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

Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

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

  • #46
    Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

    Originally posted by Kstat
    At the risk of redundancy, i'll ask the same question twice.

    What's the difference between the 1995 Bulls, who couldn't rebound or defend in the paint worth a damn, and the 1996-1998 Bulls?
    In general, I agree. Without Rodman, the Bulls wouldn't be able to slow down/stop Kemp or Malone. On the other hand, it was a matter of Jordan getting back into form, Kukoc matured as a player, and other factors. But the bottom line is I agree with you that the Bulls wouldn't fair as well without Rodman.

    Originally posted by Jay@Section204

    Sir-shoots-a-lot would've picked that team up with or without Dennis. Krause would've found somebody to fill that role.
    Off cource some of you could say if the the Bulls had a different PF of C, they would still win championships. But then, it's just implying that Rodman would be equivalent to whoever PF or C you pick for the Bulls. That wouldn't undermine the importance of Rodman to the team.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

      Originally posted by Kstat
      At the risk of redundancy, i'll ask the same question twice.

      What's the difference between the 1995 Bulls, who couldn't rebound or defend in the paint worth a damn, and the 1996-1998 Bulls?
      Jordan was back in 'game shape' after getting embarassed by Nick Anderson and Penny Hardaway.

      The designated rebounder could've been Will Perdue and they would've cruised in 1995-96 and 1996-97. And Rodman wasn't the difference for the 1997-98 team, either. Kukoc was, since neither Dale nor Tony would step out on the floor and guard him, especially in the fourth quarter of Game #7, while Rodman watched from the bench.
      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


      • #48
        Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

        Originally posted by NewType
        In general, I agree. Without Rodman, the Bulls wouldn't be able to slow down/stop Kemp or Malone. On the other hand, it was a matter of Jordan getting back into form, Kukoc matured as a player, and other factors. But the bottom line is I agree with you that the Bulls wouldn't fair as well without Rodman.


        Off cource some of you could say if the the Bulls had a different PF of C, they would still win championships. But then, it's just implying that Rodman would be equivalent to whoever PF or C you pick for the Bulls. That wouldn't undermine the importance of Rodman to the team.
        That's Kstat's point. Grey said the Bulls would've been successful without him. Kstat said,

        Successful? Yes.

        Would they have won any titles? No.
        I called "bull****."

        Did Rodman make them tougher? Yes, duh.

        Would they have won without him? IMO, at least two of the three, and Rodman didn't contribute much in 1998 so probably all three.
        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


        • #49
          Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

          Originally posted by Jay@Section204
          Jordan was back in 'game shape' after getting embarassed by Nick Anderson and Penny Hardaway.

          The designated rebounder could've been Will Perdue and they would've cruised in 1995-96 and 1996-97. And Rodman wasn't the difference for the 1997-98 team, either. Kukoc was, since neither Dale nor Tony would step out on the floor and guard him, especially in the fourth quarter of Game #7, while Rodman watched from the bench.
          I thought I remembered Kukoc starting for the Bulls in the Finals in 98. Rodman definitely slipped defensively in his last year with the Pistons, & then with the Spurs & Bulls. I think Horace Grant was more effective for the Bulls in their first three-peat than Rodman was in their second run. Of course the 95 Jordan and the 96 Jordan were two different players, which was the main reason they won (along with Pippen's emergence as a top 5 player).

          But I think Rodman deserves to be in the HOF, but I doubt it happens. I also think the Pistons should retire his number, but that will never happen as well.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

            First of all, Pippen was a top-5 player going back to 1993.

            Secondly, if you think the Bulls would ahve won three titles WITHOUT Rodman, you're fooling yourself.

            Or do you think thair ability to stop Grant and Shaq in the 1996 ECF had ANYTHIGN whatsoever to do with Jordan being in better shape.....

            As for Kucoc, he was better because he was COMING OFF THE BENCH. Kucoc has never and will never be a quality starting PF in the NBA.

            And after the absolute disappearing act Kucoc pulled in the 1996 playoffs, don't even begin to call him a tough frontcourt player. Horace Grant made him his own personal toy in 1995. Thats why they went out and got Rodman.

            The Bulls going from the worst-rebounding team in the NBA to the best had VERY LITTLE to do with Kucoc, Jordan, Pippen, or any of their semi-useless centers.

            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


            • #51
              Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

              God knows I've spend more time defending Jordan in this thread than in the previous 35 years of my life combined. I feel so dirty.

              Believe what you want to believe, I'm walking away from this one.
              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


              • #52
                Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                Originally posted by Kstat

                The Bulls going from the worst-rebounding team in the NBA to the best had VERY LITTLE to do with Kucoc, Jordan, Pippen, or any of their semi-useless centers.
                Exactly. All Bulls' centers were pretty much useless. They were soft, probably except for the Chief, but he was old. Without Rodman, their team would be extremely soft. They need a stronger defensive and rebounding presence down low to face Kemp or Malone and Rodman was exactly what they needed.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                  God knows I've spend more time defending Jordan in this thread than in the previous 35 years of my life combined. I feel so dirty.

