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

Article: Who's the Man in the N.B.A.?

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

  • Article: Who's the Man in the N.B.A.?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/sp...partner=EXCITE

    By CHRIS BROUSSARD

    Ten years ago, the N.B.A. witnessed the best and the worst of Scottie Pippen. With Michael Jordan in his first retirement, Pippen averaged career highs in points and rebounds, won the Most Valuable Player award at the 1994 All-Star Game and led the Chicago Bulls to 55 regular-season victories.

    But with 1.8 seconds remaining in Game 3 of the Bulls' Eastern Conference semifinal series against the Knicks, Pippen removed himself from a tie game because Coach Phil Jackson called the final play for Toni Kukoc, who made a game-winning jump shot.

    Jackson's decision not to call the play for Pippen and Pippen's handling of the situation exposed the fine line between a star and a franchise player. Pippen was named one of the top 50 players in N.B.A. history and is a sure-fire Hall of Famer, but he was not cut out to be the Man, to carry the burden of a team.

    Today, when stars are marketed even more than they were a decade ago, an All-Star-caliber player, with his endorsements, entourage and maximum-dollar contract, is often referred to as the Man. But several league executives, coaches, players and former players say there is a great divide between the two stations.

    What does it take to be the Man?

    First, it helps to be 7 feet tall.

    Three contenders to be the Man — Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett — emerged in interviews with people associated with the league.

    But O'Neal and Garnett each seem to lack one of the two qualities mentioned as necessities for the ultimate franchise player: a killer instinct and a championship ring.

    "I don't know if Shaq has that killer instinct," said Steve Kerr, who witnessed the trait as a championship teammate of Jordan's and Duncan's. "But it's probably a good thing he doesn't because there would be a lot of dead people lying around the floor."

    Obviously, O'Neal's combination of size, power and agility make him a clear exception to the rule. As for Garnett, who has never led Minnesota past the first round of the playoffs, his passion, intensity, professionalism and work ethic lead many of the league's coaches and executives to say he will eventually justify his position as the Man by winning a title.

    Because of his calm, composed way of leading, Duncan is often accused of lacking a killer instinct, but Kerr, now an analyst with TNT, said Duncan's critics were being fooled.

    "Tim has it," he said. "People just don't know it because of the way he carries himself on the floor. He's unbelievably competitive. It just doesn't show as much as other guys' because of his demeanor."

    Exceptional height is not a requirement for a true franchise player.

    The four players who perhaps most epitomized what it means to be the Man in the 1980's and 1990's — Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Isiah Thomas — played on the perimeter. They also had an edge about them during games and in practices that could sometimes be mistaken for spite.

    "You have to be a killer," Toronto Coach Kevin O'Neill said. "You have to be willing to kill people to win, and that's what separates franchise players from players who are just stars on their team. When it was time to play, Jordan and Bird played hard and tried to kill you. They wanted to take the last shot. They wanted to have the ball in their hands. They wanted to guard the best player on the last possession. All that."

    In Vince Carter, O'Neill has one of the league's perimeter stars, someone who has the talent necessary to carry a team to great heights but who has been accused of lacking the necessary mentality. Carter, 27, only reluctantly accepts the idea of being the franchise player.

    "He's a great team guy," O'Neill said. "I think as Vince matures and grows as a player and a person he'll embrace that role more. He's such a good guy, and he defers to so many people that for him, it's one of those situations where he's kind of caught in between.

    "But his ability puts him in a position where he's not just one of the guys. He's the best player on our team, and as he grows older he'll be more acclimated to that."

    But this might be wishful thinking. Even O'Neill admitted that the edge he wanted Carter to develop is often innate. "You either have it or you don't," he said.

    Charles Barkley said Carter's mentality was unrealistic.

    "When you have that much talent, you don't get to say, `I just want to blend in,' " Barkley said. "It's up to the great players to make the other scrubs better. It's up to Vince to put his teammates on his back and carry them. That's the responsibility of being a great player. Great players have to play great and they have to lead. You're not one of the guys. You're better than everyone else. That is why you're an All-Star and you get the highest salary. If you just want to be one of the guys, then cut your salary and make what the other guys make. They don't pay you a lot of money to blend in."

