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

Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

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

  • #46
    Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

    I agree with wage! All this nene hype is a little too much. Plus u gotta realize that chance of one him leaving and two us attaining him and three maintaining him after collison contract renewal and the constant need to fill the roster. U get what u can and that's why u get a Thompson, Jordan, or ideally vet like anderson to hold on to the spot until u can find someone better and keep ur salary cap low enough to make a necessary trade etc. Some might say

    These guys are young and unproven
    -so was Roy

    They are not star quality starters
    - there's not to many of them floating around, at least easily attainable ones

    Plus we are more than likely gonna re sign foster so we won't be too bad on vet play. This is not the definite home run option but it's definitely a base hit. Some say well this is the year that we make our name in fa and become contenders...says who. Show me where that is written and I'll believe u. Look at the spurs bulls and thunder patience and smart consistent fo moves have gotten them to wear they are now. We have to be patient.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

      I want Josh Smith here, and give Lance crap, but they're not even close to the same thing.

      What the hell do they even have to do with each other? Josh Smith is nothing like Lance on or off the court. He's not in trouble with the law, and he also contributes to his teams success. Lance has problems avoiding the former, and hasn't accomplished the latter.

      No idea what they have to do with each other in any way at all.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

        Yep "Lance is a locker room cancer" but JS is not the same thing

        Might Hawks Josh Smith cost coach Larry Drew his job?
        Kurt Helin
        Apr 9, 2011, 11:22 PM EDT
        8 Comments The Atlanta Hawks got their heads handed to them Saturday night by the Washington Wizards. A 32-point beatdown. That would be loss number four in a row. They are stumbling toward the playoffs, and this is not a team anybody has seen flip the switch.

        The last two of those losses were without Josh Smith — but he is still the story.

        Larry Drew is on the hot seat for the Hawks — this team has taken a step backwards this season — but the bigger problem is that he may have lost the locker room because he could not control Smoove, Sam Amick reports at Sports Illustrated.And then there is the not-so-obvious sensitive spot: the Josh Smith factor. Drew has been unable to stop the veteran from being a season-long disruption and undermining his position with his other players in the process. Add to that the relative affordability of cutting him loose (he’s owed $1.5 million for next season, lockout notwithstanding), and Drew is looking very vulnerable unless he can lead a deep postseason run.
        Where is the veteran leadership on this team? Either Joe Johnson has no faith in Drew either or he didn’t have enough backbone to stand up to Smith and tell him to get in line.

        The Hawks defense this season was exactly the same as last season statistically — they gave up 106.7 points per 100 possessions both times.

        But Drew came in promising more ball movement in the offense, no more iso-Joe, and the team never seemed to buy into it. That or they were incapable of executing it (meaning they are unwilling or incapable passers). Either way, the offense went from 111.9 points per 100 possessions last season (second best in the league) to 106.5 this season. The results are 44 wins (and they should probably not have that many), which is down from 53 last season.

        Drew is and should be in some hot water. Drew and Hawks fans can dream that a healthy Jason Collins can body up Dwight Howard and lead the Hawks to a first-round upset of the Magic. And that winning cures all ills. But that seems about as likely as getting the Golden Ticket to visit the Wonka factory.

        If Smoove is a locker room problem, the issues in Atlanta are running deeper than Drew or no Drew and will be much harder to fix than management may realize. Especially in an organization known for over-valuing what they have.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

          Again I ask, how many people here are giving Lance crap and what Smith?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            Again I ask, how many people here are giving Lance crap and what Smith?
            Me.

            I do think if we made a move for Smith that I would then prefer a veteran head coach over Vogel. I think someone like Mike Brown would have much better luck guiding Smith than an (essentially) rookie head coach like Vogel.

            Edit: I don't really get involved in the Lance melodrama, but I don't really like him anymore and wouldn't be upset at all if we cut ties with him. Josh Smith and Lance are not the same though. Smith isn't a wildly immature young guy who thinks he is the best player in the league and gets into legal trouble on and off the court. He is a mercurial player with a reputed attitude problem who needs a change of scenery.
            Last edited by cdash; 05-22-2011, 01:21 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

              All I know is I don't want any guy who could even think he's the best player in the league, regardless if he's even close to that or not. Now is not the time.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                Originally posted by El Pacero View Post
                All I know is I don't want any guy who could even think he's the best player in the league, regardless if he's even close to that or not. Now is not the time.
                Wait, are you saying if a guy is close to the best player in the league and knows it you don't want him?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                  As much as I want Josh Smith, I don't think right now is the right time to give up Roy to get him. We are not going to get Nene, Chandler, or M.Gasol. Denver won't let Nene walk and he loves Denver. Cuban is letting Chandler go anywhere and Memphis is on an up swing and will there core together.
                  The only good center I see available is Kaman. I see a more likley senerio of an LAC-ATL trade. When healthy Kaman is a much more proven(even all-star) center.
                  I would also like to see if Roy can improve this summer and come back strong and be more consistent.
                  Last edited by pacers74; 05-22-2011, 05:17 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                    Lance caused a short term meltdown of a team that was on a roll that also ended as soon as he stopped playing. In the Rockets game I watched a ball roll by 3 players who didn't even bother to bend over to pick it up. It was the laziest effort I've ever seen.

