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

Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

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

  • Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug15.html

    The End of an Era

    Basketball | Allen Iverson and the U.S. Now Must Look Up at a New World Order

    By Michael Wilbon

    Monday, August 16, 2004; Page D01


    ATHENS

    The score may shock you but the result should not. In fact, it was entirely predictable if we look at what is instead of what was.

    For first time in the 12 years NBA players have played in Olympic competition, the U.S men's basketball team lost an Olympic game. It's only the third time the U.S. men have been defeated in Olympic play, which is why Puerto Ricans screamed they had "shocked the world" in the immediate aftermath of their very thorough 92-73 manhandling of the U.S. team.

    Unquestionably, the first defeat of a team of American NBA players sends reverberations throughout the basketball world, probably even the entire world of sports. In 1972, the U.S. team was cheated out of victory, which was given to the Soviet Union. In 1988, the U.S. sent a bunch of college kids to Seoul, where they lost to a Soviet team full of pro players. But there's no asterisk to attach to this defeat, no extenuating circumstances, no controversial ending or inequity of talent.

    Anybody who wanted to see this defeat coming could see it as clear as an onrushing train. Teams from San Juan to China have spent the past 12 years creating clever strategies and exploring every nuance of the game's fundamentals, while Americans obsessed over dunking and reassured each other we were keepers of the global game.

    Well, apparently not this time, not this tournament and not with this team. The Puerto Ricans didn't just win, they were better. The U.S. players and Larry Brown talked predictably afterward about not wanting it enough, about being flat at the beginning of the game. And it's all such a bunch of junk. It's just easier to use that excuse than to face the fact that the other team is better, that its pieces fit better and function with a smarter purpose.

    USA Basketball put together a team to market, not a team to win.

    And this isn't about Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett and Tracy McGrady not playing.

    The U.S. team didn't need more rebounding, strength or girth Sunday night against Puerto Rico; it needed shooters. But this U.S. team doesn't have any. This U.S. team has Tim Duncan and 11 guys who do the same thing: go to the rack. USA Basketball wants to sell sodas and jerseys and whatever else is being marketed. Brent and Jon Barry didn't turn down an invitation to play on this team, not that I know of. Fred Hoiberg would have paid his own way to Greece and slept on a dormitory bed with no pillows to play on this team. Casey Jacobsen didn't say he wouldn't come, nor did Brian Cardinal.

    They're shooters. Not stars, but shooters.

    The U.S. team's problem isn't lack of effort, it's lack of skill.

    While starless Puerto Rico made eight of 16 three-point shots, the U.S. marketing machine was making three of 24. A Puerto Rican guard named Eddie Casiano hit all four of the threes, including one while being fouled and another from 30 feet just to rub it in during the final seconds of the game.

    If you can't shoot the three-pointer in international basketball, you can't win.

    You know who the best three-point shooter on the U.S. team is? Richard Jefferson of the New Jersey Nets. He's the 47th-ranked three-point shooter in the NBA. That's 47th. When Carlos Arroyo, Puerto Rico's point guard, was asked whether his team was concerned with any U.S. player shooting well from the outside, he said, "Not really. . . . They don't have any spot-up shooters. . . . They have more off-the-dribble shooters and free-style players."

    Knowing this, Puerto Rico packed in a zone defense designed to take away the player they most respected, Duncan.

    "We knew they didn't have any good shooters," Puerto Rico forward Daniel Santiago said. "Rolando Hourruitiner fronted Tim. . . . I or Jose Ortiz got in back of him, and we just packed it in . . . I mean, really packed it in and dared them to shoot. Sometimes I was out on Richard Jefferson, and I was letting him shoot it . . . They've got penetrators and slashers, so you lay off and let them take those shots."

    That's the scouting report, ladies and gentlemen. The team from the country where basketball was invented can't shoot a lick. . . . Well, not the guys on this team anyway. "They're great going to the basket, they're great rebounding, and they're really strong," Arroyo said. Asked again about the shooting issues, he just smiled.

    Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury are scorers, but they couldn't win a game of H-O-R-S-E against half the 12-year-olds in the state of Indiana. Lamar Odom, Richard Jefferson, Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, Shawn Marion, Dwyane Wade, Amare Stoudemire . . . they're all basically the same player. Slash, jump, throw it down. Looks nice on "SportsCenter." It's worthless in international play, now that kids in Europe, South America and Asia are big and quick enough to settle into a zone and play better defense than they could back in the early 1990s.

