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

Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

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

  • #31
    Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

    Would these numbers get you into the Hall of Fame?

    9 seasons
    6'1" guard
    7.4 points per game
    4.3 assists per game
    38.7 career shooting percentage
    his points and assists averages went DOWN in the playoffs
    zero all-star game appearances
    scored under 10 ppg as a college player

    Oh, it's the 8 championship rings

    K.C. Jones

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/...joneskc01.html
    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


    • #32
      Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

      Originally posted by Jay View Post
      For a guy averaging only 18.2 ppg for his career, all of those stats are due to longevity.
      And your point is? Name me one guy on the ALL TIME LEADERS list that didnt play a long time. It took Iverson 11 years to crack the top 30 in points. He now rests at number 26 and he has been one of the most prolific scorers of the last decade.

      Playing at a high level for a long time is what gets you in the Hall. Not having 4 or 5 good years surrounded by a bunch of mediocre ones. While Reggie's overall production slowed his last 3 years, some of which was due to his role changing, he was still considered one of the leagues most deadliest long range and crunch time shooters. Til the day he retired.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

        Originally posted by Jay View Post
        For a guy averaging only 18.2 ppg for his career, all of those stats are due to longevity.
        Sure, longevity is one of the requirements to hold those records. However, your focus on his regular season ppg is misplaced.

        His highest scoring averages came when he was 24-25 years old....not at 28-29 like most players. As the team started to develop into a contender, he deferred perhaps to a fault...except during the playoffs. Miller's ability is best measured by his playoff performances where his numbers went up significantly. It's always been crystal clear he was capable of putting up higher numbers during the regular season.

        The truth is, he was unselfish probably to a fault...for many years....and that had much more to do with his regular season ppg than any lack of ability to score the ball.

        Edit: ...and as for Allen Iverson, how much playoff success has he had? Nice regular season numbers though.....I think I'll take Reggie.
        Last edited by BlueNGold; 06-22-2007, 11:23 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

          It doesn't hurt that Reggie left the floor as the best Pacer player that final game . ...Arguably, the best player on the floor that night for both teams...

          The Pacers losing that final game of Reggie's career can never be blamed on Reggie. He showed up.

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

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

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

            When I think of the hall of fame - although it does not happen very often, I figure you have to be semi-amazing (in short careers), consistently well above average (your longer career), and be able to carry a team.

            JO's numbers may be good enough to get him in contention, but I don't think until he carries a team, either performing, or leading, that he will be clearly an all star. Reggie has all three.

            May be I expect to much, but I have never really been one for museums.
            ! Free Rick Sanchez !

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              It doesn't hurt that Reggie left the floor as the best Pacer player that final game . ...Arguably, the best player on the floor that night for both teams...

              The Pacers losing that final game of Reggie's career can never be blamed on Reggie. He showed up.

              -Bball
              If only he hadn't taken his sweet time to lay the ball in a year earlier...he might have had a ring...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                JO's not HOF material. Needs several more good years statistically coupled with more leading teams deep into the playoffs and less injury shortened seasons to be in contention. His injuries and our playoff slide since the ECF season have not helped him in this area. Not to mention his FG%.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                  JO is all hype and no substance. He was exposed after Ron Artest was traded. His chances of making the HoF dwindled considerably at that point. Age and ego aren't going to help him recapture it either.

                  When the time came for him to step up, he faltered. We need to take the best offer on the table and move on. The offers won't be getting better.

                  -Bball
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

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

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                    He's not even close. He isn't the best at his position during his era, he hasn't competed for a ring with him as the focal point. He still has time left, but unless he gets to the Finals the second option or wins multiple DPY, I think its a no brainer that he isn't.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                      Exposed? As a non-MVP candidate maybe. But he was a 19/20 9/10 1/2 ast 2/3 blk guy before and after Artest.

                      People act like he's Shareef Abdur-Rahim (circa 2007 no less) just because he isn't Tim Duncan.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                        Originally posted by naptown View Post
                        I beg to differ.

                        13th all time in points scored.
                        22nd all time in FGs made.
                        1st all time in 3pt FGs made.
                        10th all time in FTs made.
                        6th all time in minutes played.

                        You add that with being one of the greatest clutch performers in the history of the NBA and the fact he played the game the right way and was the face of a franchise that was among the elite for a decade..... he certainly belongs.

                        You can make the "longevity" argument all you want, but name me one player who only played a few years that made it? And I aint talking about guys who played a couple years but got inducted as a coach or for other reasons.

                        The HOF is about a player that made his mark in basketball. That stood out among his peers. And Reggie certainly did that. He was one of those players that was known by his first name only. If you were talking hoops and just said Reggie, everyone in the room knew Reggie Miller is who you were talking about.
                        I tried to preface what I was saying by saying that Reggie Miller is far and away my favorite basketball player of all time. I know all about how good Reggie Miller was.

                        And, one of the reasons that he became my favorite player is what I'm talking about.

