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

All Star Reserves

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

  • All Star Reserves

    http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ar...ence_reserves/

    The NBA announced the reserves of the 2006-2007 All-Star Game.

    Joining the five starters that were revealed last week, the Eastern Conference will feature Vince Carter, Jason Kidd, Dwight Howard, Chauncey Billups, Caron Butler, Jermaine O'Neal and Richard Hamilton.

    The 14 players selected -- seven each from the Eastern and Western Conferences -- were chosen by the 30 NBA head coaches, who were asked to vote for seven players in their respective conferences -- two guards, two forwards, one center and two players regardless of position. They were not permitted to vote for players from their own team.

    http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ar...star_reserves/

    The Western Conference reserves in the 2006-2007 All-Star will feature Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Dirk Nowitzki, Carlos Boozer, Amare Stoudemire, Tony Parker and Shawn Marion.

    Boozer will not be able to play in the game due to injury, leaving a spot that will be filled by David Stern. Yao Ming also will not be able to play.

  • #2
    Re: All Star Reserves

    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post

    Boozer will not be able to play in the game due to injury, leaving a spot that will be filled by David Stern.
    No way Stern can fill in for Carlos Boozer. He's too small and not enough of an athlete. ...Altho I suppose if your chief defensive move is to threaten anyone who scores on you with a suspension, you will get plenty of stops.
















    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: All Star Reserves

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      No way Stern can fill in for Carlos Boozer. He's too small and not enough of an athlete. ...Altho I suppose if your chief defensive move is to threaten anyone who scores on you with a suspension, you will get plenty of stops.



      -Bball
      Hahahaha, ****. Well he certainly ain't getting any fan votes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: All Star Reserves

        I believe this makes JO the Pacer with the most All-Star seasons now, passing Reggie.

        Funny how used to things people get, JO has been a bigger impact player than Reggie technically, partially because effective bigs are harder to find than SGs, and yet people constantly want him gone.

        The Pacers have never had a regular all-star like JO has been. Even Reggie had spotty appearances with gaps between several of them. Sure Jordan was there, but that wasn't the only roster spot available to guards.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: All Star Reserves

          say hello to Camby being an Allstar...He should get it before AI

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: All Star Reserves

            I'm suprised but happy to see that Billups, Hamilton, and Butler all got nods as All-Stars. I think it is well deserved but of course some guys were left off who could have made it but there always is.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: All Star Reserves

              I think Anthony gets in now too.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: All Star Reserves

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                I believe this makes JO the Pacer with the most All-Star seasons now, passing Reggie.

                Funny how used to things people get, JO has been a bigger impact player than Reggie technically, partially because effective bigs are harder to find than SGs, and yet people constantly want him gone.

                The Pacers have never had a regular all-star like JO has been. Even Reggie had spotty appearances with gaps between several of them. Sure Jordan was there, but that wasn't the only roster spot available to guards.
                Just like you can't compare Kevin Garnett's numbers to Bill Russell's numbers, it's really, really hard to compare JO to Reggie when it comes to All-Star appearances, starting with the fact that the East was dominant in Reggie's day, while the West is dominant now. JO likely wouldn't have made the All-Star team this year if he'd played for, say, Golden State.

                I'm not saying you're wrong, because he has been our first real perennial All-Star, but comparing him to Reggie is tough at best.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: All Star Reserves

                  The West reserves would be an All-Star team in the East, that's hilarious.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: All Star Reserves

                    Guessing Carmelo Anthony and Josh Howard fill in for Yao, and Boozer.
                    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                    ----------------- Reggie Miller

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: All Star Reserves

                      Tony Parker isn't an All Star. Josh Howard is.
                      STARBURY

                      08 and Beyond

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: All Star Reserves

                        Good job on gettin Caron in the game. He deserves it. Can't argue on Parker being an all-star and as much as I am an Iverson fan, he's the most suspect to me in the West. But the West is packed so it's inevitable that there will be an arguement there no matter who gets picked. Howard should've made it. They have the best record. Anthony, you can understand why he's not because he was suspended but he deserves to be there too. Deron Williams deserves consideration. If Chris Paul didn't get injured, deserves it too.
                        http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: All Star Reserves

                          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                          Just like you can't compare Kevin Garnett's numbers to Bill Russell's numbers, it's really, really hard to compare JO to Reggie when it comes to All-Star appearances, starting with the fact that the East was dominant in Reggie's day, while the West is dominant now. JO likely wouldn't have made the All-Star team this year if he'd played for, say, Golden State.

                          I'm not saying you're wrong, because he has been our first real perennial All-Star, but comparing him to Reggie is tough at best.
                          I disagree with that. The BULLS were dominant, but it was the West sporting all those 60 win teams (like Utah and Seattle).

                          JO is in a conference that now features bigs like Howard, Bosh, Shaq, Okafur, Wallace and Wallace. Big Z too. And he went one year in which Brad Miller also went.

                          I think a list like that sounds a lot like the list of players Reggie was up against typically. Great big men are rarer, but that only adds fuel to the importance of JO with the Pacers, and as rare as they have been Dale and Rik both only made their way on to 1 team each.

                          Hersey Hawkins, Ricky Pierce, Alvin Robertson, Michael Adams, BJ Armstrong, John Starks...these are some of the guys that went to teams in years he didn't make it.

