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.
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
-
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift." - Steve Prefontaine -
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
Now Carmelo in Orlando would be pretty dangerous depending on what the Magic have to give up. If they can keep Nelson, and obviously Howard, they could still offer Carter or Lewis plus picks or other young talent that can keep the Nuggets competitive as well
Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
Man you Pacers are lucky the collison trade happened already. You would think with this coming out that Collison could have easily been the piece that could have brought Anthony to the Hornets. I am glad Collison is a pacer!
On the topic about the 'newage superstar'. This ****s me, it seems like competition is dead, unlike the days of bird and magic where the one thing they all wanted to do was beat each other, they would never dream of playing together.
Though that said, I would love it for Anthony to be traded to Magic. Only for the reason to beat Miami. If Lebron and bosh stayed on seperate teams rather than join up with Wade I would not have wanted Anthony on the magic, only because I love the competition that superstars on seperate teams create. Thanks to garbage that is Lebron, this is now gone.Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
Would the Nuggets really want Collison seeing that they already have Billups and young PG in Lawson?
Now perhaps the Hornets could have used Collison with a 3rd team to try and land Carmelo.... but NO TAKESIES BACKSIES!!
Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
I'd think the trade would be something like Melo/Billups for Nelson/Vince/Pietrus. Vince has only $4M guaranteed for next year, Pietrus is expiring, and Nelson would be a good piece to build around. And Orlando wins 80 games.Originally posted by pwee31 View PostComment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
Actually, that would be steaming pile of fecal matter for Denver. Involve a third team and give them a real asset. Nelson's average.Originally posted by spreedom View Post"man, PG has been really good."Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
The owners of teams in small markets like Utah and San Antonio didn't have problems keeping Stockton/Malone and Duncan. They are well run organizations. Utah kept Stockton/Malone for basically their entire careers in a place that is pretty much way down at the bottom of the list for pro athletes and their "lifestyles". That's because they're well run franchises that gave their star players a chance to win. The same can't be said for teams like Toronto and Cleveland.Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
Why is Lebron obligated in any way shape or form to commit to a crappy Cavs franchise that had 7 years to build around him and couldn't do better than spare parts like Larry Hughes? If Magic or Bird played in some podunk city where their best teammate was someone like Mo Williams, they would've wanted out to.
They would've wanted out just like Charles Barkley forced his way out of a Philly team going nowhere. Funny that Charles would criticize Lebron for ditching a crappy franchise when that's basically what Barkley forced his way out of in 1992. If Lebron basically knows that the Cavs are too incompetent a franchise to ever surround him with a winning team, then why the hell should be obligated to stick with that? If he finds a better opportunity to form a team HIMSELF, then why shouldn't he?
I mean, nobody ever says a peep when players want out of a poorly run franchise like Golden State, right (and there have been plenty of players wanting out)? Everytime someone whines or forces their way out of GS, it's pretty much agreed that said player had good reason to want out because nobody should be blamed for wanting to escape a poorly run franchise.
So why shouldn't Lebron have the same leeway? In Carmelo's case, it's pretty clear that Denver's front office is in a lot of ruin, and their upper management/ownership situation right now looks pretty similar to what's been going on for years under Chris Cohan's rule.
Bottom line is you can't and shouldn't expect great players to commit themselves to poorly run organizations. Why the hell should they waste their time and talent just for the sake of loyalty? They shouldn't.Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
I totally agree with this... Denver has been a very good team with a bad coach and an over rated "leader"...Originally posted by Day-V View Post
Put Billups, and the rest of that squad with LeFraud and he likely has his ring already.Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
Isn't forming a solid trio a process of becoming a champion? It is a different approach as compared to forming the Jordan-Pippen duo, or the Kobe-Gasol 1-2 punch together with the veteran bunch, or the aging trio of Garnett-Allen-Pippen, but what LeBron and co. did is just the same process: teaming up with great players and having solid teammates, then winning a great amount of games, then win in the playoffs all the way to the finals.Originally posted by MLB007 View PostComment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
He should leave. The Nuggets aren't really that competitive anymore. With Billups ageing, they'll probably need to enter a full-rebuilding to acquire talent. The front-office situation is messy. With his age there's not much of a reason for him to stay.
If he signs an extension, he'll regret it in two years and demand a trade. Better to leave now.Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
Originally posted by d_c View Post
Yep, Lebron wasted those years to the tune of about $50 million dollars.
And ruled as King of Cleveland (if not Ohio)
Those *******s!!!
Interesting how you use Stockton and Malone as they've been out of the league for some years now..
Duncan is a known "different kind of guy" (class act) that DOES understand loyalty and that his team HAS tried to build a winner around him.
He appreciates it.
He stayed because of it.
hmmmmmmmmm
Then you have the "new breed" of ego above all.
Carry my team?? Naw, I'll just get a few of my superstar buddies and we'll run the gym.
Don't you just love the guys that get the best 5 players at the gym and romp all the time?
Is that really great competition to you "enablers" out there.
LOL
Cleveland did most everything LEBRON wanted. Including getting the players he approved of.
There's no guarantees of winning despite the best efforts of everyone involved.Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
Yeh, as noted repeatadly.Originally posted by 15th parallel View Post
It's the PROCESS of how that happened that is the problem.
The JOURNEY is what is important.
The GOAL is just icing on the cake.
That is what the Lebrons of the world (and there are many here) will never understand.
And why those that do are unhappy with the development of this "new way".Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
I don't know how many times it has to be said, but here it goes again - nobody is begrudging Lebron the right to go to Miami.Originally posted by d_c View Post
It was "The Decision" that pissed everyone off. People are just disappointed about the fact he chose Miami mostly because they wanted to see him compete against the likes of Wade, not with him.
