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

Which Team Would Win This Game?

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

  • #16
    Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
    It's amazing to think how many of the things we take for granted in today's game are somewhat recent innovations. Splitting the double team, the crossover dribble, Euro step, the mid range stuff MJ and Kobe perfected. Some of that stuff didn't exist as recently as the 80s.

    I was listening to a podcast with Dave Cowens and Bill Simmons that came out around the All Star break and Cowens said they didn't double team in the post ever. Even if someone was getting killed they wouldn't send a help defender. That's unthinkable today.

    Not to say those guys from the 60s and 70s aren't as naturally talented but they didn't understand the scope of the game at the level a lot of guys from today do. They couldn't. If you gave Charlie Chaplin modern film equipment he wouldn't know what to do with it. Not an insult to the pioneers, just an understanding of the way progress works.
    There have been some advances with strategy in the last 20 years and that would give today's players some advantages. It's hard to say though if those advantages would be enough to overcome the type of pure talent and physical gifts Wilt Chamberlain and some of the "pioneers" had. Wilt was A LOT bigger and stronger than Ewing and far more athletic. Ewing had nothing on him. There is no player today or ever who compares. I do like Magic and Michael a lot...but I think the paint would have been dominated with Russell and Wilt.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

      Wilt was like Shaq only taller, stronger, more athletic, 10 times the dribbling skills and not overweight.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

        Wilt was like LeBron only 7 inches taller.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

          Originally posted by mattie View Post
          Wilt was like Shaq only taller, stronger, more athletic, 10 times the dribbling skills and not overweight.
          gotta disagree with that. wilt wasn't taller. and shaq was simply the biggest, strongest to ever play the game. wilt might have a slight athletic advantage but shaq in his prime was an amazing athlete as well.
          shaq only became overweight from about 2004 on. up until then he was probably about 335 or so. after that- it got out of control.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

            Wilt was like a cross between Optimus Prime and Incredible Hulk, only twice bigger and made onions cry.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

              Originally posted by ballism View Post
              Wilt was like a cross between Optimus Prime and Incredible Hulk, only twice bigger and made onions cry.
              And Ironman. Ironman was awesome.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                Originally posted by mattie View Post
                Wilt was like LeBron only 7 inches taller.


                best explanation of just exactly who and what wilt chamberlain was ever.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                  Originally posted by clownskull View Post
                  gotta disagree with that. wilt wasn't taller. and shaq was simply the biggest, strongest to ever play the game. wilt might have a slight athletic advantage but shaq in his prime was an amazing athlete as well.
                  shaq only became overweight from about 2004 on. up until then he was probably about 335 or so. after that- it got out of control.
                  Shaq was bigger, heavier and possibly stronger. But Wilt was significantly more athletic and skilled as an offensive basketball player. Wilt was a track star and seriously the LeBron + 7 inches description isn't bad.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Shaq was bigger, heavier and possibly stronger. But Wilt was significantly more athletic and skilled as an offensive basketball player. Wilt was a track star and seriously the LeBron + 7 inches description isn't bad.
                    almost forgot wilt actually did track too. i remember hearing kevin willis did track in high school. i heard he ran a sub 5 minute mile which is pretty amazing for someone that tall.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                      Originally posted by clownskull View Post
                      almost forgot wilt actually did track too. i remember hearing kevin willis did track in high school. i heard he ran a sub 5 minute mile which is pretty amazing for someone that tall.
                      I just found this part amazing:

                      Wilt took up his first love of track and field at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas while also playing basketball there. The 7'2" goliath ran a sub 11 second 100 yard dash and also threw the shot put 56 feet. Despite competing and excelling in both sprinting and throwing his best events were not surprisingly the jumping events as Chamberlain triple jumped in excess of 50 feet and successfully won the Big 8 Conference high jumping competition three years in a row. In the world of track and field it is an extraordinarily rare athlete that can compete at the highest level in the shortest sprints, all the jumping events, and the throwing events. This dynamic collection of talents is so rare in fact that Wilt might be the only man ever to possess this unique skill set.

                      Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/4113288

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                        Every time I convince myself the Dream Team would win, I remember just how dominant Wilt and Russell were. I don't think the Dream Team has an answer there.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          I just found this part amazing:

                          Wilt took up his first love of track and field at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas while also playing basketball there. The 7'2" goliath ran a sub 11 second 100 yard dash and also threw the shot put 56 feet. Despite competing and excelling in both sprinting and throwing his best events were not surprisingly the jumping events as Chamberlain triple jumped in excess of 50 feet and successfully won the Big 8 Conference high jumping competition three years in a row. In the world of track and field it is an extraordinarily rare athlete that can compete at the highest level in the shortest sprints, all the jumping events, and the throwing events. This dynamic collection of talents is so rare in fact that Wilt might be the only man ever to possess this unique skill set.

