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

When did Reggie become a great closer?

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

  • #31
    Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

    Posey now has that rep but he's not quite a vet leader, more of a general missing piece that helps the vets. It's not like he was schooling KG and Allen on how to ball.

    I did think of the perfect guy, but it might be too late now - Derek Fisher. DF the last 2 years has been identical to that Scott type of guy, the player that instills confidence, leads by example, and can hit a few big shots for you. A vet with a been there, done that resume but without the high pay or cocky attitude.


    Rush is 100% that type of guy Jay (4th quarter plays, not last shot that is), he was that way in KS which is a big reason why I liked him. He makes plays by reading the court and the flow. The more he becomes used to the NBA game and in particular how JOB is running the Pacers, the stronger he's going to get with this.

    You know a tipped ball going the other way for a Foster dunk is just as good as a "clutch shot". I really agree with your point. Make plays before the final 2-3 possessions and take them out of the equation.



    Hicks - really? getting old and confused it appears.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-26-2008, 04:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

      I get the feeling Rush could become a closer in a few years.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

        Fisher would be perfect. He can play 2 a la Jack does, even. But he's in LA, has no reason to leave for basketball reasons, and went back in the first place so his daughter could have the best healthcare possible. Just can't happen, unfortunately. Too bad; that'd be a great guy to bring in for this team.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

          Here is an example of how clutch Reggie was in his heyday. You can read the rest of the article at the link.

          http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A963958260

          Sports of The Times; He's Bad, He's Bizarre . . . He's Reggie Miller

          By IRA BERKOW
          Published: May 8, 1995
          YES, some people revel in being loathed. Maybe it's simply that they crave attention -- any attention. If they saw their photograph in a post office, they might complain that it wasn't taken from their good side. When hissed, they beam. If they are told to leave a birthday party, they sit on the cake. Reggie Miller, the Inimitable, the Implausible, the Impossible, is surely one such entity.

          "I love being booed," Reggie Miller said. "Maybe it goes back to my childhood." He said he used to watch movies and "root for the bad guy."

          If there is a greater villain today in all of Gotham than Reggie Miller, his name does not come quickly to mind. And it thrills him the way nightfall made Dracula tingle.

          We all know the story now, of how the Knicks yesterday afternoon were ahead by 6 points with 18.7 seconds to go in Game 1 of their playoff series against the Indiana Pacers, and couldn't win.

          We all know the story now, of how the Knicks, one of the most immature teams to ever contend for championships, were raising their arms in triumph, as the Madison Square Garden crowd of 19,763 cheered. After all, the game was over, wasn't it? With a 6-point lead with 18.7 seconds left?

          But they neglected that Miller is one of the best long-range shooters in the game, one of the best clutch shooters in the game, and the game still had some game left. And Miller, who comes from Los Angeles by way of Transylvania, could still smell blood.

          "Things weren't looking so good," Miller admitted. "But in the game of basketball, it's never over until the horn goes off."

          The Pacers called a timeout, and Coach Larry Brown spoke with his huddled masses about trying to get a basket, then quickly fouling and hoping to get the ball back and, well, he revealed this after the game: "Realistically, I thought we had no chance. I couldn't imagine us coming back at this point. But a coach has to keep coaching."

          Indeed, and Reggie -- cocky, cool, as skinny as a noodle -- kept playing. He took a pass from Mark Jackson and sank a 3-point shot: 105-102 Knicks. Anthony Mason took the ball out of bounds under the basket. "I saw him falling in bounds and he was having trouble finding someone to throw it to," Miller said. "I know he was going to throw it somewhere, I didn't expect him to throw it to me."

          Ah, but Mason did throw it to him. Miller had a short shot, but this wasn't to his taste. He turned and dribbled out to 3-point range and let loose a shot that flew right through the hoop. "I wanted to drive a stake through their heart," said the cuddly Reggie.