    Three for 24 isn't indicative of a bad night; it's reflective of a bunch of guys who can't shoot from the perimeter. And keep in mind, while the NBA three-point arc is at 23 feet 9 inches, the international three-point is at 20 feet 6 inches. That's more than three feet closer, and U.S. players still can't shoot it. Is Shaq going to help with that? Jermaine O'Neal going to bury some threes? Ben Wallace? Karl Malone? The only guys who said "thanks but no thanks" who would have mattered in this competition are Ray Allen and Mike Bibby.

    And even then it might not make this U.S. team a great team.

    Fact is, Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, David Robinson, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Karl Malone and Chris Mullin are not walking through that door again, to borrow a thought from Rick Pitino.

    That team won by an average margin of 43.8 points. The 1996 team, which had Malone, Pippen, Stockton, Robinson and Barkley, won by an average of 31.7 points per game. The 2000 team won by an average of 21.6 points. This year's team? The average is down to 7.8 points for the qualifying games. Not only do teams no longer fear the U.S. players, they all want a piece of them. Twelve years ago the international players posed for pictures with the Dream Team before and after games. Sunday night, Arroyo and several members of Team Puerto Rico apologized for celebrating a little too enthusiastically. "I know it looked kind of cocky," he said about emphatically pointing to his jersey toward the end of the game, "and I'm sorry about that."

    Arroyo, bless his heart, did nothing for which he needed to apologize, unless he wants to whisper a little something to Stoudemire after making him look like a chump with a move to the basket early in the game. Arroyo is part of this new world order -- a kid who grew up in Puerto Rico idolizing NBA stars, he is as good if not better than today's NBA guards.

    "The game," Brown said with a sigh, "has gotten so much better around the world."

    Well, everywhere except perhaps the United States, where it isn't better than it was 12 years ago, where folks are scratching their heads wondering what went wrong, like the U.S. players having failed to pay attention to an entire world gaining ground for a dozen years.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug10.html

    Basketball Is in a Whole New World


    By Michael Wilbon

    Wednesday, August 11, 2004; Page D01


    ATHENS

    At opposite ends of the Team USA locker room at the 1996 Atlanta Games sat Charles Barkley and Scottie Pippen, two guys who usually couldn't agree on anything, agreeing on something they both thought would happen eight years down the road.

    What they could see coming was Europe, Asia and South America dramatically increasing the number of world-class players they would send into international competition. What they could see coming, as the Dream Team members faded into retirement, was international teams with more depth and more experience than the United States was accustomed to facing. What they could see, crystal clear, was the time when the U.S. men's basketball team would struggle desperately in Olympic competition. Their forecasts appear to be more accurate than the presumptuous American basketball public is ready to accept.

    So, the Olympics haven't even started, yet the number one question seems to be, "What in the world is wrong with the men's basketball team?"

    The U.S. team, coached by Larry Brown and featuring Tim Duncan and Allen Iverson, has lost an exhibition by 17 points to Italy, which doesn't have one NBA player on its roster. Then the U.S. team needed a three-pointer at the buzzer to beat Germany, which did not qualify for the Olympics. A couple of nights ago in Istanbul, the U.S. team struggled to beat Turkey, which was without its best player, Orlando Magic forward Hedo Turkoglu. On Tuesday, the United States beat Turkey, 80-68, pulling away in the fourth quarter as the crowd jeered and whistled.

    Iverson said the loss to Italy should serve as a wake-up call for the Americans. I agree with Iverson. But it also served as a wake-up call to everybody else that there are teams in the Olympic tournament that can beat the United States.

    This is a surprise only to Americans.

    This is what was supposed to happen. The sport's international governing body, FIBA, wanted to include NBA players in the 1992 Barcelona Games to provide the best worldwide competition possible. FIBA figured the only way to do that was to have the Dream Team set the standard for basketball excellence, which it did. The expected response was that the Europeans, Asians, South Americans and eventually some African nations would take what they learned and at some point try to use it to beat the teacher.

