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

NBA All Star Discussion with Israel Gutierrez and J.A. Adande Pacers Mentioned

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

  • NBA All Star Discussion with Israel Gutierrez and J.A. Adande Pacers Mentioned

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/88...tar-discussion

    ADANDE
    For a supposedly meaningless exhibition, people sure attach a lot of significance to who gets to play in the All-Star Game.

    I know it's a big branding opportunity for the players. The honorees stick in our minds more than the All-NBA teams -- you know, the ones based on an entire season, with no politics in play. Maybe it's because we actually get to see the All-Stars assemble and play. And party.

    Let me begin by saying the fans always get it right, no matter which players they vote in. The game is for the fans, so let them choose whomever they want. The most memorable All-Star moment was provided because fans voted for a guy who had not played a game that season -- Magic Johnson, post-HIV retirement in 1992. If the fans want to vote in Jeremy Lin, it's actually a good sign for the NBA. It means that a lot of people who don't follow the game closely care enough to vote. If you get the casual fan into the tent, you're winning.

    Of course, Lin's inclusion at the expense of Chris Paul would cause a chain reaction that would end in another worthy guard getting bumped. I'm worried it would be Steph Curry.

    Curry's Golden State teammate David Lee is putting up 20 and 10 a game and could easily land a spot on the squad. But Lee's numbers aren't much different from last season or from his final season in New York in 2009-10. What did those teams have in common? Neither qualified for the postseason.

    These Warriors are playoff-bound, and a primary difference is Curry, now that his ankles are functional. He already has played in 10 more games than he did all of last season. He is averaging a career-high 20.5 points per game. He is making 46 percent of his 3-pointers. He dishes out 6.6 assists per game. He is bringing pro basketball excitement back to the Bay Area. That needs to be rewarded with an All-Star spot. I'm big on winning as a prerequisite.

    GUTIERREZ
    I have a hard time believing Lee can't also be an All-Star. So let's hammer this out.

    Assuming the starters will be Paul, Kobe Bryant, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard and Kevin Durant, the locks after that are Tim Duncan, James Harden, Russell Westbrook and probably Curry. That leaves three spots for a handful of deserving candidates. The Grizzlies are deserving of an All-Star, and Zach Randolph probably stands out as the most deserving. Tony Parker probably falls under the category of "the Spurs deserve a second All-Star," though most would probably agree that the rejuvenated Duncan, who is averaging 2.7 blocked shots (only once has he averaged more than that in a season, 2002-03 when he blocked 2.9 per game), is the player who's really driving the Spurs this season.

    With that last spot, it's hard to argue that Lee isn't the most deserving of the remaining candidates. It's unfair to keep him out just because he has put up similar numbers on losing teams in the past. His 19.9 points, 10.9 rebounds and 53 percent shooting are better than LaMarcus Aldridge's numbers. (In fact, I'd say Nicolas Batum is the most deserving Blazer because of how he affects the game.) And either Lee has been an underrated defender his entire career or he has improved in that area too, because the Warriors are among the best in the league in shooting percentage allowed.

    I'm putting him in, and it's not just because the Warriors are the surprise team of the season.

    ADANDE
    I don't consider the Warriors that big of a surprise. I thought they'd make the playoffs; I just didn't think they'd be up as high as they are right now.

    Portland is more of a surprise to me. And in that case, the credit goes to Damian Lillard. He has been the difference-maker, much like Curry in Golden State. He would also be the first rookie All-Star guard since Michael Jordan in 1985. Maybe the vets would freeze him out during the game, leading to a long, bitter feud that one day results in Lillard scheming to keep someone off the Olympic team. But I'm getting ahead of myself, because I doubt the coaches will add a rookie. Plus, Parker's numbers are better, so I'd make him the final guard.

    I'd go with Z-Bo too, even though his numbers are down this season. He has had five seasons in which he's averaged 20 and 10, with only one All-Star appearance to show for it. Give it to him as a lifetime achievement award.

    It's unfair that Portland or Denver could get shut out while the Lakers and their losing record send two players to the All-Star Game. If you think the combo of Parker plus politics keeps out Lillard, doesn't that mean Aldridge should represent the Trail Blazers?

    OK. To the East, my brother. Who ya got?

