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

Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

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

  • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

    Originally posted by P_George View Post
    You mean in the 1940s, 1950s etc where corruption was rampant in all of sports,, I am sure the NBA was legit. Take your meds and welcome back to reality.
    Great counterpoint

    Comment


    • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

      Originally posted by P_George View Post
      You mean in the 1940s, 1950s etc where corruption was rampant in all of sports,, I am sure the NBA was legit. Take your meds and welcome back to reality.
      Rampant in "all" of sports? How about some examples? I'm sure there are some, but I've never heard anyone make this broad claim.

      In the last 5 years we've had the Jerry Sandusky at Penn State, Deflategate and Spygate in New England, Lance Armstrong doping, New Orleans bounty and the FIFA international scandal. From sex offenders, to numerous instances of cheating and criminal activity...it seems we are keeping up. Honestly, it seems worse in the last 10 years than in the past.

      Comment


      • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

        Hibbert averaged 7\4\1 as a rookie if i remember correctly and he was considered a huge project. FWIW
        Lifelong pacers fan

        Comment


        • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

          Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
          He jumped during the opening tip. He didn't play center throughout that game.
          So... you might say that he started the game at center?

          Comment


          • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            When you set a statistical goal that disregards giving your team the best chance to win games, you're making yourself look like a fool.
            .
            So what your saying is if Wilt was 6'5" and played shooting guard. He would be Lance Stephonson?


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

              I suppose if you think Lance was chasing triple doubles towards the end of the season. I just think that's how he plays.

              FYI, this needs to be stated: the only player on earth who could actually achieve the individual things Wilt accomplished was Wilt. Doesn't change the fact it cost him the chance to go down as unquestionably the best player ever, but it certainly proved he was the most gifted (at least until LeBron wedged himself into the conversation).

              You know what was the most messed up thing? There were just two instances in his 14-year career where his personal goals had nothing to do with individual statistics. 1967 (I can make the players around me better) and 1972 (I can play the game like Bill Russell). Those two seasons Wilt's team made mincemeat out of the entire league and cruised to a championship almost by default. 68 wins in 1967, 69 wins (and a 33-game winning streak) in 1972.

              The 1967 Sixers team was loaded. All Wilt had to do was not dominate the basketball and pass out of double teams and they stomped all over everyone, including Russell's Celtics. Then Wilt became so interested in his assist total that he decided he wanted to league in assists, and that dominant Sixers team quickly went away and Russell's celtics took the crown right back from them. Then Wilt pouted after their elimination that he wasn't the one chipping paint off the iron in game 7, when he was the guy refusing to shoot.

              The 1972 Lakers are the most ridiculous NBA story ever. That is like the 9th or 10th most talented team Wilt personally ever played on. Wilt himself was 35 with bad knees and couldn't run the floor like he used to, Jerry West was nearing his end at 33 and surrounding them were one good player (Goodrich) and a host of one-note role players. But Wilt for the first (and last) time in his life took on the challenge of proving he could anchor a defense like Bill Russell, and he did it at age 35. That's scary. His scoring average went down, his assists took a slight dip, his rebounds went up, and the Lakers went from a perennially mediocre defensive team to the best in the league. All mostly because Wilt decided he wanted to be the best defensive player in the NBA that one year.

              Frustrating to look at the totality of Wilt's career. He was very capable of doing what Bill Russell did, and with lesser teammates. But the end result is he didn't for 13 out of 14 seasons, and Russell was Russell for his entire career. I suppose that's the only way the most gifted center of all time gets dropped into the 1960's (the perfect place and time to be a dominant center) and wins just two championships.
              Last edited by Kstat; 07-20-2015, 10:11 AM.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Do you how how many teams there are today compared to back then? Being the 10th best center in the world in 1962 meant you were a backup. The celtics had NINE future hall of famers on one team. There were no Timberwolves or Bobcats to beat up on.
                Right. And that's why the "Russell is better than Wilt because of the rings" argument is bogus. The Celtics were better than whatever team Wilt was on because the Celtics' roster was loaded.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post

                  Wilt's numbers almost always got worse the more the pressure went up. Mentally he didn't have it in him to give everything he had to win an elimination game. No doubt he was more talented than Reed and Russell, but they wanted it more.
                  Maybe we agree then that Wilt was the best one-man team of all time, but it's hard to win a seven-game series playing 1-on-9-HOF'ers. Wilt doesn't get enough credit for single-handedly stretching those series for as long as it did. I took a team of nine HOF'ers to eliminate Wilt in a seven-game series.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                    Wilt played with a lot of hall of famers. It's a myth that he never had talent around him. He almost always did. Russell usually had more, but it isn't like wilt was playing by himself because he had to. He was playing by himself by choice. There's a huge difference.

