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

Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

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

  • #16
    Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

    Originally posted by maragin View Post
    I think being upset with mediocrity is one of the foundations of being a team leader.
    I absolutely 100% agree with you in that assesment.

    Now I ask, not directed at you btw I'm just using your post as a jumping on point, since we are in a mediocre stance & J.O. is not happy about it will he go to the coach & have a heated discussion about not having so many plays called for him in the post?

    I mean when we were mediocre at the beginning of the season everybody thought it was ok for him to demand more low post posessions because it would be better for the team record.

    Well since we are still hovering around the same record & he is not happy with things, shouldn't he demand that the offense should change again?


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

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      I absolutely 100% agree with you in that assesment.

      Now I ask, not directed at you btw I'm just using your post as a jumping on point, since we are in a mediocre stance & J.O. is not happy about it will he go to the coach & have a heated discussion about not having so many plays called for him in the post?

      I mean when we were mediocre at the beginning of the season everybody thought it was ok for him to demand more low post posessions because it would be better for the team record.

      Well since we are still hovering around the same record & he is not happy with things, shouldn't he demand that the offense should change again?


      Is it possible that there is more than one problem with the Pacer's strategy?
      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
      RSS Feed
      Subscribe via iTunes

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        I absolutely 100% agree with you in that assesment.

        Now I ask, not directed at you btw I'm just using your post as a jumping on point, since we are in a mediocre stance & J.O. is not happy about it will he go to the coach & have a heated discussion about not having so many plays called for him in the post?

        I mean when we were mediocre at the beginning of the season everybody thought it was ok for him to demand more low post posessions because it would be better for the team record.

        Well since we are still hovering around the same record & he is not happy with things, shouldn't he demand that the offense should change again?
        Not being satisfied with mediocrity is merely a part of being a team leader. It could be defined as a subpart of "competitive drive". Maybe in another thread, at another time, we could discuss the attributes we feel best comprises a team leader in a sport like basketball.

        Part of being a leader is the gradual learning of what works and what doesn't. Letting history, wisdom and experience temper your future actions is another mark of a good leader. In this case, he would be wise to look at the outcome of the incident earlier this year. Did this improve things with the coach? Was his point heard? Was it wise to have the media involved? Would it be as effecctive if tried again?

        Demanding that the offense change again may not be accurately addressing the problem. For example, changing the tires because your car handes poorly might be the solution... but it's also possible your axle is broken. A basketball example of this would be inquiring with the coach to experiment with the rotation, offering suggestions about game mentality, or conveying the message that you would like some help personnel-wise. Solutions to problems like these are not necessarily simple to fix, and can be made up of many smaller solutions.

        I'm not firmly entrenched on the "JO is a leader" side. That said, this year he has been doing the one thing I think is most important for a basketball team leader: He brings it every night, plays hard on both sides of the ball, and strives for improvement.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

          Originally posted by maragin View Post
          I think being upset with mediocrity is one of the foundations of being a team leader.

          It's his solution to the situation that is bothersome.

          "If it's not working then get me the hell out" as opposed to "I am committed to doing all I can to help this team build toward success"

          The 1st is an Iverson attitude, the second was Jordan's attitude in the early years.

          Jermaine seems to be solidly in the Iverson category when it comes to team leader attitude.
          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


          • #20
            Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

            Originally posted by maragin View Post
            Not being satisfied with mediocrity is merely a part of being a team leader. It could be defined as a subpart of "competitive drive". Maybe in another thread, at another time, we could discuss the attributes we feel best comprises a team leader in a sport like basketball.

            Part of being a leader is the gradual learning of what works and what doesn't. Letting history, wisdom and experience temper your future actions is another mark of a good leader. In this case, he would be wise to look at the outcome of the incident earlier this year. Did this improve things with the coach? Was his point heard? Was it wise to have the media involved? Would it be as effecctive if tried again?

