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

Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

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

  • #16
    Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    I wasn't around at that time so can you explain to me how he got those contracts even though he was hurt?
    I can't explain how he got those contracts even though he really wasn't very good at basketball... let alone had injury concerns...
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

      Originally posted by *astrisk* View Post
      Jonathon Bender once scored like 100 points in a game.
      umm.... no. His claim to fame was 31 points in the McDonalds All-American game, which broke Jordan's record. He averaged 23 ppg in high school. Maybe you're thinking of Dajuan Wagner, who scored 100 in high school?

      We saw only brief moments shadowed by injury and low basketball IQ.

      Some of his coaches say there was a lot more that we never got to see.

      "Of all the guys I’ve ever seen in this league, in 20-plus years, in terms of basketball ability he’s in the top 1 or 2 percent,” said Dallas Mavericks Coach Rick Carlisle"


      In his early practices with the Pacers, Bender routinely made plays — a rebound, a block, a dunk — that left teammates awestruck. “The other guys would stop and go, ‘Did you see what he just did?’ ” said Donnie Walsh.... “The whole team would stop.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/sp...icks.html?_r=0
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        I wasn't around at that time so can you explain to me how he got those contracts even though he was hurt?
        1st contract = rookie deal
        2nd contract followed his one and only year where he played a whole season (well, 78 games). He then played 76 games COMBINED over the next 4 seasons.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          Johnathon Bender reached beyond the potential of his NBA career- An NBA bust who made it thru 2 contracts (actually getting a serious contract beyond his rookie contract) not counting a 3rd 'comeback' paycheck and whatever that paid). Even if he was perfectly healthy I have my doubts that he had the drive and desire to be anything but a disappointment. His basketball IQ was always in question.

          Jonathon Bender couldn't have been Paul George even in his dreams. He couldn't have been Lance... or George Hill either... or James Jones for that matter. Perhaps he could've been Gerald Green.
          I dont know how you draw these evaluations after only a few nba seasons. for which Bender never was healthy. at least for a consistent number of games. i would certainly not disagree with the injury issues Bender experienced. howwever, the bust and reaching nba potential and so forth i do not understand. maybe you saw differently than i and can explain in more detail.

          the bender i remember had unbelievable athleticsm. was bascially 7'0 and could play any position other than point gaurd. he was too young to state as having low iq and reached his nba ceiling in potential. one play i recall Bender pump faking from the 3 pt line taking a dribble then 2 steps from just inside free throw line and dunking. it was amazing. dude basically dunked from free throw line in a game with defense. oh and he could shoot lights out .. durantesque. but he wasnt healhty enough to prove it.

          i ddont know if he would have been the greatest. but i will say this much. when the few occassions bender was on the floor with JO. there was no doubt who the best player or most dynamic player was on the basketball court. you could just see it on JO's face when Bender was on the court that he knew he was not the most dangerrous player on the court.

          Oden and Bender's careers are very much the same. I dont think you can say either one ever reached their nba potential. Glenn Robinson reached his nba potential.





          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          I wasn't around at that time so can you explain to me how he got those contracts even though he was hurt?
          were you not around as a fan at that time.. was just interested inknowing what you meant by that ?

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          I can't explain how he got those contracts even though he really wasn't very good at basketball... let alone had injury concerns...
          injury concerns yes. not very good at basketball.. your basing this on what? the guy could shoot and leap out of the gym at 7'0 tall... what wasnt to like. Al Harrington, Johnathon Bender, JO were the trio at one time i believed would carry this team after Reggie retired. none of those guys ended their career as pacers. The nba has really changed since those days.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            umm.... no. His claim to fame was 31 points in the McDonalds All-American game, which broke Jordan's record. He averaged 23 ppg in high school. Maybe you're thinking of Dajuan Wagner, who scored 100 in high school?
            Travis Best did as well, IIRC.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

              IMO, Bender with healthy knees may have meant multiple rings for the Pacers, and potentially multiple All Star appearances due to coaches votes as a result of the defender that having healthy knees would have allowed him to be as well as the scorer and ball handler he likely would have been with more consistent playing time.

