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

Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

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

  • Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...=2062184&num=0



    Updated: May 17, 2005, 1:40 PM ET
    Jackson humbled by early life, suspension





    INDIANAPOLIS – Like many other athletes-turned-entrepreneurs, Stephen Jackson has a record label, legitimized by the iced-out, nearly waist-length chain his boy from back home rocked the other night. The label's name is Secret Society Entertainment.



    But when it comes to discussing his background, Jackson is anything but secretive. And based on what the Indiana Pacers' fiery guard/forward said in an empty Conseco Fieldhouse locker room after his team's Game 4 loss to the Pistons, it's doubtful that he and his artists are having difficulty finding material for hard-core rap albums. Jackson's upbringing was wrought with explicit content.



    "I don't want to go back to where I came from," he says.



    Port Arthur, Texas, that is. Jackson breaks it down like this: "50,000 people, eight sets of projects, two high schools. Everybody's doing the same thing."



    Where he's from is why Jackson's temper on the court tends to bring out both the best and worst in him. It's why the Pacers' leading postseason scorer (17.4 points per game) plays like he – excuse the country grammar – ain't never scared.



    Because that's precisely what Jackson is. Scared. Frightened of losing this, of "fading to black," of being another B.J. Tyler, the former University of Texas star who was gone from the NBA just as quickly as he got there. Tyler was from Galveston, Texas, not far from Port Arthur. "He got out, but he wasn't humble about it," Jackson says.



    See, when you escape from what had Jackson and Tyler trapped, you do your damnedest to stay out. That's why Jackson has persevered through professional stops in Australia, the Dominican Republic, France and Venezuela, and with nine teams in the CBA and NBA before finding some stability four years ago with the Spurs (for two seasons).



    For it was just 10 years ago that Jackson did his best to, as the rapper I-20 says, give new meaning to the word "childhood."



    Point blank: Jackson was a hustler. You don't have to ask him about it. He'll tell you.



    "I was out there bad, yo," the 27-year-old says, both disbelief and regret transparent in his voice.



    He says he routinely skipped class as a high school sophomore and junior, preferring project hallways to those of Lincoln High. He says there were nights he didn't return home, that his single mother, Judy Jackson, had to go out searching for him. Stephen Jackson ignored a warning sign right in front him – his father, George Aldridge, just recently released after serving 10 years in prison for "robbery, drugs, all kinds of stuff," his son says.



    "I'd be lying to you if I told you I didn't take that route. "Everybody's selling drugs and everybody's hanging out," says Jackson, who said his older brother, Donald Buckner, was beaten to death when Jackson was 15. About that time, until he left for prep powerhouse Oak Hill Academy in Virginia, where he would become a McDonald's All-American, Jackson found the allure of breaking the law too much to ignore, as Jay-Z once rhymed.



    Jackson: "It was a fad. I damn sure wasn't thinking about getting no job. I thought that was the easy way out." He says he sold "a little bit of everything."



    He keeps a red bandanna hanging outside his locker.



    "You know what that is," he says.



    Bloods. When he wasn't running hoops, Jackson used to run with the local street gang. He says he represented the "3200 Block, Three-two-double-oh." On the inside of his left forearm, he has a tattoo of a man firing an automatic weapon. He makes it clear he doesn't "bang" anymore (he is, after all, a father of five), but he still represents his roots, only in a different fashion, emphasis on fashion. A shirt with a red collar, a red Pacers cap.



    "I was just raised like that," he says. "All my friends. I don't trip on nobody with no blue rag, but at the same time, it's what I represent. It's what I've represented since I was 9 years old. All my friends in my neighborhood. It was just inherited. I ain't banging, though.



    "I got in a couple of scruffs over it," he recalls. "It's nothing I'm embarrassed about. It just happened growing up. Walking outside, everybody got on red, I can't walk outside in blue."



    Others recognized his athletic talent – and the opportunity it presented – even when he couldn't. Older cats would give him two or three bills and send him home, he says. "Everybody knew I played basketball," Jackson says. "Sometimes I got pulled over with [drugs], and they let me go because of who I was. If I was in Houston or L.A., that would have been the end of me.



    "That's why I always go back to I'm blessed. A lot of people get in that and don't have nobody to tell them, 'This ain't right.' There's a lot of people in my neighborhood that's probably 10 times better than me, but they didn't have people telling them, 'Yo, you need to stop that [stuff]. You can do it. But it's on you.'



    "I had my grandmother, my aunts, my mom, telling me, 'What are you doing? That's not you.' And it wasn't me."



    But it most certainly was Jackson we saw follow teammate Ron Artest into the stands at the Palace of Auburn Hills and engage in wild fisticuffs with fans, acting as though he'd been listening to hours of Lil Jon records.



    It was him, and it wasn't.



    One man's opinion drawn from limited exposure: Jackson is articulate, easygoing, smart and thoughtful. Charming even. Dude's cool. He often makes references to his deep religious faith. He doesn't come across as the thug he's perceived to be.



    Then why'd he do it, you ask? He lives by a certain code of conduct, and on the night of Nov. 19, he wasn't about to compromise it. He was going to ride for Ron, Reggie – whoever was wearing a Pacers uniform.