                          Even Detlef beat Reggie out of a spot, which itself makes a point I think because Detlef was a better all-around player at the time IMO, yet people think of those borderline teams being Reggie all by himself. The numbers (and what I saw at those games) say otherwise.


                          I love Reggie and think he was always underappreciated nationally. But he was slightly overvalued in Indy after those endless moments of heroism. JO is one of the biggest threats on the court at both ends, and clearly Reggie was not. Reggie was famously HOF level CLUTCH and big from 3, enough to warrant those teams and perhaps a few others.

                          But JO has made it on not just by fan votes but by COACHES' votes, and hasn't been bumped out by those flash-in-the-pan 1-timer players like Reggie was many times.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: All Star Reserves

                            Please, Mr. Stern, look at Deron Williams. He didn't try to ******slap anyone.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: All Star Reserves

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              I disagree with that. The BULLS were dominant, but it was the West sporting all those 60 win teams (like Utah and Seattle).

                              JO is in a conference that now features bigs like Howard, Bosh, Shaq, Okafur, Wallace and Wallace. Big Z too. And he went one year in which Brad Miller also went.

                              I think a list like that sounds a lot like the list of players Reggie was up against typically. Great big men are rarer, but that only adds fuel to the importance of JO with the Pacers, and as rare as they have been Dale and Rik both only made their way on to 1 team each.

                              Hersey Hawkins, Ricky Pierce, Alvin Robertson, Michael Adams, BJ Armstrong, John Starks...these are some of the guys that went to teams in years he didn't make it.

                              Even Detlef beat Reggie out of a spot, which itself makes a point I think because Detlef was a better all-around player at the time IMO, yet people think of those borderline teams being Reggie all by himself. The numbers (and what I saw at those games) say otherwise.


                              I love Reggie and think he was always underappreciated nationally. But he was slightly overvalued in Indy after those endless moments of heroism. JO is one of the biggest threats on the court at both ends, and clearly Reggie was not. Reggie was famously HOF level CLUTCH and big from 3, enough to warrant those teams and perhaps a few others.

                              But JO has made it on not just by fan votes but by COACHES' votes, and hasn't been bumped out by those flash-in-the-pan 1-timer players like Reggie was many times.
                              I'd like to point out that the names you put around JO in terms of "big men" includes guys who are past their prime and guys who are just now coming into their prime. And JO is a backup, surrounded by those guys. Honestly, there's a reason he's a 5-time All-Star, and while a good portion of it is due to being an incredible player, there's another portion that's due to him being one of the only elite big men in his conference for years. There's a reason Jamaal Magloire went to an All-Star Game.

                              I'd like to analyze the guys who beat Reggie out in the years that they did.

                              Alvin Robertson was a 4-time All-Star (who knew??) who hung his hat on defense, and happened to lead the league in steals that year, and would also retire with the highest steals per game total in league history. Not a bad player, and hard for a 3rd year player to beat for an All-Star spot.

                              Hersey Hawkins I'm assuming was the one who edged out Reggie in 1991, and I can see why. He matched Reggie's point totals as a #2 option, and he played on a better team. Same deal with Pierce. Averaged 22 PPG on a better team. Keep in mind, that makes 2 guards in 91 who averaged 22+ PPG as SUBS for the East during an era of "no layups", handchecking basketball. Also, one of these guys was an appointee, because Larry Bird was injured, so it wasn't a coaches' vote sort of thing.

                              Michael Adams is another one of the one-timers, but he was averaging 18ppg, 4 RPG, and 7.6 APG, which are pretty good numbers for a PG. Despite that, he was only selected due to Larry Bird and Dominique Wilkins ducking out due to injury, so he technically doesn't belong on that list, since the coaches didn't vote him in, nor did the fans.

                              As for B.J. Armstrong, I'm baffled on that one. Since he's listed in the top 5 in the box score, I assume the chicago fans voted him in, since his stats that year were mediocre, and the team was decent but not great. Starks, well, was Starks. He had a good year that year, and it burns to say it, but he deserved the spot, having averaged 19 and 7 that year.

                              Regardless of those guys not being household names, I can understand why each (except for fan-favorite BJ Armstrong) was selected over Reggie that particular season, and their numbers, that year, were worthy of selection.

                              What does all this mean? To me, nothing. I think it's a little far-fetched to claim a player has more "impact" due to All-Star appearances, as BJ Armstrong can attest to. It's more about popularity than anything, for the starters, and it's more about deserving it when it comes to the subs, but we don't keep track of if you started or if you were a sub. If we're taking All-Star votes to corrolate into NBA ability, Vince Carter is better than Michael Jordan, because he was the starter one year over MJ.

                              That's the farthest end of the spectrum in terms of how screwy the NBA All-Star selection process is, but I think it pretty well proves how subjective and arbitrary the All-Star nod is, and also how it's a poor indicator of someone's...impact on a day-to-day basis.

                              Like I said, I'm not saying JO isn't deserving, and I really couldn't say who was the "better" player at this point in their career. But I can say with certainty that All-Star appearances is a bad measure of a player's worth, especially when we're talking about guys who's careers and positions don't really overlap.

                              Wow, that was a lot more work that I'd planned to put into that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X