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

Paul George gets some love

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

  • Paul George gets some love

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...-guard-ratings

    In the NBA world AM (After Mike), the debate about the league's best shooting guard isn't so clear-cut.

    Kobe Bryant's got the rings and an MVP, but Dwyane Wade is beloved by the stats geeks (and has one blinged-out finger himself). And what about Ray Allen, the all-time 3-point leader? Or Manu Ginobili and Monta Ellis, two cat-quick guards who can fill it up with ease?

    Monday, we looked at the top point guards on the NBA scene, and ESPN Insider's Chris Palmer ranked his top five. Second up on our position-by-position 5-on-5s this week are, appropriately, the 2-guards, featuring your responses sent in via Facebook and Twitter:

    1. Who's the best shooting guard in the NBA today?

    Kevin P. Boudreau, via Twitter: D-Wade. Who else produces on the court and recruits two of the game's best players to come play with him?

    Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: Dwyane Wade. The argument for Kobe Bryant is, like Kobe himself, losing its effectiveness. Wade's a slightly better scorer, a hugely superior rebounder and a marginally better passer and defender. It's not a huge surprise that he'd surpass Kobe at this point in their respective careers. What is a huge surprise is that Kobe has somehow become the more likable one.

    Ryan DeGama, Celtics Hub: Wade gets the slightest of nods over Kobe, because he does more of his damage in the kill zone these days, while Bryant lingers on the perimeter. Wade's also more consistently capable on defense simply because he's got fewer miles on his odometer.

    Dan Feldman, Piston Powered: Wade. He earns the slight edge over 15-year veteran Kobe Bryant, who no longer has the energy to defend at an elite level or play as much as Wade does. When you're among the best in the game, minutes played matter. Kobe spends too much time on the bench, which hurts the Lakers, so Wade takes the top spot.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: From a purely statistical standpoint, Wade leapfrogged Kobe for the SG lead back in the 2008-09 season. In the two seasons since, Kobe's body has done nothing but deteriorate and his game has sagged out to the perimeter. As great as Bryant is, he can no longer match the physical force that is Wade on both ends of the floor.

    2. Who's the most underrated shooting guard in the NBA?

    Tyler Harford, via Facebook: Easy: Manu Ginobili. He has a few rings on his fingers and still possesses the explosion to the hoop he's always had, but Manu is still left off many people's basketball radar.

    Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: Now that Kevin Martin is very famous for being underrated, Tony Allen takes his spot here. Not even for his defense, which is gradually being recognized as league-best for a guard. What's underrated is Allen's offense: His shot selection has sufficiently improved to make him a high-efficiency scorer, and that's a rare find for a superb perimeter defender.

    Ryan DeGama, Celtics Hub: Manu Ginobili. It's not that we don't appreciate him, it's that we don't appreciate him enough. He's still a dangerous scorer from all over the floor, his defense remains a plus, and he played a career-best 80 games at age 33. Plus, he's one the league's best ugly-game players.

    Dan Feldman, Piston Powered: Eric Gordon. If he weren't playing with the NBA's breakout superstar, Blake Griffin, maybe Gordon would've gotten more credit. I guess averaging 22.3 points, 4.4 assists and 2.9 rebounds per game, mixed with stellar defense, isn't enough, though. If Gordon keeps producing like this, people will eventually notice. They definitely will if he improves, which very well could happen.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Kevin Martin has a reputation as a lottery-team dweller, a stat chaser and a terrible defender. I think even he would concede the latter, but the first two are neither reasonable nor reality-based. Mini-Mart is one of the best scorers in the game, capable of scoring from literally anywhere, and should be treated as such.

    3. What 's the most overrated shooting guard in the NBA?

    Reece Whitaker, via Facebook: Monta Ellis. He averaged 24 points per game, but by taking 1,611 shots from the field. The offense he plays in helps pad his offensive stats and he does not play any defense.

    Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: At a position rife with bloated contracts and empty scoring, Joe Johnson still remains the least deservingly rated. He made the All-Star team, but by season's end he probably wasn't a top-10 shooting guard. Low shooting percentages and his team's highest usage rate, even with two better options on the floor.

    Ryan DeGama, Celtics Hub: Monta Ellis. He's 11th in the league in usage rate, but only 43rd in player efficiency rating. The undersized Ellis is nobody's idea of a defensive stopper and still makes $11 million a year. Good luck Mark Jackson (or Doug Collins or whoever else ends up with him).

    Dan Feldman, Piston Powered: Richard Hamilton. Hamilton's production began slipping a few years ago, but his reputation hasn't yet. He's a malcontent off the court and only plays well on it when he's completely focused. That doesn't happen enough anymore. Bulls and Celtics fans, calm down. Hamilton isn't the answer to your prayers.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Monta Ellis' raw numbers seem impressive, but he takes way too many shots to score the points he scores, and his pace-adjusted, per-minute numbers are mediocre across the board. If he's your go-to-guy all night long, your offense will not do well. I'd rather see him in a sixth-man role, and he's certainly nowhere near All-Star candidacy.