                    The Warriors already had two future hall of famers on their roster when they drafted Wilt (Arizin, Gola) and a perennial all-star in Guy Rodgers. Both Arizin and Gola had already won the NBA championship with the Warriors just three years prior.

                    His Sixers team should have been a dynasty. They had MORE talent than the Celtics. Instead they flamed out after one dominant year because wilt decided to be an *******. An older, less talented Celtics team de-throned them as quickly as Philly took the title from them, and Wilt burned his own locker room to the ground afterword and forced Philly to trade him soon after.

                    Don't even get me started on his Lakers teams. He had Jerry freaking West and Elgin freaking Baylor, and still lost to a Celtics team running on fumes, blowing 2-0 and 3-2 leads in the finals, culminating in an embarrassing game seven where his own coach thought he was tanking it.

                    And wilt's numbers generally got worse every playoff round. His numbers vs Russell during the regular season and during the playoffs are night and day.

                    The year Wilt averaged 50 points, Russell held him to 22 in game 7 and scored 19 against Wilt himself. And Russell was a guy that had no go-to offensive move. Wilt had a career losing record in game sevens.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 07-21-2015, 12:50 AM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      Right. And that's why the "Russell is better than Wilt because of the rings" argument is bogus. The Celtics were better than whatever team Wilt was on because the Celtics' roster was loaded.
                      in the 1960's every NBA team was loaded. That's the point. The Celtics were the most loaded, but Wilt being by far the most talented player was absolutely within range of beating teams through sheer talent like Jordan did for the Bulls. Far too often, he did not.

                      Russell always raised his game in the postseason and Wilt usually lowered his. Russell was nowhere near as gifted as Wilt but he understood how to win games better than Wilt ever did. Some of those hall of famers Russell played with got there because he made them that much better. KC Jones was a guard with a range of about 5 feet. Sam Jones couldn't spell the word defense. Satch Sanders on any other team would have been a mediocre energy guy. Tommy Heinson was an unathletic black hole with limited range. Russell covered every one of their weaknesses.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 07-20-2015, 11:03 AM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                        Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
                        Wow, guess I started something. Just to add a bit of gasoline to the fire....Wilt is the ONLY center in the history of the NBA to lead the league in assists. Did Shaq have an assist? Yeah I know I'm sure he did. lol, just not very many.
                        Actually off the top of my head I seem to remember him averaging like 3 assists a game on a regular basis.
                        Lifelong pacers fan

                        Comment


                        • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                          I know I never include any player I didn't watch on a regular or semi regular basis. So for me I never comment on players prior to 1978. Sure I could comment on their stats or championships and that might tell me something about the player, but I never IMO talk with any authority on those players I did not see play.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I know I never include any player I didn't watch on a regular or semi regular basis. So for me I never comment on players prior to 1978. Sure I could comment on their stats or championships and that might tell me something about the player, but I never IMO talk with any authority on those players I did not see play.
                            I love 1960's NBA games. There will never be an era quite like it. Don't care that they're all in black and white, they're very fun.

                            There's a sweet spot between 1960 and 1972 that I can't collect enough games from. The periods before 1960 and from 1973-1980 range from ugly to totally unwatchable. I've only seen the Minneapolis Lakers a couple of times, but that's enough.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 07-20-2015, 11:22 AM.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                              Shaq and Wilt were two different breeds and it probably boils down to what you prefer. From a pure physical overpowering standpoint Shaq could move anyone at anytime in any era. Wilt was more skilled but mentally Shaq completely beat the team before he stepped on the floor because physically there was no one who could take his beating in the post. At Shaqs size and weight to average those minutes is just impressive. Wilt was no small boy either though but shaq gets crapped on in a lot these scenarios when the man was just way to big and athletic to control and there is something to be said about defeating your opponent with a physical beating every single night.
                              Last edited by Gamble1; 07-20-2015, 11:37 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Speaking Of Turner...Which Rookie C In NBA History Had The Biggest Impact?

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                in the 1960's every NBA team was loaded. That's the point. The Celtics were the most loaded, but Wilt being by far the most talented player was absolutely within range of beating teams through sheer talent like Jordan did for the Bulls. Far too often, he did not.

                                Russell always raised his game in the postseason and Wilt usually lowered his. Russell was nowhere near as gifted as Wilt but he understood how to win games better than Wilt ever did. Some of those hall of famers Russell played with got there because he made them that much better. KC Jones was a guard with a range of about 5 feet. Sam Jones couldn't spell the word defense. Satch Sanders on any other team would have been a mediocre energy guy. Tommy Heinson was an unathletic black hole with limited range. Russell covered every one of their weaknesses.
                                GTFOH! The league back then isn't even close to what it is today. In today's game, players are literally built to play basketball.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X