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

SI/FanHouse: The Worst Players in the NBA

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

  • SI/FanHouse: The Worst Players in the NBA

    Just to lighten things up around here

    http://nba.fanhouse.com/2011/01/24/t...usspor00000002
    By Bethlehem Shoals and Eric Freeman


    The Last Shall Be First

    It's very hard to pick the worst player in the league. We have excluded rookies because that's just not fair. Also, contract size was not taken into account, or else this would turn into an exercise in showing off and saying stuff like "imagine him in four years!" about mid-level guys. We are going on pure gut here.

    Odd picks are Shoals, evens are Eric Freeman.

    1. Sean Marks, Portland Trail Blazers (BS)

    Eric Freeman: You're really going to anger the Blazers fans with that one. They love everybody on that team.

    Bethlehem Shoals: He has played part of every NBA season for ten years. That makes him like a ghost in "The Ghost Whisperer" who cannot find peace and move into the next world.

    EF: He's from New Zealand, though, so I think he spent part of that time acting in "Lord of the Rings."

    2. Aaron Gray, New Orleans Hornets (EF)

    EF: He is the MVP of big men who I think are from Australia even though I know they aren't.

    BS: It is really easy to have a career as a basketball player if you're tall. It's just like the real draft: Height trumps all! Or what's that cliche? If the height isn't right, then say good night!

    3. Gerald Henderson, Charlotte Bobcats (BS)

    BS: He just plain sucks. Plus symbolically, Duke needs to be represented early and often.

    EF: Isn't he basically a rookie, though? Larry Brown barely played him.

    BS: Look, he's not better than Gerald Green. And Gerald Green is out of the league. Plus, it's not like he came from high school. He went to college, then spent a year working out with an NBA team.

    EF: Plus he doesn't know how to use cupcakes as props.

    4. Sasha Pavlovic, Dallas Mavericks (EF)

    EF: I'm pretty sure he's only in the league now because he once played on a team with LeBron James.

    BS: It's pretty amazing that he's still in the league and Bostjan Nachbar isn't. Or wait, did he go back to Europe on purpose? Here's a weird idea -- that Pavlovic is so crappy he can't even go back to Europe to play.

    EF: Nachbar is incidentally really great on Twitter. He seems like a pretty pleasant person.

    5. Johan Petro, New Jersey Nets (BS)

    BS: Petro, the last of the Rick Sund center still standing.

    EF: You have to be pretty bad to be signed to a big contract and then immediately shopped around. Where is Saer Sene, by the way?

    BS: I think I heard he went back home to live like a king. Sucks for the Sonics, but all in all, things didn't turn out so badly for him.

    6. Shelden Williams, Denver Nuggets (EF)

    EF: He isn't even the best player in his own household.

    BS: Hard to argue with him being high on this list. Remember when he used to just rule the post in college? I will never forget that. It was like watching a cat write a book.

    EF: His nickname was "The Landlord." I think Atlanta drafted him that year because they wanted to take advantage of the housing bubble. So, in a way, Shelden's career is the story of America.

    BS: American masculinity has gone down the tubes.

    7. B.J. Mullens, Oklahoma City Thunder/Kosta Koufos, Minnesota Timberwolves (BS)

    BS: Let's save time and make them one person.

    EF: Does he want everyone to call him Byron now because it makes him sound tougher? Because it's worse than BJ.

    BS: BJ stops being an acceptable nickname around the time you learn what it means in sex slang.

    EF: BJ Raji somehow makes it work.

    BS: BJ Raji had the day of his life. Both of those guys should just be sent to the D-League for an entire season. This call up and go back crap gives them all false hope. If BJ Mullens got a triple double, we would respect the BJ.

    8. Dan Gadzuric, Golden State Warriors (EF)

    EF: He hasn't been relevant since he changed the pronunciation of his name.

    BS: You can't change the pronunciation of your name. You can insist people say it correctly. But you can't change your language. Unless Gadzuric, one of the most mysteriously multi-ethnic players in the league, made up his own name and language. That would be groovy.

    EF: If he'd really wanted people to pronounce it correctly he would have told everyone at UCLA, when people actually thought he could be a star.

    BS: College athletes don't have rights like that. Also, if they get spit on, they have to go wipe off the face of whoever spit at them.

    9. Chris Quinn, San Antonio Spurs (BS)

    BS: He couldn't even be Steve Blake.

    EF: At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that Steve Blake is pretty solid.

    BS: If he's so solid, then why couldn't the Blazers win a championship with him at point guard?

    EF: What if the Lakers win this year?

    BS: They won't because of him. Actually, the real reason I think he's bad is all personal. One time I tried to break the ice with him by telling a knock-knock joke about Vanna White.

    EF: He probably likes that show a lot. I am going to get a bit controversial with my next pick.