People want to see the best-of-the-best going against each other. What's the fun in them all teaming-up? No one is calling Lebron a punk for going to Miami (including Barkley). They're calling him a punk for the way in which he announced it.
If he had gone to NY or Chicago, no one would've minded, it's just he looks like a chicken for going to Miami. He took the easy way out.
Referencing Malone-Stockton and Duncan doesn't work in this instance. Malone and Stockton are both "country-boys". They're not big-city guys. Duncan's ego doesn't even come close to matching Lebron's, and he was winning in SA so why leave?
Your argument regarding Cleveland being a poorly run franchise doesn't hold either. This team won 60+ games last year. That's an elite team. No, that wasn't all Lebron either. No one wins without a good supporting-cast. They were cruising through the playoffs too and up 2-1 against Boston until Lebron decided to not bother showing-up anymore. He had a good team around him, he just wasn't able or willing to get it done.
People forget that Kobe's 8th seeded Lakers were ousted very easily in the 1st round a few years ago by Phoenix. That wasn't due to Kobe, it was just that the team wasn't good enough. In contrast, this Cavs team clearly was good enough. Lebron just quit.Last edited by pacerDU; 08-19-2010, 02:34 PM.Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
You made absolutely no new arguments there. Just that players should be good guys and be thankful and loyal to their organizations no matter what. I mean that's great and all, but it's not reality. Reality is players (particularly the great ones) want to win and want to play for the WINNING organizations, not the crappy @ss loser organizations. There's a reason NBA players want to play for the Lakers and not the Clippers or Warriors.Originally posted by MLB007 View PostYep, Lebron wasted those years to the tune of about $50 million dollars.
And ruled as King of Cleveland (if not Ohio)
Those *******s!!!
Interesting how you use Stockton and Malone as they've been out of the league for some years now..
Duncan is a known "different kind of guy" (class act) that DOES understand loyalty and that his team HAS tried to build a winner around him.
He appreciates it.
He stayed because of it.
hmmmmmmmmm
Then you have the "new breed" of ego above all.
Carry my team?? Naw, I'll just get a few of my superstar buddies and we'll run the gym.
Don't you just love the guys that get the best 5 players at the gym and romp all the time?
Is that really great competition to you "enablers" out there.
LOL
Cleveland did most everything LEBRON wanted. Including getting the players he approved of.
There's no guarantees of winning despite the best efforts of everyone involved.
Stockton and Malone are out of the league? So what? Doesn't matter if it was last year, now or back in the 80s. They played in a small market which you claimed would make it impossible for Utah to keep. It ain't ancient history. In fact, they played all the way up to 2003, which was basically the same type of collective bargaining agreement that we have today.
Tim Duncan loyal? Sure. It's easy to be loyal when you play for a great organization that shows you they can win and surrounds you with great teammates. They surrounded him with David Robinson the first half of his career and then Parker/Ginobilli the 2nd half. Lebron hasn't played with a supporting cast anywhere near that.
Just because Duncan, Bird and Magic chose to stay in the same place with excellent supporting casts doesn't obligate Lebron or any other superstar to stay and play for crappy organizations with guys like Mo Williams as the best player.
Lebron in his 7 years in Cleveland never once complained. Never once demanded a trade. Never once told the Cavs to get him more help or else. The moves the Cavs made were the moves they decided to make. And by and large, they were bad moves. That's on them.
Just because Lebron didn't complain about them doesn't mean that Lebron is the guy who told them to make those moves. It just means that he was a guy who stayed quiet and didn't complain. Went out and played hard and tried to win with what the Cavs put around him. He spent 7 years trying to win with that garbage that surrounded him. He's not obligated to waste more of his prime years with that crap.
Kevin Garnett showed all the loyalty in the world to the T Wolves. Never complained. Always went with the company line despite playing for a crappy organization. And where did that get him? A first round playoff exit every single year except for one. He even told Lebron himself that staying loyal is great, except it really doesn't get you anywhere if you're doing it for a crappy organization.
And KG turned out to be absolutely right. Directing himself to Boston was the best thing to happen in his career.Last edited by d_c; 08-19-2010, 10:32 PM.Comment
-
Re: Carmelo wants out of Denver
Lebron was the main reason Cleveland 60 plus games. That was all him. That was a garbage supporting cast that got exposed in the playoffs when it mattered and everyone knows it.Originally posted by pacerDU View Post
Lebron as an 18 year old rookie took what was the worst team in the league the previous year to a team that was in contention for the playoffs until the final week of the season. Nobody thinks much of that, but in fact it was an incredible achievement for an 18 year old rookie. No 18 year old rookie has come close to coming close to that kind of impact.
When the Lakers were getting low playoff seeds and getting ousted in the first round, what happened?
Oh that's right. It was Kobe who played like a true team player and whined, moaned, complained and threatened wanting out. He completely ripped the organization for not getting him more help. Something Lebron NEVER DID. "Andrew Bynum? Ship his @ss out!" Remember that? I don't remember Lebron ever talking like that about any of his Cleveland teammates.
And it actually worked. The Lakers went out and got him more help.
The bottom line is there are some historically good organizations and some historically bad ones. Players want to play for the good organizations a lot more than the bad ones. That's not a big surprise.
I don't blame anyone who feels "disappointed" in Lebron, but guess what? Players go to the best situations they can find. Maybe you don't like what Lebron did, but at the very least you should recognize that Pat Riley runs a much better basketball organization than the one that Cleveland runs. He established a situation players want to play for. He out thought, out planned and out maneuvered everyone else to put together an awesome team that was well within the rules of the CBA. When an organization does that, I can't blame players for wanting to play there. And now look at all the vets that want to line up on the gravy train and join that team for the vet minimum.Last edited by d_c; 08-19-2010, 02:54 PM.Comment
Tweet
Comment