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

For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

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

  • For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

    This is from the Detroit News. From a Detroit writer. So before we start drawing conclusions about J.O not being able to step up in the playoffs, lets be sure we know what is really going on. I'm convinced that if this were the regular season J.O would be on the IL.

    http://www.detnews.com/2005/pistons.../D04-186308.htm




    Q. Back to the Pistons-Pacers series. How badly is Jermaine O'Neal's shoulder bothering him?

    A. It looked real bad in Game 5. At halftime, he was bent over and wincing in pain. He played most of the game essentially left-handed.

    He has been a trooper, though, refusing to make excuses or even admitting that it's affecting his game. But he's not a 34 percent shooter, not when he's healthy. I wouldn't be surprised if he has surgery right after the season.

  • #2
    Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

    Nothing is worse on this board than the JO bashing. I've laid it out a few times, but he's everything you want in a franchise player. Plays hurt, loves the community, relishes the challenge of keeping the pacers on top... One of these days he'll actually be HEALTHY for the playoffs.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

      I'm also bring this article over here.
      Now to the Detroit Free Press.


      http://www.freep.com/sports/pistons...9e_20050519.htm

      MITCH ALBOM: Friendships don't have time-outs

      May 19, 2005






      BY MITCH ALBOM
      FREE PRESS COLUMNIST



      So I'm walking past the Palace loading dock Tuesday night, after the Pistons waxed the Pacers in Game 5 of their series, and there, standing by the bus, were Rasheed Wallace and Jermaine O'Neal, and they were talking and laughing and at one point they must have shared a joke so funny that Rasheed doubled over and shook his head in hysterics.


      Now, as you know, these two do not play for the same team. An hour earlier, they had been battling on the court. They often guard each other in the blood feud known as Detroit-Indiana. They are "opponents" in every sports sense of the word.


      Recently, it came out that these two men, friends since their days together in Portland, had spent last Saturday night, the night before Game 4, at O'Neal's house, watching a fight on TV.


      Personally, my reaction was, "I wonder how big a screen Jermaine has?" I always think someone has better electronic equipment than I do, and then I get sad, and then I get catalogues. It's a guy thing.


      Anyhow, apparently others are more conspiracy-oriented. Some suggest Jermaine-Rasheed is a breach of sports ethics, that you shouldn't socialize with the "enemy" the night before the game. I was watching one of those ESPN afternoon programs and saw Skip Bayless, an old friend of mine, arguing with Woody Paige about this very subject. How could Rasheed and Jermaine hang out like that? Wouldn't they lose the drive to defeat one another? Enemies can never be friends! Wait until the series is over!


      Why, my radio partner Ken Brown said the same thing when we spoke about it. "Wait till the series is done for your relationship thing!" or something like that. I should point out that Ken is a professional comedian, just so Rasheed doesn't come looking for him.


      Anyhow, I've heard enough on this to ask myself, "Is there really not a problem here, or am I nuts?"


      I'm not nuts.



      Old school? Dumars calls it 'archaic'
      "Guys have friends on every team," Tayshaun Prince told me at the Palace. "It's no big deal. People are just saying that because of who we're playing."


      So you don't care if Rasheed and Jermaine hang out?


      "Nah," he said. "Why should I?"


      Good question. Thanks for your time.


      I called Joe Dumars, the Pistons' president of basketball operations. Years ago, Dumars was friendly with Michael Jordan during the years when the Pistons and Bulls had their annual showdowns. He never ate dinner with Jordan the night before a game -- that wasn't his style or the nature of the friendship -- but he has no problem with Rasheed doing it.


      "Especially a guy like Rasheed," Dumars said. "It's not gonna make him any less competitive than he already is.


      "I think it's kind of archaic to think you need a personal hatred for the guy you play against. Besides, from a healthy friendship standpoint, friends like having bragging rights."


      So why do some fans think it's wrong?


      "An antiquated way of thinking," Dumars said. "Fans think you sit in a room and pound your head against something, you punch the walls trying to get ready. That's just uninformed."


      Not to mention bad for your knuckles.



      Good friends like to rub it in, too
      Now, it's not as if there isn't precedent for friendly rivalries. Even Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell, who were as famous as rivals can get, would, on the same day as the annual Thanksgiving game between Philly and Boston, eat together at Chamberlain's place, with his mother cooking.


      And if those guys could pass the potatoes without losing their sizzle, why can't everyone else?


