to not even advancing to finalist. A point guard with more assists than anyone in league history except John Stockton and Jason Kidd... and unable to so much as get in contention for the Class of 2010.

    The Jackson call at least seemed to be career driven -- the passing number is superb, but he was an All-Star once, never made even third-team All-NBA and averaged more than nine assists a game just twice. He is the epitome of a player who had a long, successful career but was never considered great.

    Rodman's elimination, though, was clearly about sending a message. Or at least probably clearly. Few explanations are absolute in the shadowy world of Hall campaigns, where election totals are never announced to know how close a candidate came and names of voters are never released. The only information available is that the electorate is comprised of executives, former players and coaches, and veteran media members, with approval needed from five of the seven judges to advance and from 18 of 24 members of the separate panel that will decide the inductees.

    Jerry Colangelo, the former Suns owner who is chairman of the Hall, said he will push for better transparency in the process. He said that Friday, when Rodman and Jackson were eliminated without any sense of the vote or who did the deciding. It was left to secrets and speculation, with one voter who did not want to be identified saying "of course" The Worm was done in by his self-inflicted image, and Brendan Malone, an assistant coach as Rodman rose to prominence in Detroit, speaking what a lot of people were thinking.

    "I think that there is a prejudice against him because of his off-court conduct or whatever, the perception that people have of him," Malone said. "They say, 'He can't be in the [Hall of Fame] because of his bizarre lifestyle. But what they should do is sit back and see what he had done for two championship-caliber teams and what they would have been without him."

    Said Bill Walton, one of several Hall of Famers who attended the announcement: "Dennis changed the game of basketball in a lot of ways. A real force who played on five championship teams, some of the greatest teams ever, and a dynamic power in the history of basketball. And if I were in charge, things would be different."

    Asked if he was surprised Rodman didn't at least make the first cut, Walton said, answering the question without actually answering it: "I liked what Jerry Colangelo said about transparency. I think that's good in all aspects of life. Shine the bright lights in there."

    The induction class will be headlined by Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen and the 1992 U.S. Olympic squad, the original Dream Team, each considered a lock to receive the necessary 18 of 24 votes to reach Springfield, Mass. Lakers owner Jerry Buss, New Jersey high school coach Bob Hurley Sr., Dennis Johnson, Bernard King, Chris Mullin, Don Nelson in the coaching category, Jamaal Wilkes, long-time coach Tex Winter, and the 1960 U.S. Olympic team were the others from the North American committee to become finalists.

    Also advancing were Cynthia Cooper, former coach Harley Redin and the All-American Red Heads from the women's committee; former Soviet coach Vladimir Kondrashin and Brazilian player Maciel (Ubiratan) Pereira by the international committee; and Richard Guerin and Gus Johnson via the veteran's committee. Inductees will be announced April 5 at the Final Four in Indianapolis.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

    Can't really take the HoF serious if Rodman isn't in it... should be a no brainer instant selection.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

      I don't know. The guy couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, and that's still 1/2 the game. And the part that gets recognized and rewarded the most.
      7 pts a game isn't HOF.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

        I think it's a borderline call. Remember, the Bulls did win championships without the Worm.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

          Over the last 26 seasons, seven of the eight highest rebounding averages all belong to Dennis Rodman. I have no idea why anybody would even consider him borderline. It's an insult to the game.

          He was so far ahead of his peers in what he did. He was averaging 4 and 5 rebounds more per game than the next best rebounder in the NBA for the better part of a decade. And he began that streak only after back to back DPOY awards.

          The man was also an all-defensive team selection for 9 consecutive seasons. 8 of those, he made the first team.

          He also was a key component of the two best defensive teams of all time, and won 5 championships.

          I really don;t know how much more needs to be said. Half the board thinks bill russell is the greatest player ever to look at a basketball, but Rodman is the closest thing to Russell a power forward has ever been and we arent even putting him on the finalist ballot. Absurd.
          Last edited by Kstat; 02-13-2010, 12:56 PM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Over the last 26 seasons, seven of the eight highest rebounding averages all belong to Dennis Rodman. I have no idea why anybody would even consider him borderline. It's an insult to the game.

            He was so far ahead of his peers in what he did. He was averaging 4 and 5 rebounds more per game than the next best rebounder in the NBA for the better part of a decade. And he began that streak only after back to back DPOY awards.

            The man was also an all-defensive team selection for 9 consecutive seasons. 8 of those, he made the first team.

            He also was a key component of the two best defensive teams of all time, and won 5 championships.

            I really don;t know how much more needs to be said. Half the board thinks bill russell is the greatest player ever to look at a basketball, but Rodman is the closest thing to Russell a power forward has ever been and we arent even putting him on the finalist ballot. Absurd.
            I agree with you Rodman should be in for sure and for Mark jackson Im not sure.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

              Originally posted by Dece View Post
              Can't really take the HoF serious if Rodman isn't in it... should be a no brainer instant selection.
              The Basketball HOF is the only HOF that you really shouldn't take seriously regardless of what happens to Rodman.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

                I'm not really sure about Mark Jackson, either. He wasn't really better than his peers at any point of his career. He just played longer than %99 of them.

                He probably tops my list as the best PG of his era not to make the HOF.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

                  Rodman not being in the HOF is wrong. Without Rodman on the Bulls in '98, the Pacers likely win the title going away, and that is just one series. Rodman was instumental in both the Bulls dominance during his time there, and also provided much of the toughness of the Pistons during their Isiah Thomas run, no disrespect to Laimbeer.

                  Unquestionably, Rodman's lifestyle choices are what is stopping his induction, and while I don't like many of those lifestyle choices, I don't think they warrant his being excluded.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

                    I agree that Rodman should be a first-ballot hall of famer. However, I can also see the selection committee's point of view -- the guy's offcourt baggage significantly outweighs his merits as a player. And that's really going to prevent his induction for at least a couple of years. Which is a shame, but also completely Rodman's fault.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

                      Maybe the cameraman he kicked was one of the "veteran media members".

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

                        Have you guys seen Celebrity Rehab? Rodman has parties every night in his house with 400+ people in his house he doesn't even know.
                        "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                        Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

                          Well, it is the Hall of Fame - Not the Hall of Stats. Rodman was famous for basketball. 99% of basketball fans know what he did for the teams he played on. The other 1% know him because of the wedding dress. He's famous for basketball - he's in.

                          And I think it would be fun to be one of the aforementioned 400.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            Half the board thinks bill russell is the greatest player ever to look at a basketball, but Rodman is the closest thing to Russell a power forward has ever been and we arent even putting him on the finalist ballot = Absurd.
                            Fixed.

                            What next? Rip Hamilton is the closest thing to Jordan?

                            Lol.

                            Only thing similar between Russell and Rodman is their ability to shoot free throws and they both played on some teams that had some great players. Difference is Russell was one of them and Rodman was not.

                            If there ever is an Effort Hall of Fame, then put him in.

                            If there ever is a Looney Toon Hall of Fame, then put him in.

                            If there ever is a Partying Hall of Fame, then put him in.

                            If there ever is a Basketball Hall of Infamy, then put him in.

                            But if he would ever get in the Hall of Fame for basketball, they should just shut the place down.
                            Last edited by cinotimz; 02-13-2010, 06:56 PM.
                            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Rodman, Jackson surprisingly left off Hall finalist list

                              do not edit other people's posts and quote them. It's breach of forum etiquette, and you should already have a PHD in that, considering how many times you're had the riot act read to you.

                              I realize you love to come in and subtly set fire to general basketball discussion with your mean-spirited behavior. It's not happening in this thread. Sorry.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 02-13-2010, 08:04 PM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X