            Demanding that the offense change again may not be accurately addressing the problem. For example, changing the tires because your car handes poorly might be the solution... but it's also possible your axle is broken. A basketball example of this would be inquiring with the coach to experiment with the rotation, offering suggestions about game mentality, or conveying the message that you would like some help personnel-wise. Solutions to problems like these are not necessarily simple to fix, and can be made up of many smaller solutions.

            I'm not firmly entrenched on the "JO is a leader" side. That said, this year he has been doing the one thing I think is most important for a basketball team leader: He brings it every night, plays hard on both sides of the ball, and strives for improvement.
            Outstanding idea.

            This would be a great topic & I like your take on the issue. So please start a thread discussing this very topic. Your right we should not derail this one.

            Also, as a suggestion only it's your thread so do what you think best, but maybe we should avoid just trying to decide if J.O. is the team leader in that thread. At least to start with, I'm sure it will eventually devolve into that, which is fine & natural actually, but to start with I think it would be better from a more general point.

            Great idea btw.


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

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

              Will do, though as it is 8:41 Pacific, I need to get into the work. I'll be happy to start that thread once I've convinced my boss I'm present and productive.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

                Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                JO has said several times over the last few years that he should be traded if he can't lead the Pacers to the title.

                The writer did a few creative edits with the quote. JO's intent with those comments was to say that if Jermaine O'Neal can't lead the Pacers to a title, that the Pacers deserved better and should get a better leader (presumably trading JO in the process). Notice he never says "trade me to a contender".

                I can't find a copy, but I seem to remember JO saying "If I can't lead the Pacers to a title, the Pacers need to get someone who can". I think he was repeating his sentiment a little here.
                Exactly. Taken by themselves, these recent quotes may sound a little bit like a TMac/VC situation.

                But JO has said similar things in the recent past where he was essentially saying (paraphrasing) "If I can't turn this thing around and make us legit contenders again soon, I'm not earning the money that the Pacers are paying me or doing right by the fans, so TPTB should probably just get rid of me and my huge contract."

                That's what I've gotten out of his comments from last summer anyway. And to me, that's not being a quitter. That's owning up to the fact that you make $20 million a year and are a huge burden on the salary cap.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

                  Originally posted by maragin View Post
                  I think being upset with mediocrity is one of the foundations of being a team leader.
                  It sure is.


                  And suggesting that he wants out if success doesn't happen this year is NOT.


                  That is a huge difference.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

                    Originally posted by able View Post
                    A team leader being upset with mediocrity, Why can't I see anything wrong with that ?
                    THE team leader suggesting he wants out?

                    WHY can't you see anything wrong with that??????

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

                      Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                      JO has said several times over the last few years that he should be traded if he can't lead the Pacers to the title.

                      The writer did a few creative edits with the quote. JO's intent with those comments was to say that if Jermaine O'Neal can't lead the Pacers to a title, that the Pacers deserved better and should get a better leader (presumably trading JO in the process). Notice he never says "trade me to a contender".

                      I can't find a copy, but I seem to remember JO saying "If I can't lead the Pacers to a title, the Pacers need to get someone who can". I think he was repeating his sentiment a little here.

                      IF that is 100% what he meant, then I agree totally with you and it's nothing to give a 2nd thought about.
                      However that's also a roundabout way of opening Pandora's box. Of getting out of town if that is your real intent. It sends the message to every team in the league to start asking about you. NOT saying that is what's happening. Hope it's not. Wouldn't be the first (first 100) though.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

                        Originally posted by maragin View Post
                        I think being upset with mediocrity is one of the foundations of being a team leader.
                        Exactly. I'm with Jay and Anthem all the way here, my very first thought was "trade value". He's striking while the iron is hot and making something out of nothing.

                        "If I can't take this team to another level, I truthfully believe we should go our separate ways at the end of the season," O'Neal told the Indianapolis Star and ESPN.
                        I.