    Kerr says that not wanting to be the Man assures that you won't be. "Michael and Tim understood that as the team's best player they had a huge responsibility, and they not only accepted it, but they embraced it," Kerr said. "Michael always loved the fact that he was the Man, and he knew that ultimately our success was mostly up to him and he enjoyed that. I think to be the Man, a guy has to really relish being in that position. When Michael left, it was hard for Scottie to take over that role because it was not really his personality."

    Tracy McGrady left Toronto for Orlando four years ago because he wanted to get out of Carter's shadow and establish himself. He has certainly done that, leading the league in scoring last season and ranking in the top seven the previous two seasons. But he has found that being the Man can be draining. When Orlando lost 19 straight games earlier this season, McGrady seemed to shrink under the pressure, even admitting that thoughts of retirement had entered his mind. In Friday's game at Denver, he was ejected after twice punting the ball into the stands while disputing a noncall.

    "When you're the star player and when things are not going so well, you're the guy that gets criticized for everything," McGrady, the league's leading scorer this season, said. "You just feel like everything is coming down on your shoulders. Mentally, it took a toll on me. But you have to take the bad with the good. If you don't want to be in this position, don't put up the numbers. Don't put up 30 points a night."

    When asked if he had the killer instinct many believe is necessary to carry a team, McGrady said: "Different guys go about their ways of leading. Some guys are more outspoken than others. My way? That's not my personality. I'm real laid-back, and my teammates know that. They know that's me. What I do is lead by example because that's the kind of person I am. My personality is not to be outspoken. Getting on a guy — that's just not me. I know that as the best player on the team that's how I should be, but that's not my personality and that's not how I'm going to be."

    Rod Thorn, the Nets' president, said most of the league's players could not handle the responsibility of being the Man.

    "It's not only a mental pressure but also a physical pressure of getting whacked and beat up daily," he said. "Because once you start scoring 20-something points a night, every defense you face is set up to stop you. A lot of guys say they want to be the Man, but they couldn't do it."

    Bird, the president of the Indiana Pacers, said: "Everybody's made up differently. Some players know they can go out on some nights and be the best player on the court. But they don't want the responsibility of being the best player every night. There are a lot of guys in the league like that."

    Sacramento's Chris Webber has no problem piling up statistics nightly, but he has been criticized for not demanding the ball more in the fourth quarter. In the 2002 Western Conference finals, he not only deferred to his teammate Mike Bibby, but he also appeared not to want the ball. The absence of fear of failure may be necessary for a true franchise player.

    Two perimeter stars who seem to have the mental makeup to be the Man are Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson. During games, Iverson exhibits the toughness to play through pain, the all-out effort, and the desire it takes to lead a franchise. But his poor practice habits and frequent absences hinder his ability to lead. Jason Kidd has also established himself as a strong leader with the Nets.

    Thorn said that Bryant, whose mannerisms and moves are reminiscent of Jordan, possesses the same mentality as Jordan.

    "If Kobe ever changes teams, he will probably go someplace where he can be the Man," Thorn said. "There is no doubt in my mind that if he played with a lesser team, he would average in the mid-30's, because he has that mentality. A lot of guys, if they get to 30, they ease off subconsciously. But if Kobe gets to 30, he wants 50. His mentality is more like Michael's than any of these other players."

    If he leaves O'Neal and the Lakers as a free agent this summer, the challenge for Bryant will not be handling the pressure of being the lead guy, but of proving that, like Jordan, he can win at a high level without a dominant center.

    While Bryant could someday become a throwback to Jordan, the rookies LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony could take it all the way back to Magic and Bird. Like Magic and Bird, they have lived up to their huge hype, proving to be immune to pressure, and while they often play with a smile, there appears to be a killer instinct beneath it.

  • #2
    Re: Article: Who's the Man in the N.B.A.?

    What? No mention of Reggie? Mr. Playoffs, has certainly proven it over the years...moreso that McGrady or Carter, yet they drew mention. Is he on par with the true greats? No, but he certainly has that dragon-slayer mentality they seem to think is the key. rom his heroics v. the Knicks to his single-handed carrying us to an overtime game 5 loss to the Nets, he has proven his mental authority and his right to consideration...and he has done so over a span of years not just 2-3 years.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Article: Who's the Man in the N.B.A.?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/sp...partner=EXCITE

      the rookies LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony could take it all the way back to Magic and Bird.
      I doubt it . . . especially in the case of Anthony . . . I know they are only 18 or 19, but geesh, I don't turn on the TV JUST to see either one play . . . talk about spoiled . . .

      Comment

      Working...
      X