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

Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

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

  • #91
    Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    Otis thorpe was an all star. So was Rik Smits. So was Jalen Rose. So was Mark Jackson. So Was Dale Davis. So was Antonio Davis. The 2000 Pacers featured SEVEN current, past or future NBA all-stars. The 1994 Rockets had three. And you call the 1994 Rockets "loaded?"

    Are you finished?



    Wait, this is the same Rockets team you just said was "loaded," right?

    That's the great thing about what-ifs. Nobody can prove you wrong. Of course, nobody can prove you right, either.
    jackson and ad were never allstars while members of the pacers. it's definitely funny that pacers4ever is thanking your posts when i don't even think he was alive for the 93-94 finals. curious as to whether or not you think stockton, malone, payton, barkley, ewing, etc are hall of fame worthy.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

      I think what it ultimately comes down to is this:

      Was Reggie Miller famous for his basketball skills? After all, this is the Basketball Hall of Fame, not the Basketball Hall of Stats.

      Considering Reggie was a household name for several years, especially in an era dominated by arguably the GoaT, I think that's enough to warrant inclusion.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        jackson and ad were never allstars while members of the pacers.
        ...and Sam Cassell was never an all-star while he was a member of the Rockets, either, so I guess that narrows the numbers of all-star teammates Hakeem had down to one....

        it's definitely funny that pacers4ever is thanking your posts when i don't even think he was alive for the 93-94 finals.
        Really? This is what it's coming down to? You criticizing me for which posters that agree with my posts?

        curious as to whether or not you think stockton, malone, payton, barkley, ewing, etc are hall of fame worthy.
        This is relevant to the discussion how?

        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


        • #94
          Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Otis thorpe was an all star. So was Rik Smits. So was Jalen Rose. So was Mark Jackson. So Was Dale Davis. So was Antonio Davis. The 1998 Pacers featured SEVEN current, past or future NBA all-stars. The 1994 Rockets had three. And you call the 1994 Rockets "loaded?"

          Are you finished?



          Wait, this is the same Rockets team you just said was "loaded," right?

          That's the great thing about what-ifs. Nobody can prove you wrong. Of course, nobody can prove you right, either.
          jalen rose was never an all-star.
          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

            Above and beyond the efficiency, the volume of mins, points, etc., I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the potential effect Reggie has had on young players. I know that players have always worked hard, but I think Reggie was one of the first who used a dietician and kept in top shape all year in order to increase his longevity in the league. Guys like Kobe and Nash, I think, have clearly benefitted from seeing the way Reggie took care of his body and extended his career.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

              Originally posted by bhaas0532 View Post
              jalen rose was never an all-star.
              Definitely misremembered that one. I'll take egg for that. I'm %100 sure on the other six guys, though.

              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


              • #97
                Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                I think what it ultimately comes down to is this:

                Was Reggie Miller famous for his basketball skills? After all, this is the Basketball Hall of Fame, not the Basketball Hall of Stats.

                Considering Reggie was a household name for several years, especially in an era dominated by arguably the GoaT, I think that's enough to warrant inclusion.
                ^THIS^

                I've been saying this all along. Reggie arguably has one of (if not THE) largest collection of memorable NBA moments, regular and postseason, of any player out there, all-time.

                The fact that these moments have apparently counted for nothing in the eyes of the HoF voters is absolutely laughable.

                I take a tiny bit of solace in the fact that all the major sporting news outlets have picked up this story and seem to be backing Reggie. People are upset and shocked about this, and they SHOULD BE. It's complete BS.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  ...and Sam Cassell was never an all-star while he was a member of the Rockets, either, so I guess that narrows the numbers of all-star teammates Hakeem had down to one....



                  Really? This is what it's coming down to? You criticizing me for which posters that agree with my posts?



                  This is relevant to the discussion how?
                  reggie did not have the great sidekick necessary to win nba titles. on very rare occasions, teams have won titles with a hall of famer surrounded by great role players, but those years are rare. and obviously in 94 and 95, had jordan not retired, we wouldn't be having this discussing. for you to even argue that reggie had good enough teammates to compete for titles in an era dominated by dynasties is just foolish. btw 93-94 rockets won 58 games in the regular season, pacers 47. neither smits nor rose had the smarts or overall ability to hang with title winning teams. yet every year reggie had his teams right on the doorstep. i also find it interesting you choose to ignore reggie's offensive efficiency numbers. let's also disregard his steals numbers. for a player with little around him, reggie sure as hell led the pacers to a lot of almosts.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                    Originally posted by LongTimePacerFan View Post
                    This is upsetting enough to make me come out of the shadows. Seriously, it's nuts how quickly people forget what a great player Reggie was.