    FIBA knew it, NBA Commissioner David Stern knew it, and every kid playing basketball in Croatia and Beijing and Buenos Aires knew it, too. The only folks who weren't paying attention live in Chicago and New York and Detroit and Los Angeles and Washington.

    This is the state of basketball in the world this minute: The U.S. team is still very, very good. And certain teams in the Rest of the World are nearly as good.

    If the United States had Shaq and Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant, the team would be better, but not invincible. Remember, the 2000 team had Garnett, Alonzo Mourning, Ray Allen, Jason Kidd and Gary Payton and survived a last-second shot to beat Lithuania, 85-83, in the semifinal.

    This team is an international virgin compared with that one, and therein lies its primary problem. Recently, Barkley left me a voice-mail message in which he said, "Before you write about our team, look up their international experience versus some of the other countries."

    Of course, Barkley was on to something. He fully expects the United States to win and likes the fact that the team is loaded with young players who are excited about playing. "But the reason the gap is closing," Barkley said, "is because those international teams have a depth of good players now, and because they've been playing together internationally so damn long."

    Here's what he's talking about: The 12 players on the U.S. team have a grand total of 116 games of international experience, and Duncan accounts for 40 of those games. Jose Ortiz, the former NBA player and veteran forward playing for Puerto Rico, has 150 games of international experience all by himself; his team, which plays the United States on Saturday, averages 43.3 games. Four U.S. players -- Lamar Odom, Amare Stoudemire, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade -- have no international experience.

    The Chinese team -- featuring four players 6 feet 11 or taller, including 7-5 Yao Ming -- averages 120 games of international experience.

    Italy might not have any NBA stars, but its players average 84.8 games of experience. The U.S. players? They average 9.7 games of experience, which in international play, with the difference in rules and style of play, amounts to staggering inexperience. They're lucky to have a coach as experienced as Brown.

    Also troubling is a growing sentiment in the United States that this team somehow deserves to lose, like the group is a bunch of malcontents and knuckleheads who've come aboard. Actually, it's mostly a bunch of excited young kids who've happily agreed to play after more than a dozen NBA stars said no. There's nothing whatsoever surly or obviously arrogant about James or Carmelo Anthony or Wade, or Richard Jefferson, Emeka Okafor, Stoudemire or Shawn Marion. Who has ever said a bad word about Duncan? Whatever you like or don't like about Iverson, it's admirable that he came right out at the beginning of the selection process and virtually begged to play.

    Oh, it's a flawed team in some respects. It could use at least one more pure shooter (which is hard to find among Americans these days). And anybody who thinks he can break down international zone defenses solely with dribble-penetration (this means you, Stephon Marbury) need look no further than the NBA Finals when Brown's Pistons took that tactic completely away from Bryant. It ain't gonna work.

    While the U.S. team figures out how to play, most of the international teams already know how they want to play, and have employed one system for years and years. They've been playing U.S. professionals for 12 years now. The novelty of it is long gone. There is no intimidation factor the Americans have working in their favor. Lithuania, Argentina and Serbia and Montenegro believe they can win. Twelve years ago, it was designed for the Olympic basketball tournament to be just this competitive, and only a handful of people with real foresight could see this day coming so soon.
    [edit=12=1092666271][/edit]

  • #2
    Re: Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

    sig
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

      Btw, am I the only one who can't get that damn Celine Dion song out of my head whenever I see Hicks new avatar? It's really driving me quite insane.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

        Wilbon just hits the nail right on the head repeatedly. That is some great journalism.

        By the way, the comment about the Indiana 12 year-olds and H-O-R-S-E may have been hyperbole, but it isn't too far off the truth.
        [edit=57=1092667123][/edit]
        Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

          And we'd have fans who would comtemplate suicide if we traded Ron for Peja, the purest shooter in the NBA.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

            I absolutely love that quote.
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

              Can someone explain what this SERENITY is and why Hicks has a huge picture of a guy from this 2005 movie in hiss signature.
              Heywoode says... work hard man.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Michael Wilbon has some great articles (two inside)

                Originally posted by Doug
                Can someone explain what this SERENITY is and why Hicks has a huge picture of a guy from this 2005 movie in hiss signature.
                http://www.pacersdigest.com/cgi-bin/...d=2;gtid=75409
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment

                Working...
                X