    4. Who's the most promising shooting guard in the NBA?

    Mark A. Conn II, via Facebook: Paul George. He's 6-foot-8, is extremely athletic, has range, can take you off the dribble and his defense on D-Rose in the playoffs was probably second to only LeBron. He has got tremendous potential. You could see him in a dunk contest and/or a 3-point shootout very soon.

    Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: Eric Gordon. Maybe he's been in the league too long to be up-and-coming, but he's still only 22: less than three months older than Blake Griffin. Gordon's going to be a great scorer for a long time, and his defense continues to improve. There's also the fact that shooting guard is the weakest position for young players in the game.

    Ryan DeGama, Celtics Hub: Eric Gordon. Injuries and Blake Griffin dunks overshadowed the continued improvement of Gordon, who is going to be an elite scorer in this league sooner or later. The questions are around whether the rest of his game will rise to that level.

    Dan Feldman, Piston Powered: Eric Gordon. Not only is Gordon the NBA's most underrated shooting guard, he has the potential to get much better. He's improved each year he's been in the league, and it's only a matter of time until all his skills -- outside shooting, penetrating, defending and passing -- come together at once.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Despite my affection for 2010 draftees Evan Turner and Paul George, your man here is Eric Gordon. EG was one of many players to make huge strides after his Team USA experience last summer, and he complements his extraordinary inside-outside scoring game with an aggressive defensive mentality, solid court vision and an adorable baby face.


    5. Who's the best shooting guard of all time?

    Drew Lazor, via Twitter: Is this an experiment to see how many people incredulously respond that there is no option other than MJ? If so, count me as one of them!

    Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: I spent a lot of time on this question because when you look back on the history of the league, there are some pretty strong candidates: Jerry West, John Havlicek, Kendall Gill. But at the end of the day, I asked myself, "Which of these guys would I want on my team?" So I'm going to say Michael Jordan.

    Ryan DeGama, Celtics Hub: Michael Jordan. If he had come of age in the 'oughts, instead of the dynasty-dense 1980s, MJ might have run off 10 titles. If you had to put your life in the hands of one guy, in one game, would you pick anyone but Jordan as your proxy? Dan Feldman, Piston Powered: Michael Jordan. ESPN's editors allow me 60 words to explain my choice, but I think I'll stop here. If you don't understand this one, you've stumbled to the wrong web page.

    Noam Schiller, Hardwood Paroxysm: Unlike my answer to best current shooting guard, I have to assume this one goes relatively smoothly with all parties, with the best player of all-time conveniently being a shooting guard. As is the case most of the time, Michael Jeffery Jordan takes this round.
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Re: Paul George gets some love

    Extending the title:

    ... from some guy on Facebook with a pretentious sounding name.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Paul George gets some love

      Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
      Extending the title:

      ... from some guy on Facebook with a pretentious sounding name.
      Well he is a pannelist on ESPN, so I think that should add some credibility
      Sittin on top of the world!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Paul George gets some love

        Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
        Well he is a pannelist on ESPN, so I think that should add some credibility
        No he isn't. He's a guy who got a Facebook comment added in with the panelists.

        Originally posted by ESPN.com
        Second up on our position-by-position 5-on-5s this week are, appropriately, the 2-guards, featuring your responses sent in via Facebook and Twitter:
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Paul George gets some love

          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
          No he isn't. He's a guy who got a Facebook comment added in with the panelists.
          My Bad

          You are correct. Still is kind of nice , no ?
          Sittin on top of the world!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Paul George gets some love

            Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
            Extending the title:

            ... from some guy on Facebook with a pretentious sounding name.
            So?
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Paul George gets some love

              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
              My Bad

              You are correct. Still is kind of nice , no ?
              I mainly just wanted to comment on the guy's name.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Paul George gets some love

                The mention from the Hardwood Paroxysm guy is actually pretty nice. I respect that guy's opinion.
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Paul George gets some love

                  Love is love, and I love love.

                  Especially when I love the player getting the love and he plays for the team I love.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Paul George gets some love

                    Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                    Love is love, and I love love.

                    Especially when I love the player getting the love and he plays for the team I love.
                    You're a hippie aren't you?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Paul George gets some love

                      Far from it haha, but I can see where you'd get that

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Paul George gets some love

                        Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                        Far from it haha, but I can see where you'd get that
                        Love is stronger than pride
                        Sittin on top of the world!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Paul George gets some love

                          No mention of George "The Savior" Hill?
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Paul George gets some love

                            Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                            Love is love, and I love love.

                            Especially when I love the player getting the love and he plays for the team I love.
                            DOUBLE RAINBOW!!

                            hehe
                            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Paul George gets some love

                              Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                              Love is love, and I love love.

                              Especially when I love the player getting the love and he plays for the team I love.
                              With thanks to Mr. Lennon and Mr. McCartney

                              Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.

                              There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
                              Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
                              Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
                              It's easy.

                              There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
                              No one you can save that can't be saved.
                              Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
                              in time - It's easy.

                              All you need is love, all you need is love,
                              All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
                              Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
                              All you need is love, all you need is love,
                              All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

                              There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
                              Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
                              Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
                              It's easy.

                              All you need is love, all you need is love,
                              All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
                              All you need is love (all together now)
                              All you need is love (everybody)
                              All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X