                        He was able to overcome having lesser pure basketball talent than most of the guys that are in the Hall. Despite not being a very good ball-handler, not much of a penetrator, not an astute play-maker and being only an average defender (he did get a lot better as he aged though), he was still able to do enough in this League to make him a bonafide, no-doubt-about it Hall of Famer.

                        I'm not saying he doesn't belong. He definitely does. I'm just saying he didn't get their on "pure talent" or more aptly said, I suppose, pure basketball ability.

                        He's done it with savvy, smarts, positioning, work ethic, working the refs and a perhaps unequaled understanding of how to find open space on the court. He was great. There's no denying it.

                        But look at his All-NBA rankings:

                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...by_player.html

                        There aren't many Hall of Famers that haven't ever made at least 2nd Team All-NBA or All-ABA in their career (Worthy and Drazen are the only two I saw in a quick look, although there could be others like KC Jones who have no selections whatsoever to any team).

                        The fact that Reg never made even a 2nd Team All-NBA is somewhat of a testament to the fact that he never had that "trancedent" season. There was never a time he just put it all together and unstoppable over an 82-game season. In terms Pacer fans can easily understand, he never had a season like JO's 3rd place MVP season. Or Gilbert did this year. Or Kobe last year.

                        Also look at All Star selections:

                        http://www.basketball-reference.com/...by_player.html

                        Reggie has five. As you scroll down, you'll see the number of * (which denote Hall of Famers) get less and less. At the top, they all have * and it stays pretty close to that way until you get under 6 (and those that don't have a *, surely will for the most part, like AI, Duncan, David Robinson, Scottie Pippen, etc.) Maybe half the 6-time All Stars are in. And a lot of the 5-timers are in. But very few 4-timers and 3-timers and under are in. (For reference's sake, JO currently has 6.)

                        Obviously, the number of All Star appearances doesn't get you in or leave you out. But it suggests what "level" of player you are.

                        But as only a 5-time All Star, Reggie is a LOCK for the Hall. But as far as being a star in comparison to his peers, and as far as general basketball ability, I'd put him on the "level" of guys like Chris Mullin, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, C-Webb and Timmy Hardaway. Are those guys Hall of Famers? I don't know. There's a lot of room for debate on all five of those guys. You could make arguments each way.

                        But with Reggie, there isn't any real debate (well, I guess I'm debating it right now, but whatever). When the vote happens, he's getting in. Hands down. Probably by a wide, wide margin.

                        I'm just saying I think there would have been a lot more debate if he hadn't scored 8 in 8.9 or done all those other miraculous things he did on national television. It would have left the idea of him being a Hall of Famer up in the air.

                        So the "moments" don't get him in, but they solidify it and make it a non-question.
                        Last edited by JayRedd; 06-23-2007, 08:10 PM.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                          Nope. I love JO, but he's no HOF player.

                          There's no shame in that, though.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                            I think a better way to approach it would be to ask who in the current NBA is first ballot Hall of Fame worthy?

                            -Shaq
                            -Duncan
                            -Kobe
                            -Kidd
                            -KG

                            Others who will probably make it in, but they're not on the level of those other guys:

                            -Nash
                            -Dirk
                            -TMac
                            -Vince
                            -Iverson
                            -Yao

                            Now looking at that list, I actually think JO deserves to get in. He's better than anyone on that second list defensively, and has definitely better than the overrated Vince Carter.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              There aren't many Hall of Famers that haven't ever made at least 2nd Team All-NBA or All-ABA in their career (Worthy and Drazen are the only two I saw in a quick look, although there could be others like KC Jones who have no selections whatsoever to any team).

                              The fact that Reg never made even a 2nd Team All-NBA is somewhat of a testament to the fact that he never had that "trancedent" season. There was never a time he just put it all together and unstoppable over an 82-game season. In terms Pacer fans can easily understand, he never had a season like JO's 3rd place MVP season. Or Gilbert did this year. Or Kobe last year.
                              I think the biggest factor in Reggie never making 2nd team was the fact he played during the same era as Jordan and Drexler. I love Reggie, but those two were both clearly better at the shooting guard position and deservedly got 1st and 2nd team pretty much every year for the bulk of their careers.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Q.O.D. for 6-22-07

                                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                                I think a better way to approach it would be to ask who in the current NBA is first ballot Hall of Fame worthy?

                                -Shaq
                                -Duncan
                                -Kobe
                                -Kidd
                                -KG

                                Others who will probably make it in, but they're not on the level of those other guys:

                                -Nash
                                -Dirk
                                -TMac
                                -Vince
                                -Iverson
                                -Yao

                                Now looking at that list, I actually think JO deserves to get in. He's better than anyone on that second list defensively, and has definitely better than the overrated Vince Carter.

                                Wow, the hall of fame for Tmac? Yao? Vince?

                                To be honest with you I'm not even sure Kidd should make the hall of fame, but then I just for whatever reason have never been that big of a fan of his.

                                I also question Dirk and Nash, however winning MVP does give you a certain amount of clout so I guess.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X