              He actually could have made even the JOB system work as a "stretch 4" IMO.

              Oh we'll never know
              What might have been

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                Bender was overrated, over hyped 7' kid that played like a man amongst boys only cause his height at 16-17 years old. He had great mobility and a good stroke. He never translated to the NBA in the sense of being a pick 5. It was a very poor pick and thank goodness kids have to play against men before draft. He is one of the top bust in the last 30 years. There is no comparison in the 2 except a jersey number. You better not have jinx Paul's health for this slander of a comparison.
                Last edited by Pacer Fan; 02-01-2013, 12:22 AM.
                Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                  They have the same number....

                  I always had high hopes for Bender...
                  "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                    He was a hell of a horse player.

                    But other than that I'm going to go the route of ABAdays here.


                    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                      If his body would have allowed it, I think at the very least he would've made an interesting stretch 4 when the NBA shifted in that direction. O'Brien would've loved him at PF. Maybe even at center.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        Travis Best did as well, IIRC.
                        I had to look this up, given that he was a Pacer of some note (and who took a lot of heat). He scored 81. It was a pretty remarkable 81, with 9 assists:

                        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...01/1/index.htm

                        His coach says there was no plan to have Travis score 81 points that night against Putnam Vocational. Everything somehow seemed to be working. Travis made his first eight three-pointers. He was in the "high 20's" after only five minutes of the 32-minute high school game had been played. There had always been the temptation to just "let him go." Just once. Just to see what the numbers would be at the end. This wasn't some pituitary case playing against helpless schoolchildren. Travis was a 5'11" guard. Just let him go. Just once.

                        "He finished with 31 of 47 from the floor, 10 of 12 three-pointers," the coach says. "He was nine of 13 from the foul line. He also had nine assists, which easily could have been 15 if other kids had finished off the plays. I took him out with 51 seconds left, for the ovation. He was exhausted. He was running the offense, playing defense and scoring 81 points. His shirt was so wet at the end, it looked as if someone had poured a bucket of water over him."

                        --
                        That would have been fun to watch. I love watching guards just be unguardable, and it have nothing to do with size. Reggie's many moments. Pete Maravich. Rick Mount's 61 vs. Iowa in '69, that would have been 79 with a 3-point shot, when I was 6 years old. Drove me to the barn, where there was a hoop hanging, and made me want to shoot just like him. (Dad came by, though, and reminded me that I should also watch/emulate IU players, since IU is better- thanks Dad!)
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-01-2013, 11:20 AM.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                          Originally posted by sam kaiserblade View Post
                          It's like Bulls fans asking if Scottie Pippen is what Brad Sellers could have been.
                          That is so good I think I'm going to turn that into my signature for the rest of the year. It's too bad 70-80% of this forum probably has no idea who Brad Sellers is/was.

                          In some ways I think that Paul George is what the Pacers had hoped Bender would be. However, Bender never had the ability to defend and rebound like PG can. Paul has been an excellent rebounder for his position since his rookie year. Bender was better at taking it to the hoop and finishing strong or drawing fouls but that's the only area I'd give him the nod.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                            Bender definitely was more explosive to the rim than George, and was developing a lights out 3pt shot, but otherwise he never had the health to demonstrate what all he could really do on a basketball court. They are/were different kinds of players.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                              Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                              I had to look this up, given that he was a Pacer of some note (and who took a lot of heat). He scored 81. It was a pretty remarkable 81, with 9 assists:
                              Great read, thanks for looking that up. I was wrong about the hundred points, but that's still pretty incredible.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Is PG what Jonathan Bender could have been?

                                Durant is what I hoped Bender could be, at least after that one Christmas day and after even a couple of playoff games against Boston in that one full season that got him his 2nd deal: Too much length to disrupt his shot, long strides, and a finisher. A matchup nightmare. Bendy straw needed college to get his body mature enough to last and to learn how to play the game.


                                KD has working knees and about triple the basketball IQ, though. Probably has worked harder at his craft, as well.
                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X