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

Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

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

  • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

    I think Iverson and Reggie were equally poor defenders. Iverson gave up more points, but also caused more turnovers. Iverson was much, much more complete offensively.

    In the end, Iverson was considered a top-2 shooting guard in the NBA six years. TMac was considered a top-2 small forward for five years. Reggie was not considered a top-2 NBA shooting guard once. Clearly it's not just me that thought TMac and Iverson were better players than Reggie Miller.
    Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 08:56 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


    • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      I think Iverson and Reggie were equally poor defenders. Iverson gave up more points, but also caused more turnovers. Iverson was much, much more complete offensively.

      In the end, Iverson was considered a top-2 shooting guard in the NBA six years. TMac was considered a top-2 small forward for five years. Reggie was not considered a top-2 NBA shooting guard once. Clearly it's not just me that thought TMac and Iverson were better players than Reggie Miller.
      no reggie was most definitely considered a top 3 sg arguably top 2 sg during the 90s. his competition was drexler and jordan. and how exactly was iverson a more complete offensive player? reggie was a better 2pt shooter, better 3pt shooter, better ft shooter, arguably the greatest ever at moving without the ball, rarely actually hurt the pacers offensively while iverson did more harm than good on the offensive end on many occassions. iverson could cross guys up, sure, but only to miss the wide open j 60% of the time. reggie's off ball movement got him far more open looks without the need of taking guys off the dribble. iverson did get to the line with his wreckless driving and quickness which is all you can say iverson was better at offensively.

      Comment


      • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

        no reggie was most definitely considered a top 3 sg arguably top 2 sg during the 90s.
        ...the all-NBA teams tell a different story. Reggie never made all-NBA 1st or 2nd team, even the years Jordan was retired. So no, he wasn't considered a top-2 shooting guard, even once. Iverson made 1st team three times, 2nd team three times, and won a league MVP to boot.

        and how exactly was iverson a more complete offensive player?
        You forgot to color that text in green. At least, I hope you did.
        Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 09:26 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


        • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

          2001-2002 season iverson lead the league in scoring with a 31.4ppg average. he took 28shots per game!!! to reach that number. and shot .398 from the field and averaging 4topg. some kind of offensive player he was.

          Comment


          • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            ...the all-NBA teams tell a different story.



            You forgot to color that text in green.
            well you haven't answered while i have given you numbers. so yea, instead of spewing crap, you can back it up. all-nba teams are also like the all-star games or selecting offensive line probowlers. it's as much about popularity than actual performace.

            Comment


            • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

              Yes, Reggie was a better catch and shoot player from 24 feet, 23 feet, 22 feet...

              How many times are you going to re-package Reggie's ONE great skill and present it as if he excelled at multiple things?

              Allen iverson was the best left-handed dribbler. He was the best right handed dribbler. He was the best as dribbling with his shoelaces untied.....

              The all-NBA teams are vastly different from the all-star teams. They basically tell the story of every season. Dismissing as a popularity contest because your favorite player didn't get selected is ignorance. A lot of guys have made those teams with less popularity than Reggie Miller
              Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 09:34 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


              • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Yes, Reggie was a better catch and shoot player from 24 feet, 23 feet, 22 feet...

                How many times are you going to re-package Reggie's ONE great skill and present it as if he excelled at multiple things?

                Allen iverson was the best left-handed dribbler. He was the best right handed dribbler. He was the best as dribbling with his shoelaces untied.....

                The all-NBA teams are vastly different from the all-star teams. They basically tell the story of every season.
                reggie didn't have a jab step? reggie didn't have a floater in the lane? reggie never used picks with ball in hand? reggie never took fadeaway jumpers? reggie never drove the lane and dunked on 3 nets players to force overtime against the nets? reggie had everything offensively except cross over dribbles. i don't hear you holding that against jerry west or oscar robertson or larry bird. iverson couldn't shoot yet he still took 22fga for his career.

                Comment


                • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                  .....maybe because West and Bird could do more than just catch and shoot?

                  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


                  • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    .....maybe because West and Bird could do more than just catch and shoot?
                    yea, you are definitely trolling now. i just told you other aspects to reggie's game offensively and you come back with the same one liners you have all thread. i'm finally done here.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                      yea, you are definitely trolling now.
                      I don't want to get between the two of you....but "takes one to know one" comes to mind.

                      You two need to get a room...

                      Comment


                      • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                        You were done the second you said Reggie had "everything."

                        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


                        • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                          I guess a little harmless levity is too much for Hicks.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                            Slick takes the words right out of my mouth:

                            MikeWellsNBA Mike Wells
                            Slick Leonard on Hall of Fame process, "Way too much politics. They’ve got guys in there who have never laced them up."
                            9 hours ago

                            This too:

                            AschNBA Steve Aschburner
                            by MikeWellsNBA
                            "Flabbergasted." That's Bill Walton's reax to Reggie Miller not being a HOF finalst 4 Class of 2011.
                            9 hours ago
                            ...

                            Comment


                            • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                              I'm sorry, but to compare AI to Reggie (or to any great player) is ludicrous. AI is popular because of the fact he's little. That's it. He was horribly inefficient and one of the ever so popular offensive black holes.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                ...and in what book is that rule written? The same book where you read Allen Iverson played point guard?




                                ...and you can question the hall of fame when Iverson gets voted in on his first try, as well as the people that voted him league MVP in 2001.



                                They didn't win any with Reggie Miller, either....
                                Without Mutombo, Iverson had virtually no success in the playoffs because the playoffs were more physical, making his selfishness a liability due to his missed shots ending up the equivalent of turnovers when his wild misses were gobbled up by opposing defensive rebounders.

                                Miller was efficient, as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. He had fewer touches and scored less because both he and the other players surrounding him made better decisions with the ball than Iverson. As mentioned previously, Reggie deferred to his teammates. Iverson had no concept of how to do that, and clashed with any coaches who wanted him to do so.

                                Miller was also known to be the first to come in and the last to leave with respect to practice. Then, you contrast that with Iverson, "Practice. We talkin' 'bout practice."

                                It would be a travesty for Iverson to make the hall of fame on the first ballot. His negatives, both on and off the court (several off the court issues there that magically got swept under the rug IIRC) and in the lockerroom outweighed quite a few of his positives.

                                However, you are absolutely right though. It is likely that Iverson will, indeed, make the hall on the first ballot. He played in a much larger market, and he scored lots of points and got a lot of steals and made highlight reels frequently with circus shots that made him popular with both fans of basketball who value shot creators over team players, and casual fans who just liked to see what he would do next. That is what the hall voters apparently care about at this point.

                                I would take one Reggie to start a team with over three Iversons. For a short period, the Iversons would score lots of points and win some games. However, in the longer term, the team with Reggie would work harder, be hungrier, and be more unified in the team concept (much like the 2004 Pistons) than the Iversons, and because of that, end up more successful despite not making the highlight reels nearly as frequently.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X