    10. Keith Bogans, Chicago Bulls (EF)

    EF: I know he has started 44 games for the Bulls, and can play some defense, but Thibodeau must be blind.

    BS: I had him on a fantasy team at some point, but that might just have been because he was getting minutes in the Stan Van Gundy offense. Actually, he put up some decent numbers in Charlotte. Certainly, he was bad enough that he led scouts to tragically undervalued Jodie Meeks.

    EF: He is not actually deserving of placement on this list, but I won't stand for his starting 44 games and must point it out.

    BS: Has Keith Bogans ever been mentioned on Twitter?

    EF: Only by Bulls fans.

    11. Hasheem Thabeet, Memphis Grizzlies (BS)

    BS: Caveat: As we've seen with Darko, strange things can happen with young big men. Actually, it is pretty awesome that the Grizzlies drafted Thabeet to replace Darko.

    EF: Didn't they also have Kwame Brown at the time?

    BS: Yeah, but he's a good post defender.

    EF: So was Thabeet, in theory.

    BS: No, I mean defender, not shot blocker.

    EF: Yes, I understand. I'm not sure the Grizzlies know the difference.

    12. Marco Belinelli, New Orleans Hornets (EF)

    EF: I had once hoped he would take the NBA by storm. Then my brother ran into him at a doctor's office in San Francisco and he said the NBA was too fast. The end.

    BS: He didn't go to a team doctor?

    EF: It's unclear why he was there. Maybe he had a crush on the receptionist.

    BS: That's very Italian.

    13. Solomon Jones, Indiana Pacers (BS)

    BS: I kind of used to think he was going to be good. He was for a quarter in 2007.

    EF: It was a wonderful moment. I will take another wing who disappointed me.

    14. Corey Brewer, Minnesota Timberwolves (EF)

    EF: He was my favorite guy on those Florida teams and now he can't even get regular starts for Minnesota.

    BS: He gets a lot of steals. He's the steals equivalent of a guy who goes for the blocked shot every time. Like Sene.

    EF: Is he the only guy on this list so far who can be marginally valuable for a fantasy team?

    BS: I think he's the only guy who gets consistent minutes.

    EF: Keith Bogans, too!

    15. Brian Scalabrine, Chicago Bulls (BS)

    BS: By far the most talked-about terrible player EVER.

    EF: Is he even a professional basketball player? I thought he was a doll.

    BS: He likes to mountain bike. And play with slugs.

    EF: One guy who doesn't do that is my next pick ...

    16. Etan Thomas, Atlanta Hawks (EF)

    EF: A serious human being concerned with political issues. I don't have many rules, but one of them is that it's bad if you're better known for slam poetry than your basketball skills.

    BS: In all fairness, Etan was once a perfectly serviceable back-up center, he's just not good enough to have stayed so with age. On a similar note, I pick both Collins brothers.

    17. Jason, Jarron, and Sherron Collins. (BS)

    EF: Backup Bears QB Todd Collins counts in that group, too.

    BS: Also, as with Thomas, the real Collins brothers -- twins, to be exact -- are well-rounded human beings who will have no problem getting on with their lives when, invariably, they find that eventually time conquers all but the tallest heights.

    EF: I think what we're finding now is that a lot of these older players aren't really bad, they're just old. Maybe the league is actually not so full of bad players. Even guys at the end of the bench have something to offer.

    BS: And bad young players have their whole lives ahead of them. Amen.

  • #2
    Re: SI/FanHouse: The Worst Players in the NBA

    Gerald Henderson and Marco Belinelli have no business being on this list.
    2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: SI/FanHouse: The Worst Players in the NBA

      Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
      Gerald Henderson and Marco Belinelli have no business being on this list.
      Henderson won't make it in the NBA.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: SI/FanHouse: The Worst Players in the NBA

        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
        Henderson won't make it in the NBA.
        Ya i never liked him much coming out he might make it as a guy who comes in during Garbage time if he has the right attuite like this guy....... HEART OF A CHAMPION



        FF to 1:30 that takes heart and skill

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: SI/FanHouse: The Worst Players in the NBA

          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
          Henderson won't make it in the NBA.
          Exactly. As they said, Henderson just flat sucks.

          The guy seriously is not good at anything. He's like a worse version of Brandon Rush.

          *Thread turns to Rush discussion*

          Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: SI/FanHouse: The Worst Players in the NBA

            13. Solomon Jones, Indiana Pacers (BS)

            BS: I kind of used to think he was going to be good. He was for a quarter in 2007.

            EF: It was a wonderful moment. I will take another wing who disappointed me.
            Good job Solo!! You have won something!! You're one of the most worthless players in the NBA!!

            ...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: SI/FanHouse: The Worst Players in the NBA

              Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
              Good job Solo!! You have won something!! You're one of the most worthless players in the NBA!!

              ...

              He is better than James Posey.

              Comment

              Working...
              X