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

Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

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

  • Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

    This is pretty simple here is a list of some of our starting point guards over the past few seasons. List them in order. You can either list them as best to worst or you can list them as your favorite to least favorite. I am listing them from their time with the team and it is not a listing of the way I would rank them.

    Vern Fleming
    Pooh Richardson
    Haywood Workman
    Mark Jackson
    Travis Best
    Jalen Rose (yes he played part of the 00/01 season as the p.g.)
    Jamaal Tinsley
    Jarett Jack
    T.J. Ford
    Earl Watson

    I debated putting Jalen in there because he did not play the entire season but I went ahead anyway.


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

  • #2
    Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

    I can't personally comment on Fleming, Richardson, or Workman.

    Of the rest (best to worst)

    Jackson
    Tinsley (even with all the warts, this is how lacking we've been in the PG department)
    Jack
    Watson
    Ford
    Best
    Rose (as a PG; my memory is VERY hazy, but I remember preferring Best at the point over Jalen, who I liked a lot as a SF)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

      Here would be my list. I am going with my favorites vs saying who was the best although I do believe that my #1 is actually the best.

      1. Mark Jackson (the man was pure magic to watch play)

      2. Haywood Workman (nobody got more out of less than Workman)

      3. Jamaal Tinsley (Yea I know I ended up being against him but when he was on he was very good and he simply is the best dribbler I've ever seen)

      4. Earl Watson (Toss up between Watson and Jack but I think Watson is a better defender)

      5. Jarret Jack (solid worker but lacks ball handling and court vision)

      6. Jalen Rose (this should tell you how bad our p.g.'s have been over the years that I have to put him here)

      7. Vern Fleming (I know some of the older guys liked him but I was just never a fan, not a good passer but a decent defender)


      8. Pooh Richardson (Opposite of Workman, very few players got less out of more talent than Pooh)

      9. T.J. Ford (I have never seen a point guard who jumps in the air so often without knowing what he is going to do with the ball)

      10. Travis Best (dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble,
      dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, shoot, clank)


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

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

        Mark Jackson, crafty player, awesome passing, great floor general, bad D, but he had all the vet tricks.

        JT during the Reggie years, when he had a good team and were winning, he cared and was pretty damn good.

        Jarret Jack, I really liked the guy. He was solid, a hardnosed player, I think he would've thrived with our team now. I might end up liking AJP more.

        Travis Best, same reasons I liked JJack

        adding a selection that wasn't included - Anthony Johnson, good defender, solid vet. He had problems handling the ball, but he could make timely shots, and was good for our slog ball routine.

        Earl Watson - Does everything ok. Can be great on D at times, can hit the 3.

        TJ - I had high hopes for the guy, and maybe without Jim he would be ok, but he flat out stinks in our system. He does have a very nice mid range game, and he can play good D when he wants to.

        Jalen Rose - worst PG ever? That drove me crazy with IT, when Jamaal was banished/ in the doghouse. He also used Ron Mercer at PG which was even worse.

        I don't feel qualified to comment on vern, pooh or haywoode. I did see haywoode and vern play a bit, but I was pretty young.
        Last edited by PaceBalls; 01-15-2010, 03:13 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

          No Erick Strickland? :P

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

            Anyone who is ranking workman over jackson is just simply favoring their favorite era. Workman shouldn't even be named in the same sentence as jackson. Mark Jackson is one of the NBA's all-time leading playmakers. Haywoode workman is a nobody...

            Mark Jackson
            Vern Fleming
            Jamaal Tinsley
            Travis Best
            Haywoode Workman
            Pooh Richardson
            Jalen Rose
            Earl Watson
            TJ Ford
            Lifelong pacers fan

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

              Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
              Anyone who is ranking workman over jackson is just simply favoring their favorite era. Workman shouldn't even be named in the same sentence as jackson. Mark Jackson is one of the NBA's all-time leading playmakers. Haywoode workman is a nobody...

              Mark Jackson
              Vern Fleming
              Jamaal Tinsley
              Travis Best
              Haywoode Workman
              Pooh Richardson
              Jalen Rose
              Earl Watson
              TJ Ford
              Has anybody ranked Workman over Jackson????

              Also wouldn't Workman and Jackson be from the same era seeing as how Woody was the p.g. the season before Jax came and they were team mates here for a year?


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

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                Here would be my list. I am going with my favorites vs saying who was the best although I do believe that my #1 is actually the best.

