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

Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

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

  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

    Luck is the difference between 4 championships (Duncan) and one conference finals lose (Garnett)?

    Maybe it is the difference between a big man who plays in the middle and one that floats around.
    Last edited by Arcadian; 06-27-2007, 03:44 PM.
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

    Comment


    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

      Originally posted by Mal View Post
      "Making players around him better" is one of the phoniest concepts in the history of the NBA.
      I'll disagree with this statement.

      A player can make others on his team better in a number of ways. Maybe you're limiting how you look at it. Try to look at it in terms other than during a specific game, or period of a game.

      Some players influence others by their leadership and work ethic. They keep the other players on the floor more involved in the game by sharing the ball and opportunities to score. Some by instilling trust between teammates offensively or defensively.

      Some players (such as Mark Jackson) have been referred to as a coach on the floor. Players who deserve that are not just telling guys where to stand, they are teaching, getting guys to work harder than they might otherwise. In short, getting them to improve their game.

      We've all heard of players being inspired to work harder after seeing how hard Reggie worked at his game.

      Aren't these things that make other players better?

      Comment


      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

        It may hold some truth, but it's heard so much it's almost a cliche.

        Comment


        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
          I'll disagree with this statement.

          A player can make others on his team better in a number of ways. Maybe you're limiting how you look at it. Try to look at it in terms other than during a specific game, or period of a game.

          Some players influence others by their leadership and work ethic. They keep the other players on the floor more involved in the game by sharing the ball and opportunities to score. Some by instilling trust between teammates offensively or defensively.

          Some players (such as Mark Jackson) have been referred to as a coach on the floor. Players who deserve that are not just telling guys where to stand, they are teaching, getting guys to work harder than they might otherwise. In short, getting them to improve their game.

          We've all heard of players being inspired to work harder after seeing how hard Reggie worked at his game.

          Aren't these things that make other players better?
          Solid points.

          Comment


          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

            Originally posted by Mal View Post
            "Making players around him better" is one of the phoniest concepts in the history of the NBA.
            I'm not trying to pick on you, or anyone else for that matter, but that's the difference between having played the game, and just watching it.

            There are many very good players that I've played with or against that I couldn't stand. They were almost too good for their own good. Didn't trust teammates, would pass only when they're wide open, etc. Then I've played with others that could go out and score 30+ every game, but never did unless they needed too. They always seemed to do the little things, that just bred confidence.

            I can think of a couple BSU players that fit the bill for the first type. No one likes playing with them, and the player usually ends up quitting half way through the game because every just stands and watches him, so he gets ****ed off.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

              Originally posted by kidthecat View Post
              It may hold some truth, but it's heard so much it's almost a cliche.
              Yeah, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's abused by most people because it's used without a true knowledge of a situation.

              Go play on a team and you know who impacts you and your teammates for whatever reason, but from the outside that impact might seem different due to circumstances and timing.

              So it exists, but you can't typically trust the "I don't even know the entire roster" analysts who drop the cliche every 5 seconds.


              Just for an annoying example, a guy like Jackson COULD have been helpful to other players simply because he drew negative attention away from them, or because he was constantly running on emotion that perhaps wasn't their nature to muster.

              From the outside people simply see problems and just figure "get rid of him and it all gets better". Now we don't know exactly what his leaving did to the team in terms of that aspect because it's wrapped up with so many other factors. I'm not taking a stand regarding Jack here, so don't waste my and your time arguing it.

              The point being made is that "who knows" when team chemistry is so intricate, dynamic, and usually in a state of delicate balance if it's actually working. What helped a teammate one day can start to grind on him the next.

              Comment


              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                I'll disagree with this statement.

                A player can make others on his team better in a number of ways. Maybe you're limiting how you look at it. Try to look at it in terms other than during a specific game, or period of a game.

                Some players influence others by their leadership and work ethic. They keep the other players on the floor more involved in the game by sharing the ball and opportunities to score. Some by instilling trust between teammates offensively or defensively.

                Some players (such as Mark Jackson) have been referred to as a coach on the floor. Players who deserve that are not just telling guys where to stand, they are teaching, getting guys to work harder than they might otherwise. In short, getting them to improve their game.

                We've all heard of players being inspired to work harder after seeing how hard Reggie worked at his game.

                Aren't these things that make other players better?

                The best example, IMHO, of a player who makes others better is Shaq. Look at all the guys that had career seasons playing with the Diesel - Nick Anderson, Derek Armstrong, Scott Skiles, Penny Hardaway, and Derrick Fisher - not to mention the impact he had on Kobe and DWade's career. He made marginal talents look like All-Stars (Brian Shaw anyone?)He opens the floor for everyone and is a great passer for a bigman with the ability to find the open man. Also, look at how bad several of those "great" role players careers went into the crapper after Shaq left town.

                So with all that said, certain players do make their teammates better but very few. Steve Nash is another excellent example.

                Comment


                • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                  There is a difference between players complementing each other and a player whose skill set makes the jobs of the other four easier. You don't have to be a great player to be either one of those.

                  Rik Smits by virtue of being able to score in the post made the game easier for others. Best and Rose complemented each other by having one player being a better ball handler and the other able to guard quicker players.

                  I dislike how the term is used because a lot of times it is a easy thing to say, "If player A were so good it wouldn't matter how bad his teammates are."