                    Atlanta beat a better team record wise in the 1st round, and then played the best team in the league to a 6 game series. Sounds like they don't melt down when Josh Smith plays. Sounds to me like if their coach lost the team, it was because the rest of the players agreed with Josh Smith. You can roll your eyes all you want, but I'll take a guy who doesn't agree with a coach but is a potential All-Star and All Defensive team player over a guy who annoys the players around him, and gets in trouble with the law while contributing nothing on the court.

                    These two aren't even in the same ballpark.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                      I don't believe Josh Smith will ever buy into "the Secret", so I'd pass on him, as I'm willing to bet Bird will as well. Hibbert on the other hand will be a perfect complementary team player.

                      The Book of Basketball is a hell of a book.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                        Its amazing that every top pf we talk about on this board that we may actually be able to get results in we dont want this guy because he has bad character.

                        How did that bad character turn out for Memphis this year?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          I personally want no part of Smith. He is super talented, but I don't think he is very bright and a potential locker room issue waiting to happen.
                          Why is there ALWAYS someone who mentions how a person is in the locker room?


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                            I think the biggest problem with Josh Smith in ATL was the fact they had 2 athletic PF's (Smith & Horford)

                            Horford didn't want to play center so that causes stress in the locker room. His dad was talking in the media wanting atl to get a real Center so Al could slide over to PF all the time.

                            Smith is not a SF IMO. When he played strictly PF he was on the NBA all defensive team


                            http://www.basketballprospectus.com/...articleid=1071


                            Josh Smith, Atlanta: There's an argument to be made that Smith belongs atop the group of power forwards. In terms of defensive WARP, that's where he would go. Smith's defensive versatility was neatly encapsulated by Hollinger, who noted that he is the tallest player in the league's top 10 in steals and the shortest in the top 10 in blocks. Smith isn't quite as good as an individual defender and the Hawks' middle-of-the-road Defensive Rating also holds him back. Still, the difference between Garnett and Smith is negligible, and you could even throw in a sixth reasonable power forward candidate in Oklahoma City's Nick Collison, who leads the NBA in drawing charges per hoopdata.com and has a phenomenal +7.9 net defensive plus-minus.
                            CENTER

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                              http://www.examiner.com/atlanta-hawk...ve-second-team

                              Josh Smith became the first Hawk since 1998-99 (Dikembe Mutombo and Mookie Blaylock) and eighth player in Atlanta team history to earn All-Defensive team honors. He was named to the second team.

                              The second team nomination is somewhat of a shock, considering the Smith finished second in the Defensive Player of the Year Award voting on April 20.

                              Nevertheless, Smith had an outstanding season in which he became the youngest player in NBA history to reach 1,000 career blocks, while also reaching the 500 career steals mark.

                              Smith, whose game is underappreciated in many circles, was the only player in the league to average at least 15 points, 8 rebounds and 4 assists per game.

                              At 6’9, Smith was the tallest player in the top 12 in steals and the shortest in the top 12 in blocks.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Jeff Schultz Hawks and Josh Smith may have had enough of each other

                                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                                Lance caused a short term meltdown of a team that was on a roll that also ended as soon as he stopped playing. In the Rockets game I watched a ball roll by 3 players who didn't even bother to bend over to pick it up. It was the laziest effort I've ever seen.

                                Atlanta beat a better team record wise in the 1st round, and then played the best team in the league to a 6 game series. Sounds like they don't melt down when Josh Smith plays. Sounds to me like if their coach lost the team, it was because the rest of the players agreed with Josh Smith. You can roll your eyes all you want, but I'll take a guy who doesn't agree with a coach but is a potential All-Star and All Defensive team player over a guy who annoys the players around him, and gets in trouble with the law while contributing nothing on the court.

                                These two aren't even in the same ballpark.
                                Of course they are not in the same ball park, one is a guy who is a problem in the lockerroom and makes less than a mil and the other one is a problem in the lockeroom but makes close to 15mil, huge difference.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X