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

"Contender/Pretender" Vol. 6 - Dallas Mavericks

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

  • "Contender/Pretender" Vol. 6 - Dallas Mavericks

    I guess I've kinda taken this over, though don't hesitate to create a new thread if it slips my mind.

    We are going through each team in alphabetical order and discussing their potential for the upcoming season. Originally we were discussing their contention for an NBA championship. Please state if you think the team will make the playoffs and in what seed. Other than that, just give your opinion!


    Vol. 6 is the first Western Conference team: Dallas Mavericks.

    Probable starters (if I get these wrong tell me yours)

    Jason Terry
    Michael Finley
    Jerry Stackhouse
    Dirk Nowitski
    Erick Dampier

    Bench (obviously they ultimately will have to cut some guys):

    Tariq Abdul-Wahad?, Shawn Bradley, Calvin Booth, Marquis Daniels, Dan Dickau?, Evan Eschmeyer, Devin Harris, Alan Henderson, Dider Ilunga-Mbenga, Josh Howard, Pavel Podkolzin Jon Stefansson?

    Coach: Don Nelson
    Here, everyone have a : on me

  • #2
    Re:

    Same old Mavs, they won't win anything, they'll go deep in the playoffs, but that's it.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re:

      Actually, Soup, I'd say you've got it backwards. They'll win a lot (regular season), but WONT go deep in the playoffs.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re:

        I see this being a rough season for the Mavericks; their luck with practically no team chemistry has to end sometime.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re:

          marquis daniels will start for the mavs.....he played outstanding the second half of the season and the postseason. i expect stackhouse to take a 6th man role or be shipped out.

          terry
          daniels
          finley
          dirk
          damp

          6th man = stackhouse and howard.

          i think the mavs are contenders with the addition of damp and the emergence of howard and daniels. dallas has always lacked that inside size to bang, they now have that. damp is a top 3 center in the west. they also have two young talents in howard and daniels. daniels has great court vision and can fill up a box score very quickly. howard was probably the best player in the summer league.

          only obstacle for dallas is that tough division they are in. i expect them to finish top 3 in the west.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re:

            I agree with my fellow Boilermaker; with Terry replacing Nash, you need Daniel's in there to create offense. Stack's great 6th man material, and maybe a bruised ego will do him good.

            Before the Dampier trade, I would have come right out and said that I didn't expect Dallas to make the playoffs. Now, , I don't know, there roster is just too wack to make heads or tails of it. Add in Nellie rotations and play-calling being the exact opposite of common sense, their 6 centers and Cuban probably making 5 or 6 more trades before the deadline, and I seriously can't make any kind of intelligent predictions.

            Soo..., I'll just say that they can make the playoffs, but I just don't see them getting past the first-round. They've got the talent, but coaching and chemistry count for too much in this league.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re:

              I think there worse off then last year and I think Cuban has been smoking to much weed

              this team is a joke now...
              Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re:

                ACtually this team in my opinion has become much more of a respectable team capable of actually winning something significant (i.e. in the playoffs) for once.

                Getting rid of nash and antione and opening up playing time for Howard and Daniels (probably their two best players) plus the addition of a real perimeter defender has turned this team into one that actually has defensive potential.

                But theyll probably just try to run and gun it again and actually take a step back compared to last year.

                They still have too many unneccessary parts in my opinion. Their rotation should consist of Terry, Finley, Daniels, Dirk, Dampier, howard, harris and one more big man (bradley or booth) and the rest should never play. Including stackhouse.

                All those players besides Dirk are capable in the right system of being great defensive players, and Dirk is too offensively gifted to not play obviously. The addition of Dampier helps this team probably more than Damp would help any other team because he will hide Dirk's liability defensively by taking on the stronger post player on the opposing team.

                Losing nash hurts them offensively but he was such a defensive liability. The combo of Devin Harris and Jason Terry does not come close to making up Nash's playmaking abilities, but those two both pack a scoring punch and are both light years ahead of Nash defensively. They wont miss Antoine at all, and Antawn's role is easily replaceable by Josh Howard.

                Get rid of stackhouse and this team is no longer just an assemblage of incohesive talent as it was last year but a real team. Instill a new defensive minded philosophy and this team is a contender.

                If Harris, Pavel, Marquis and Josh all improve at a rapid pace, this team is a more than serious contender.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re:

                  the one thing separating the mavs from being a legit championship contender to what they are know (2nd round fodder) is don nelson. Fire him and I would like their chances a lot better. Nelson's track record in the playoffs is no coincidence, kind of like Rick Adelman

                  of course it would also help if cuban would stop trying to play fantasy league gm with his team and stop trading his players so much, allowing his team to develop some sort of chemistry

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re:

                    Same old Mavs. Win 50 plus games, Cuban makes a few headlines, out in the 1st or 2nd rd.

                    Questionable defense (though PERHAPS slightly improved) and a lack of a post game spells playoff elimination.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re:

                      I like what they've done... I think it'll keep them in the same place as the last couple of years and prevent them from having to rebuild... they won't be winning a championship this year however... too much competition in the west and they still won't play defense.
                      Here, everyone have a : on me

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re:

                        I will say contenders.They have a great offense and they may play alittle better Defense than last year.I don't see them in the WCF though.I see a Spurs-Twolves WCF.
                        Super Bowl XLI Champions
                        2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Re:

                          Originally posted by canyoufeelit
                          the one thing separating the mavs from being a legit championship contender to what they are know (2nd round fodder) is don nelson. Fire him and I would like their chances a lot better. Nelson's track record in the playoffs is no coincidence, kind of like Rick Adelman

                          of course it would also help if cuban would stop trying to play fantasy league gm with his team and stop trading his players so much, allowing his team to develop some sort of chemistry

                          i agree completely with this statement, especially in its inclusion of Rick Adelman. Adelman and NElson need to go before those 2 teams ever win jack.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re:

                            You guys are being too hard on Adelman. The Kings would of won a title in 01-02 if they just made some free throws. What is Rick going to do, shoot for them?

                            As far as the Mavs are concerned. I see them as a 4-6 seed, that will probably make the second round and get bounced. Not enough chemistry or defense.

                            I like Minny, SA, Sac, Denver, and Houston more than I like the Mavs team.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re:

                              Thanks to some humiliation last night I have a new found respect for the Mavs. Of course it all revolves around whether Dampier can recreate his performance last year. This team has consistently lost in the clutch because anyone over 200 lbs can score on them without fail and the Mavs have to pray their jumpers fall (which even for the Mavs, eventually the jumper is less consistent than the dunk or lay-up).

                              Lossing Nash sucks but neither Finley nor Dirk (nor Stack nor Terry) need someone to get them shots so its more like losing a luxury.

                              I respect the Chemistry angle and with 4 guys who can decide just to play one on one at any moment this team could be the Wizards of last year. However, winning usually breads confidence and confidence can take you pretty far. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Mavs make it to the WCF but a tough defense (Spurs) can rattle the psuedo-chemistry this team will have and I don't think this team wins it all.

                              P.S. Stackhouse should never be the #1 option on any team especially a team with Dirk or Finley.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X