                    Exhibit A. http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_career.html

                    Reggie is 10th all-time in win shares. You may say "what's a win share", or "10th doesn't sound all that great". Well, everyone else in the top 10 are first ballot hall-of-famers. Actually, almost all of the top 30 are first ballot hall-of-famers. Seriously, look at that list. You can't just luck into the top ten all time in win shares.

                    His playoff credentials:

                    #7 all time offensive win shares
                    Top 20 all-time overall win shares
                    Top 20 all-time scoring
                    #1 all time three pointers made
                    Top 10 all time free throw shooter
                    #12 all time in true shooting percentage
                    #11 all time in offensive rating
                    #15 all time in free throws made

                    As for the regular season, maybe more impressive:

                    as I said earlier, #10 all time in win shares
                    #2 all time in offensive rating
                    #6 all time in true shooting percentage
                    #14 all time in scoring
                    #6 all time in Minutes played
                    #2 all time in 3 pointers made
                    #12 all time in free throws made
                    #9 all time in free throw percentage
                    #7 all time in offensive win shares

                    Sorry for the long post, but if those aren't the numbers of a first ballot hall-of-famer, I don't know what are. The only thing that's missing of course is a championship ring, but, is that really a requirement to get in on the first ballot?
                    Delayed post bump.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                      If only Reggie had Otis Thorpe...

                      i also find it interesting you choose to ignore reggie's offensive efficiency numbers.
                      I find it interesting you chose to overlook the post I wrote over an hour ago addressing Reggie's efficiency numbers.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 06:17 PM.

                      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: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        Reggie's offensive efficiency is a nice stat. It's not something to hang your hat on. He was a shooting specialist that normally came off of 2-3 screens wide open. He rarely created any offense on his own. He took more wide open shots in a week than Jordan did in a season. Credit to him for being able to use screens as well as he did, but teams did not focus on him defensively as much as they did guys like Jordan or Drexler.

                        I'm not taking away from what he did, which he was the best at. But to claim he's more efficient than Jordan or Jerry West...that's just ranting out or frustration.

                        Calling Reggie a "deferred scorer" is another way of saying Reggie didn't or couldn't force the action when a good shot didn't present itself. It's not like Reggie was ever racking up assists. The guy simply wasn't a 1-on-1 player. That didn't make him unselfish, it made him limited.

                        Have you ever seen Reggie pass up an open shot? Me either.
                        Almost every player is limited in some way. Rodman was a two skill player and you're obviously fine with his inclusion. Reggie was as good a 3 point specialist and high percentage shooter as Rodman was a rebounder and defender. What exactly is the difference?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                          Rodman was a two skill player and Reggie was a one skill player?

                          Also, when did I say Rodman deserved to be in the hall over Reggie? When did I say I wasn't fine with Reggie being a hall of famer? What am I missing here?
                          Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 06:18 PM.

                          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: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            If only Reggie had Otis Thorpe...
                            so what does that say for robinson, malone, stockton, ewing, shaq, drexler, barkley, zeke, pippen etc who didn't win titles in 94? guess they must not be hall of fame caliber either huh?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                              I'm confused. Did the NBA have a special hall just for 1994?

                              Of the guys you mentioned, I see a combined 15 championships, and the guys listed that didn't win a championship combined for 3 MVPs and a near-miss by one vote. Of the guys that didn't win either, you have the all-time steals leader, all-time assists leader, and a career 21/10/2 center with 24,000 points, nearly 3,000 blocks and 11,000 rebounds.
                              Last edited by Kstat; 02-18-2011, 06:26 PM.

                              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: Reggie Miller Doesn't Make Cut For Hall Finalists

                                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                                Almost every player is limited in some way. Rodman was a two skill player and you're obviously fine with his inclusion. Reggie was as good a 3 point specialist and high percentage shooter as Rodman was a rebounder and defender. What exactly is the difference?
                                Kstat is just pushing buttons, silly. What better way than to **** off a bunch of Pacer fans than argue against the HOF inclusion of the greatest Pacer ever on a Pacers messageboard?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X