          Both shots took a total of 3.1 seconds on the game clock. In the stands, Grant Hill, the standout Detroit Pistons rookie, said he looked down to sign an autograph with the Knicks ahead by 6, and when he looked up the game was tied.

          "Reggie loves the pressure," said Hill. "A lot of guys in the league don't want that last shot. They're running the other way from the ball. Reggie wants the ball in his hands with the game on the line."

          Reggie wasn't finished. After John Starks missed two free throws, Mason fouled Miller with 7.5 seconds left.

          Now the home crowd was screaming at Miller as he stepped to the line, and what they were screaming was not "New York Loves Reggie!"

          He made the first free throw. He made the second free throw. The crowd was silenced and stunned. And within seconds, it was over.

          Well, not quite. Miller couldn't resist gilding the 107-105 losers. As he ran into the locker room, he shouted: "Choke artists! Choke artists!"

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

            As he ran into the locker room, he shouted: "Choke artists! Choke artists!"
            You stay classy San Diego.



            (ie, give the more recent guys a break when it comes to being "good guys", it's not like the old school didn't have plenty of punk moves to their game)

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

              My favorite part of the whole thing thing (game 1) was when he was interviewed right after the game, breathing heavily, and said, "We think we can sweep this team."

              They should have lost and he isn't talking about luck and being grateful, he's talking smack and sweep.

              (I know, they lost the series.)
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Rush is 100% that type of guy Jay (4th quarter plays, not last shot that is), he was that way in KS which is a big reason why I liked him. He makes plays by reading the court and the flow. The more he becomes used to the NBA game and in particular how JOB is running the Pacers, the stronger he's going to get with this.
                That's why I had no problem with trading Bayless for him. After watching the Final Four, he was the player I wanted on the Pacers for this very reason - clutch has little to do with "skillz" and 100% attributed to mental toughness.

                Did you notice the difference last night? - Ron got off a lot of shots that he missed in the last minute and Granger stuck with his play and had the game winner. In the last three minutes of the game, I'll take Granger's mental toughness over a guy with "mad skillz" like Ron every time. Winning basketball, and clutch play, is much more mental than physical. I'm not worried about things that seem relevant, but really aren't, like "can he create his own shot?". Austin Croshere of all players could make a parade for himself to the FT line in the fourth quarter, and we all agree that he isn't a superstar-talent level of player.

                Did you get the Houston announcers last night? In summary, they raved about their hometown boy (Ford) for three quarters, and then observed that Jack is a better fourth-quarter player - same reason - because of his mental toughness. That's why I'd rather have Jack at 30+ MPG, with most of it at PG. (Hell, as much as I hated Travis, the time I didn't mind him on the court was the last four mintues or so of the game for yet again the same reason...)

                I'm not worried about Danny or Brandon growing into the go-to role. We just need to get a young PF to dominate the paint physically alongside Hibbert and let these guys grow up over the next season or two.
                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


                • #38
                  Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  My favorite part of the whole thing thing (game 1) was when he was interviewed right after the game, breathing heavily, and said, "We think we can sweep this team."

                  They should have lost and he isn't talking about luck and being grateful, he's talking smack and sweep.

                  (I know, they lost the series.)
                  They didn't lose the series. They won in 7. The 8pts, 11 seconds, was in 1995 second round.

                  BTW...Reggie became a closer after hearing this speech:CONTAINS SOME R RATED LANGUAGE



                  Third prize is you're fired.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                    CONTAINS SOME R RATED LANGUAGE
                    Um, yeah. GGGRoss is not for the faint of language. Shows how great Baldwin has been at times. Pair this with his SNL stuff and you've got range.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: When did Reggie become a great closer?

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Um, yeah. GGGRoss is not for the faint of language. Shows how great Baldwin has been at times. Pair this with his SNL stuff and you've got range.
                      When I worked at Macmillan, they played this at a National Sales Meeting. The entire place was rolling on the floor, laughing.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X