                          Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/4113288
                          Yes, indeed, and this...

                          When Wilt Chamberlain was in high school, he had a unique way of shooting free-throws. He would stand at the top of the key, throw the ball up toward the basket, take two steps, jump toward the rim and jam the ball through the net. Doing this resulted in basketball rules to state that a player cannot cross the plane of the free-throw line when shooting a free-throw.

                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4WZXiaDzyc

                          This video does a great job of telling how amazing Chamberlain was athletically. Shaq power, Yao Ming length, Lebron athleticism, Bill Russell jumping ability, etc. I wish he could have played in a today's league. He would dominate today's game without a doubt.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                            Wilt and Oscar Robertson are the two pre-merger players who I think people can look at and say "they would be the best in the league today like they were in their time." Cousy, Russell, West, Baylor, those guys would all be very good, but Wilt and Oscar were so far ahead of their time. It's too bad Wilt never had the talent around him like Russell did.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              Oscar Robertson was crossing over defenders at Crispis Attucks in the 50s. Cousy was better at it, and of course Maravich was hardly unequalled in his crossover. Wilt was so tired of facing constant double teams in the post that he threatened to retire. Wilt promised to lead the lead in assists by passing out of double teams, if his owners would just get two guys who could made a midrange jump shot. He did. You are right that coaches used to insist you never try to dribble through a double team, but rather pass out of it.
                              And Galileo had a telescope, he just didn't have the Hubble telescope. It's not a diss to those guys, they helped create those moves and the defenses we have today were built to stop them. But it's also true that there was a limit to how they understood the game that we understand today.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Which Team Would Win This Game?

                                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                                And Galileo had a telescope, he just didn't have the Hubble telescope. It's not a diss to those guys, they helped create those moves and the defenses we have today were built to stop them. But it's also true that there was a limit to how they understood the game that we understand today.
                                You guys really don't have a clue just how fundamentally skilled the earlier generation of players were, do you?

                                A lot of the players that were HOF in the 60s and 70s would be voted into the HOF now if they had just finished their careers.

                                Shaq was a very strong player. Wilt was also extremely strong, but was also far more athletic, with much better length and reach. I don't see Shaq being able to score much at all against Wilt. And, due to Wilt's greater mobility, I think Shaq would be in some serious foul trouble. If anyone came to help against Wilt in the paint, then he's got the easy pass to Russell to dunk over the top of Barkley or to Baylor, who had a variety of moves around the basket. i think Wilt would win that matchup very handily at both ends of the floor.

                                Barkley against Russell really is no matchup at all. Barkley is absolutely irrelevant against Russell. If you switched it out and used Bird defensively against Russell, Bird would also be overmatched. You wouldn't be able to keep Russell off the blocks and away from the boards. From a strength standpoint, Russell is one of the stronger players to have played the game as well. Regardless of how you defend Russell, with Shaq on Wilt, there is no one that can come close to handling.

                                I really don't care who you would want to put on him, Robertson was physically and mentally very strong. Magic could guard him in the paint, but unfortunately Oscar was much quicker than Magic and would probably blow by him easily on the perimeter. On the other end of the floor, Magic wouldn't get much in the paint with Wilt and Russell there to swat away just about everything the Dream Team shot. Magic would still be a dangerous passer and might get pouts from mid-range. I would probably give Oscar a slight advantage.

                                Where the later team really has a mismatch is with Jordan against West. West was a great mid-range shooter, but Jordan would probably give him fits on both ends of the floor. It seems to me that the later team would have to run all of its offense through Magic and Jordan, with Jordan being the primary scorer. Jordan would dominate this math up.

                                Baylor against Bird would be a great matchup. Bird would also have to score quite a bit and could probably do so at mid-range and on the perimeter. Baylor was a pretty strong player and certainly very smooth anywhere near the basket. He was an absolute joy to watch. I think this matchup likely would end in a toss-up. If Bird were used defensively against Russell, I think Baylor would easily get the best of Barkley.

                                In conclusion, I think that Malone would be a better choice than Barkley and might provide a challenge offensively against Russell's defense. Malone might be the stronger of the two and that could give him an advantage. But, I think that Russell and Wilt still control the boards.

                                One thing that could make a difference is in selecting whose rules are going to be used in such a game. If the more physical play of the earlier generation were allowed, with a much greater use of the hands defensively, then I think the earlier generation wins easily. And, the screens set by Wilt and Russell might put somebody in the hospital.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X