    GUTIERREZ
    Oddly enough, the Eastern Conference has been big-man territory this season, even with Howard changing conferences and the supposed obsession with small ball.

    Assuming Kevin Garnett hangs on to that starting spot, Chris Bosh, David West, Joakim Noah, Brook Lopez and Tyson Chandler all have fairly easy cases to play in Houston. The weakest case of that group would be between Bosh, who was close to Garnett in the latest All-Star returns, and West, whose numbers aren't jaw-dropping.

    Lopez's numbers are better than both, while Chandler and Noah are more critical to their teams' success. But West has been the leader of the league's best defense, and a top-three seed deserves at least one All-Star. The way the Heat have been playing lately, it's hard to argue that they even deserve a third All-Star next to LeBron James and Dwyane Wade.

    But both Bosh and West likely will get a nod. Let's hope it's not at the expense of Noah, whose 12.3 points, 10.6 rebounds and 2.1 blocks have been a major reason why the Bulls are hard to beat even without Derrick Rose.

    If all five of those bigs find a way to get in (doubtful), that leaves two spots for three deserving candidates: Kyrie Irving, Paul Pierce and Jrue Holiday.

    If I'm picking, I'm taking Irving -- might as well start his All-Star run this season, because he has been stunning at times -- and Holiday. I know Holiday turns the ball over too much, but that's a product of carrying a team. Steve Nash, Wade and Bryant have all been near or atop the league leaders in turnovers at some point. Holiday is having a breakout season and deserves this recognition.

    Pierce might just be a victim of the numbers, especially if Garnett hangs on to that starting spot. In terms of All-Star selection, maybe the Celtics have waited too long to finally turn the corner.

    ADANDE
    I like Holiday -- more so than Irving. Even though the 76ers have been unable to maintain their early pace (can you believe that in mid-December they had the best record of the four teams involved in the Dwight Howard trade?), Holiday has increased his scoring by five points per game and has almost doubled his assists.

    I'd send him there along with Josh Smith, Noah, Chandler, West and Paul George. Yes, George and West. If you're going to send one, might as well send both. Their scoring and rebounding numbers are virtually identical, and this team could end up being the second-best squad in the East.

    And, sorry, I'd have to put Brandon Jennings ahead of Irving as well. Jennings has the Bucks hanging on to a playoff spot, while we're still waiting for the Cavs to hit double-digit victories. Jennings is averaging 20 points and seven assists in Milwaukee's victories. Irving will get his share of trips to the All-Star Game. For now, he still has the rookie-sophomore game to get him a trip to Houston.

    Can't believe we haven't talked about Deron Williams, but his numbers have dropped off and it seems like every game he is limping around with some new injury.

    GUTIERREZ
    I have to say I'm a little shocked by the love Smith is getting. His numbers are down from a year ago, and as much as the Hawks had a nice stretch earlier this season, they're going through an equally woeful stretch right now. It only serves to strengthen the idea that Smith will get traded in February -- possibly to a West team.

    I understand knocking Irving for his team's win total -- heck, if Anderson Varejao had stayed healthy, he'd probably be the best Cavs candidate -- but let's be honest: People decide who they want to see in an All-Star Game and then create an argument for them. And my argument for Irving is this: That dude is good! Better than Jennings. And Jennings is another player reportedly on the trade block, which can't possibly enhance his All-Star argument.

    I love how you're putting in George ahead of Bosh, even though I don't agree with it. Last season, Charles Barkley said on South Florida radio that he'd take George over Bosh and was subsequently mocked when George no-showed in that series (10 ppg on 37 percent shooting) and the Heat won a title with strong play from a hurting Bosh.

    If this happens, it'll be a bit of redemption for Sir Charles, and a heckuva call by you.



    Went ahead and highlighted all the Pacers mentions.

    I really doubt we get two all stars. Its either PG or West, probably PG in my opinion.
    There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

  • #2
    Re: NBA All Star Discussion with Israel Gutierrez and J.A. Adande Pacers Mentioned

    Can't stand to read anything Gutierrez. His head is so far up LeWade's *** he can probably taste their food.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA All Star Discussion with Israel Gutierrez and J.A. Adande Pacers Mentioned

      Gutierrez is beyond terrible.

      Comment

      Working...
      X