    "I regret hitting the fan, but I don't regret helping my teammate," he says. "I regret the world seeing me do that, I regret that happening at an NBA game, but I never regret helping my teammates. If Ron went in the stands again, I probably would go. I probably wouldn't hit a fan. I probably would go get him up out of there. Everything just happened so fast.



    "There's no way I would have went in the stands if my teammate wouldn't have went in there. I was raised that if I'm with you and we get in a fight, I'm going to help you. We're going down together. That's how it goes. These guys in here are like my family. If we go to Detroit, Toronto, if we're going together, we have to make sure we come back together."



    Jackson's actions cost him 30 games. During the time off – on road trips, spent in hotel rooms watching his teammates battle without him – he gained valuable perspective. Jackson had been paid in full when the Pacers acquired him from Atlanta in exchange for Al Harrington last summer, to the tune of a reported $38 million over six years. He says he had begun to lose the humility and the hunger that saw him through a four-year basketball odyssey that began when a poor academic record prevented him from playing at Arizona.



    "It opened my eyes," he says. "I was real relaxed coming here. I was like, 'I made it.' That let me know anything can happen.



    "With [Artest] asking for time off to promote the album and all that stuff, he got ungrateful. And I'll be the first to say that. Anytime you want to take time off from a job that millions of brothers work so hard to get here, that's not being humble. I think God showed him, 'The same way you got this, I can take this from you.' You can't take nothing for granted, and I think that's what [Artest] did. He got too happy with where he was, and God wakes you up all the time.



    "Being away from the game showed me that, 'Look, you can be a badass all you want, but you've got to obey the rules.' God chose me for a reason. My momma tells me that every day. I know there's a million people who want to be in my shoes."



    Somewhat scary is the thought of where Indiana would be without Jackson and his versatility. He has had to fill a different role than was intended when he arrived. With Artest gone, an aging Reggie Miller providing inconsistent contributions in the playoffs and Jermaine O'Neal struggling with a shoulder injury, the Pacers are looking to Jackson as their primary scorer, though his tendency to freelance doesn't always sit well with teammates ("We've still got a lot to learn about each other"). He possesses Miller's mentality in that he won't hesitate to pull the trigger. A natural shooting guard at 6-8, defensively he's asked to guard small forwards: (Tayshaun Prince in this series, Paul Pierce in the last).



    All good, though. Jackson's approach to basketball is not unlike the way he once lived his life: He's down for whatever if winning comes at the end.



    "A lot of people get here, and they're in it for the wrong reasons," Jackson says. "They're in it to be famous, to be on TV. I want to win. I had a taste of a championship in San Antonio, and that was big for me. I cried when we won, and I hadn't cried in 10 years before that. It felt good, everything I'd been through, to say I was the champion at the end of the year.

    "I want to feel that again."



    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

  • #2
    Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

    That's a pretty good article. I like how he is honest with most stuff. Good or bad, but he is honest.
    AKA Sactolover05

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

      Written by Michael Smith, who is covering the Indiana Pacers for ESPN.com.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

        Interesting, very interesting.
        House Name: Pacers

        House Sigil:



        House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

          Originally posted by Diamond Dave
          Interesting, very interesting.
          Interesting 'good, or interesting 'bad'?

          -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


          • #6
            Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

            His comments about Artest were interesting.

            I admit I grew up in a very sheltered environment, and really can't comprehend growing UP like Jax or Artest and what effect that would have had on my life.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

              Both. Gotta love the honesty. Thats what I like to hear. I have always hated this organizations PR approach. I don't like having to wonder if what I'm hearing from a player, coach, or admin is the truth. I don't have to with Jackson.

              However sometimes the truth is brutal. Such as his comments about the brawl. About how he would go back into the stands and "probably" not hit a fan. Also his comments about Artest and the album coincide well with Cro's that make me think that Ron's leaving would definitely not create a bad chemsitry on the team.

              Jax is great player. Considering his output in the playoffs vs. Al's historically I can say this was a great trade. Right now him and Tinsley are the only players not playing in fear of the Pistons, except for Foster and Dale who aren't afraid of anyone save Shaq.

              Also this story makes me feel two ways. 1) Glad that someone whose life was in dire straits like Jacksons was able to be turned around. 2) Upset that someone like him was able to slip through the cracks for so long and that because he was a basketball player he was able to get away with some things.
              House Name: Pacers

              House Sigil:



              House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

                Great article. I respect Jax, but knowing where he came from and what he had to overcome, that gives me even more respect for him. That's not an easy thing to do.
                :thepacers
                No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

                  I'd rather have illogical passion than illogical apathy.
                  House Name: Pacers

                  House Sigil:



                  House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Stephen Jackson article at ESPN.com

                    I remember watching Jax when he played for the Nets. He didn't play many minutes, but you could see he had some real talent, but he was even more wild back then

                    Players tend to mature and calm down a little as they get older (everyone calms down a little as they get older) I expect Jax to do the same.

                    His game is still improving, he is much better than he was even as a Spur

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X