                  The reverse of it is some players make the game harder for thier teammates with bad shot selection or being unable to guard their man and some teammates have skill sets that clash.
                  "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                  "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                    Originally posted by Jay View Post
                    That makes no sense whatsoever. How do you know KG would have rings but JO, who has had marginally more postseason success, gets a "probably".

                    That's wacky.

                    You're reading way too much into my "probably." That seriously wasn't my intention when I typed that, I wasn't trying to make a "KG>JO" point. I can see how it came off like that though.

                    My only point was to say that Duncan has had alot more luck with supporting casts than JO/KG. I'll edit it to make it more fair.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                      Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                      Luck is the difference between 4 championships (Duncan) and one conference finals lose (Garnett)?

                      Maybe it is the difference between a big man who plays in the middle and one that floats around.

                      Definitely.

                      Which player had it easiest coming into the league? Garnett who was drafted by the pitiful TWOLVES, or Duncan, who was drafted to play alongside one of the premier centers of the era, surrounded by a supporting cast which wasn't too far removed from a 60+ win season and a WCF's appearance?

                      That is luck. Most stars (Lebron, Shaq, etc) get drafted by pitiful teams at the number one position. It takes them a couple of years to lift the team up to contention because the team is so bad when they get them. Duncan was drafed by a team that would have made the playoffs the following season without him. What if the abysmal Celtics would have won that draft lottery (they had the best chance). Would Duncan have been holding the championship trophy in his second season? I seriously, seriously doubt it. He would have gotten one eventually, but it would have taken time.

                      The only time KG has had a legit supporting cast was in 03-04 with Cassell and Sprewell. Too bad they were 34 and 33 year old players, who weren't near as effective the next season. Duncan has had the luxury of the Spurs getting steals in drafts. Young guys (manu and parker) that can carry the team through the regular season while he plays at about 80% capacity. KG gets a couple of supporting cast guys who are at the tail end of their careers. Duncan gets young guys who will flourish for years to come.

                      Do you really think DUncan could have won a title with Dean Garret, Joe Smith and Terrell Brandon?

                      What if you replace Duncan with JO on this years Pacers team. Maybe the Pacers are a little better, but how far could Duncan have taken that team? Do you seriously think he could have won a playoff series with them?

                      Duncan is a great player. But to act like him and KG have had equal chances to succeed is just absolutely insane.

                      Another pet peeve of mine is when people call Duncan "the player of the 00's" over Shaquille O'Neal (something that has been talked about on ESPN). My oh my how people have short memories. People have already forgotten the extent of which Shaq destroyed teams. It is an unfair comparison anyway, as Shaq is 6 years older than Duncan, and played for the better part of the 90's while Duncan didn't enter the league until 1998.....so naturally Duncan is going to have a couple more effective years than Shaq did in the 00's, but none of those will match the magnitude of Shaq from 00-02.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-27-2007, 08:06 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                        So you guys really think you trade KG for TD, and he'd have won 4 out of the last 9, with basically 3 different teams, where he was the only guy there the whole time? You think that's "easy"?

                        I wholeheartedly disagree.

                        [edit] I'll tell you what, if Duncan was on those Minny teams, nobody would be talking about Spree and Cassell and not making the playoffs.

                        I'm not saying he would have won the exact same number of championships in the exact years that TD did. My point is that if KG had ever had a supporting cast like TD did, then he would have atleast a ring. There is no way to prove that obviously.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                          Did JO just kill any trade leverage we had?!?

                          From LakersGround forum:

                          http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=44121

                          570AM reporting JO will opt out after 2008..PERIOD!

                          Hacksaw was just on and reported that JO's reps have said that JO will opt out after next season regardless of which team he's on (and will not sign an extention to his current contract).

                          If this is true......F it! No way you can send LO & Bynum...or for that matter even LO, Kwame, and #19 for a guy who may very well only be around for one year.
                          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                            Originally posted by blanket View Post
                            Did JO just kill any trade leverage we had?!?

                            From LakersGround forum:

                            http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=44121

                            O'Neals "people" did not say that Jermaine would opt out for sure...just more BS from the Laker propaganda machine....anything to drive O'Neals price down......

                            This is becoming pure desperation on the Lakers part becasue the Pacers WILL NOT mobe off of their trade demand of O'Neal & Murphy for Odom, Bynum,Brown, Vajancic and the 19th pick in this years draft...I wonderhow many of these BS things we're going to hear after July 1st?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                              Yes.

                              Its certainly true that certain players "make everyone around them better". That is usually reserved for a PG or distributor who does an excellent job of putting his teammates in a position to succeed or hide their weaknesses.

                              Its a shame that some people use the "make everyone around them better" cop-out to discredit a player that is a finisher. Did Bernard King make the players around him better? No. But he was a devastatingly good offensive player. It wasn't his job to make everyone else look good. It was his job to get the ball and put it into the hoop.

                              Clearly, there are some people that understand this term, use it in the right context, etc. And others that just don't. But its a popular buzzword among basketball fans, especially those that watched Magic and Larry - two guys that exemplified the "make everyone around them better" role because of their ability to see the court and make the right pass at the right time.

                              That's the right context.

                              Not whether or not one player - especially a player that isn't a primary ballhandler, can single-handedly carry a team.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                                Originally posted by blanket View Post
                                Did JO just kill any trade leverage we had?!?

                                From LakersGround forum:

                                http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=44121
                                Most posters on Lakers forums will tell you that Hacksaw never gets anything like this right.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X