                        If I can't make this happen. Not "they", not "I want good players, I want help, I want to be traded where someone else can do the winning for me".

                        Maybe Smith forgets that Bird called out JO before last season basically along this exact line of thinking, ie JO better lead the way now or the team will need to look elsewhere.

                        So JO finally takes on that responsibility with not just his words but his on-court actions, and you get some jerky like Smith trying hard to spin it negative. Give me an F'n break Smith. And anyone that thinks that Mike or Bird or Magic just went around saying "dear sirs, can't we all try to play a little better" is either too young to know better or too old to remember correctly.

                        Mike wasn't exactly Mr. Patience when it came to wins and losses. The team did get Phil and Pippen and Grant and Rodman and Harper...and they kept winning A LOT.


                        Maybe JO looks at the 61 win season and wonders WTF is going on with this team the same way all the fans do. In fact JO's comments could have been from many PD members starting a new thread.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

                          I was going to create another thread for this, but I think it can relate to this ongoing JO struggle. I'll concentrate on only the offensive end, since defense is another big issue and too much to discuss in this reply. fficeffice" />>>
                          >>
                          I don't think JO is a superstar player. He is the best player on the Pacers and has the largest contract. When JO peaked (around 2003) he had strong players around him and more importantly strong wing play with Reggie and Artest (even the younger Al). This led to the big contract and all of the expectations. Now JO is on a team without Reggie and with a different version of Al (replacing Artest) who is no longer a wing player. Al and JO have similar offensive games. They both play their best in the post or shooting jump shots off PnR or Iso's. >>
                          >>
                          My point is that these two are probably the Pacers top two and their kind of game needs guard/wing help to succeed. They need a PG who can push the ball and run the PnR. They also need a SG/SF who can handle the ball and penetrate. Most importantly I think they need a guard who can score a ton by himself and a guard who thinks pass first. >>
                          >>
                          What we have our guards who are somewhere in between. JT and Jax are neither scorers nor big time distributors. JT will get his assists, but he would rather shoot first even though that isn't his strong suit. Jax is trying this year to be a distributor but he is what he is. We have two guards that are low % shooters and streaky with their decision making (also, look at the team FG shooting %: 28th in the league). >>
                          >>
                          Some of you might mention Granger in this conversation, but he doesn't fit the compatible role either. Do any of you realize Granger averages less than 1 assist per game! He is a scorer, but not a great one yet. >>
                          >>
                          The Pacers have talent, but it does not mesh. They need to make a decision on what kind of team they are. Do they try and make a run with JO and Al? Or do they go a different direction b/c they can't move their untradable guards? We have two guys that demand the ball, two guards that want the ball more, and one future gunner on the bench that needs the ball to grow up. This is why I was in favor of an AI type trade. We need an alpha dog at guard if we keep JO, Al, and Granger. >>
                          >>
                          Now I know that JO, Al, and Granger all need shots but if this new player has the respect of his teammates they wouldn't mind losing some shots for wins. I don't think JO and Al trust JT and Jax with their scoring and decision making. They feel the burden should fall more on them but it really can't.>>
                          >>
                          This is one big reason I think the Pacers are stuck. >>

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

                            I'm a little amazed that JO's critics blast him for saying something they themselves have said along--If JO can't win us a title he should be moved.

                            Hasn't Larry Bird said simillar things about players?

                            And I'm not sure why this would change Sam's mind on JO this month when JO has said this same thing last year.
                            "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


                            • #29
                              Re: Sam Smith Column in the Chicago Tribune -Very critical Of JO

                              Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                              I'm a little amazed that JO's critics blast him for saying something they themselves have said along--If JO can't win us a title he should be moved.

                              Hasn't Larry Bird said simillar things about players?

                              And I'm not sure why this would change Sam's mind on JO this month when JO has said this same thing last year.
                              Exactly! Surprises me too. Sort of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".

                              Regards,

                              Mourning
                              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X