                1. Mark Jackson (the man was pure magic to watch play)

                2. Haywood Workman (nobody got more out of less than Workman)

                3. Jamaal Tinsley (Yea I know I ended up being against him but when he was on he was very good and he simply is the best dribbler I've ever seen)

                4. Earl Watson (Toss up between Watson and Jack but I think Watson is a better defender)

                5. Jarret Jack (solid worker but lacks ball handling and court vision)

                6. Jalen Rose (this should tell you how bad our p.g.'s have been over the years that I have to put him here)

                7. Vern Fleming (I know some of the older guys liked him but I was just never a fan, not a good passer but a decent defender)


                8. Pooh Richardson (Opposite of Workman, very few players got less out of more talent than Pooh)

                9. T.J. Ford (I have never seen a point guard who jumps in the air so often without knowing what he is going to do with the ball)

                10. Travis Best (dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble,
                dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, dribble, shoot, clank)
                I would use this list for the most part, except moving Vern Fleming up to #3, because Workman would be #4. Fleming could really finish around the rim. He was ummmm, the complete opposite of TJ Ford.

                -- Steve --

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

                  Wow, past "few" years? That's a stretch.

                  Anyway, Mark Jackson is #1 on this list. Meh on everyone else.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

                    Mark Jackson
                    Haywood Workman

                    I liked their personalities, and I liked how they played, and I liked what they accomplished.


                    Vern Fleming

                    He always seemed gawky to me. But Slick liked him a lot. I always felt that Vern was holding the team back, but maybe he was as good as the teammates he had at the time.

                    Jarett Jack

                    Played like Heywoode. Not nearly as good as Heywoode, not as good as some posters remember him.

                    Pooh Richardson
                    Earl Watson

                    OK.


                    T.J. Ford

                    Disappointing. When the Pacers traded for him, I was enthused about what his speed could contribute to a wide-open, fast-breakin' gun-slingin' offense. But we never saw it.


                    Travis Best
                    Jalen Rose
                    Jamaal Tinsley

                    I never saw Best and Rose. After 2005, I only saw bad Tinsley.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

                      1. Jackson
                      2. Tinsley
                      3. Workman
                      4. Fleming
                      5. Jalen
                      6. Watson
                      7. Jack
                      8. Best
                      9. Anthony Johnson
                      10. Ford
                      11. Richardson



                      I'm hoping Watson replacing Ford has a similar impact to Haywoode replacing Pooh.........
                      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

                        OK, I'm only going with your list Peck, minus Jalen. I always have to clarify things. This is not based on talent, but rather what I try and judge every NBA player on - how they impacted winning. So naturally thepoint guards that led us to wins are at the top of the list. Stats mean nothing


                        1) Mark Jackson
                        2) Travis Best - so many forget he finished more close games than did Jackson. The best defender of the group. Yes IMO better than Workman defensively, he rarely if ever got beat off the dribble and he was able to stay in front of the really quick point guards. Sure he wasn;t tall, but he was strong and rarely did he have trouble getting posting up.
                        3) Woody - Mr. Intangible and one of the huge reasons why the team turned around that season after starting 17-24 and finished 48-24 and ECF game 7
                        4) Jamaal Tinsley - did lead us to 61 wins
                        5) Vern
                        6) Jack
                        7) Watson
                        8) Ford
                        9) Pooh Richardson - yeah he was the worst. The coach hated him, his teammates hated him, and he was very soft. Good shooter though

                        Why so many of you didn't like Travis I'll never understand. But OK, maybe you don't like him, fair enough, I don't like Tinsley, but I placed him at number 4, so I put my hatred aside, and ranked him without regard to whether I liked him or not. TYravis was extremely important to the 1998-2000 Indiana Pacers, and no I'm not talking about the shot he hit against The Bucks in game 5 - he didn't play well in that game. But so many of you are forgetting how many excellent performances he had late in games. if you bought the Pacers DVD box set from a couple of years ago, watch game six at NY and try to tell me he wasn't huge in that game
                        Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-15-2010, 09:56 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

                          Originally posted by MagicRat View Post


                          I'm hoping Watson replacing Ford has a similar impact to Haywoode replacing Pooh.........
                          Excellent point

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Has anybody ranked Workman over Jackson????

                            Also wouldn't Workman and Jackson be from the same era seeing as how Woody was the p.g. the season before Jax came and they were team mates here for a year?
                            sorry i decided to get on pacers digest after going out to the bar last night lol
                            Lifelong pacers fan

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rank them part 1 (the point guards)

                              I have to agree with Buck. Im not sure how Travis Best is getting such a bad rap here. If not for those teams being veteran team-oriented there very well couldve been a not-so-little pg controversy. Hes a bit in the mold of Tj, but about a thousand times better. On both ends.
                              The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X