                  Believe what you want to believe, I'm walking away from this one.
                  Much as I believe Jordan is the greatest player of all time......

                  ....he still can't play power forward.

                  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


                  • #54
                    Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                    I don't really pay much attention to the Hall of Fame. Just never had much interest in it. So I don't know the criteria.

                    Rodman was one of my favorite players in the league while he was on the Pistons, I loved the guy, but then he wigged out. But more than that he became selfish and often sacrificed good defense so he could get rebounds. He became a selfish rebounder. I know he was when he was on the Spurs.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                      Originally posted by Kstat
                      I figured I'd bring this up here, with people that have no attachement to rodman, pro or con.

                      I compare him a lot to reggie miller, in this respect: they were both GREAT at one thing, and average in a lot of other catagories.

                      Reggie was the greatest shooter of his era, bar none.

                      Rodman was the greatest rebounder of his era, bar none.

                      Unless you put more stock into shooting than rebounding, I think if Reggie gets to the hall (which I think he will), so should dennis. I don't think there's a "character" clause in the hall, and even if there was, I don't think being wierd should be considered an offense.

                      And if thats not enough to get Dennis in, he played on two of the greatest teams in NBA history, and he was a top-3 player on both of them.

                      All that considered, I still have my doubts Rodman will get in.
                      I think by nature of being a great shooter, Reggie inherently is great at other things. Like scoring efficiency, free throw shooting, points per shot... things that make great print when discussing HOF merits. In fact, this is a good time to bring up "Player Wins" and "Win Shares" from Basketball-reference.com (definitions to follow). I think just taking a look at this list shows how scoring automatically vaults Reggie above Rodman, despite the fact that I agree with your premise:

                      Note: Player Wins available since 1978.

                      Total


                      NamePW
                      1Karl Malone226.04
                      2Hakeem Olajuwon186.79
                      3Michael Jordan184.44
                      4John Stockton182.11
                      5David Robinson167.79
                      6Charles Barkley166.17
                      7Moses Malone*154.42
                      8Reggie Miller152.22
                      9Robert Parish*148.70
                      10Shaquille O'Neal148.10
                      11Patrick Ewing143.88
                      12Larry Bird*143.10
                      13Magic Johnson*137.95
                      14Clyde Drexler*131.61
                      15Gary Payton131.35
                      16Scottie Pippen128.46
                      17Buck Williams123.62
                      18Jack Sikma120.49
                      19Horace Grant117.63
                      20Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*117.61

                      Player wins; the formula is PGm*PW%. Player wins is an estimate of the number of wins produced by a player for his team.

                      Note: Win Shares available since 1978.

                      Total


                      NameWS
                      1Karl Malone 660
                      2John Stockton 589
                      3Michael Jordan 588
                      4Reggie Miller 508
                      5Charles Barkley 495
                      6David Robinson 484
                      7Magic Johnson* 472
                      8Moses Malone* 455
                      9Shaquille O'Neal 447
                      10Hakeem Olajuwon 439
                      11Larry Bird* 435
                      12Gary Payton 410
                      13Robert Parish* 409
                      14Clyde Drexler* 380
                      15Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 370
                      16Horace Grant 351
                      17Kevin McHale* 350
                      18Adrian Dantley 348

                      Dominique Wilkins 348
                      20Scottie Pippen 346

                      more complicated win share explanation: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html


                      These stats are far from perfect, but it illustrates my point about scoring/shooting being more sexy than rebounding. It also speaks to the idea that Reggie was a bigger reason for Pacers success than Rodman for the awesome success he had in his career.

                      That said, Rodman is the best modern-era rebounder and was one of the best defenders in the league for years, wears 5 rings, colored hair and fur. I think he deserves to be in the HOF.




                      Just for kicks, I'll throw out another great Reggie Stat or two.

                      His career TS%- True shooting percentage [the formula is PTS / (2*(FGA + (0.44*FTA))] is .614. Pick a player and compare it... here are a SG and SF comparisons:

                      MJ: .569
                      Bird: .564
                      Drexler: .547
                      West: .550

                      Even great accurate shooters who didn't shoot as much as Reg, like Hornacek (.582) and Mark Price (.586) aren't even close.

                      Pretty telling stat.

                      Also, for kicks, I'll add that Reggie is 30th all-time in steals

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Should Dennis Rodman be in the hall of fame?

                        Everyone, the only way you're going to get him to shut up is to say "Pi$$ on Reggie, Dennis Rodman is the better player and is more deserving of the HOF". That's the only thing that will do it, even if you don't believe it. All hail 2005 most argumentative poster.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X