      Oh, I know some players think it's sacrilege to even look at the other guy during the playoffs. But the fact is, today's NBA players share agents, commercials, vacations, golf tournaments and off-season nightclubbing. Who's kidding whom about freshly minted "hatred"?


      It seems to me this is more about fans' projecting the hate they have for the opponent. Players know one day they could be playing against a guy, and the next day, thanks to a trade, they're teammates. You play hard either way.


      In the end, I sought out a man who was never known for his friendly relations -- Rick Mahorn. Big and nasty in his days as a Piston, Mahorn didn't win any Mr. Congeniality awards. A perfect source, I figured.


      "Is it OK," I asked Rick, who was wearing a very nice suit while towering over me in the Palace tunnel, "to be friendly with a guy on the other team and the night before a game watch a fight at his house?"


      (I immediately thought, given Rick's past, that his response would be, "Depends on the fight." But he surprised me.)


      "You'll be a friend longer than you'll be a basketball player," he said. "It doesn't bother me if players from other teams hang out the night before a game. Years later, even if you were friends, you'll still want to be able to say to the other guy, 'I kicked your butt.' "


      Did you ever do that, I asked, with friends you had in the league?


      "I didn't have too many friends," he said.


      Oh, right.


      So there's always that solution.


      Contact MITCH ALBOM at 313-223-45

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

        I won't bash JO, but in this case I'll do the other unthinkable. I'm questioning Carlisle for not only letting JO stay out there and play so terribly, but also for keep making him the focus of our offense. If JO can't play effectively, play Jeff Foster more and let's just let Reggie go down firing.
        Can we get a new color commentator please?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

          I've partaken in the JO bashing, but i've never liked JO. His comments about the age limit being racist was the stupidiest thing I've ever heard. That is my MAIN reason for not liking JO. Anything else is icing on the cake.

          But, I will give JO credit for WANTING to play. But at the same time, you would think someone who is a multi millionaire could at least have the brains to realize he needs to defer to his HEALTHY teammates. There are not many of them, but most are better off than he is.

          PASS THE BALL. Even if Carlisle calls your number...if you don't have a good look in the paint....PASS THE ROCK.
          *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

            Originally posted by Reggie4Three
            I won't bash JO, but in this case I'll do the other unthinkable. I'm questioning Carlisle for not only letting JO stay out there and play so terribly, but also for keep making him the focus of our offense. If JO can't play effectively, play Jeff Foster more and let's just let Reggie go down firing.
            You have a point there. I'd rather see the "Return of the Motion" tonight if J.O.'s shoulder is so bad that he really can't use his right hand or the left block...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

              Originally posted by Mushmouth
              You have a point there. I'd rather see the "Return of the Motion" tonight if J.O.'s shoulder is so bad that he really can't use his right hand or the left block...

              I think somebody should define to me what "bashing" means. There is a point where people are too harsh, but there is such a thing as valid criticism.
              “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
              motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
              Reggie Miller

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

                Originally posted by Jon Theodore
                I've partaken in the JO bashing, but i've never liked JO. His comments about the age limit being racist was the stupidiest thing I've ever heard. That is my MAIN reason for not liking JO. Anything else is icing on the cake.
                Was it really the "stupidiest" thing you've ever heard?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

                  Originally posted by brichard
                  I think somebody should define to me what "bashing" means. There is a point where people are too harsh, but there is such a thing as valid criticism.
                  Bashing is defined as saying something negative about a player someone likes. It doesn't have to be a real negative comment - anything will suffice.

                  As to JO, I have been extremely disappointed in him and I have been critical. My biggest problem with him is his mouth and his mental toughness. He constantly feels the need to make his thoughts known. His comment about Ben Wallace not being able to guard him has proved suicidal - Ben has owned him since then. His age limit comment was uncalled for as well. His (alleged) critiscism of Jackson was just plain ignorant. He let's the officials and sometimes other players affect his game as well. He needs to keep his mind on the game and keep his emotions out of it.

                  My only problem with him on the court has been his defense. I think he let on to Rasheed before the series started that his shoulder was really bad because since game 1 whoever JO is guarding, Rasheed, Ben Wallace or McDyess, they are taking it to him on offense and JO has not responded. On offense JO has looked almost scared. I think he is really intimidated by the Wallace boys. Maybe some of that has to do with his shoulder. If his shoulder is the reason he is struggling then he needs to outhink his opponent and find a way to get other players open shots.
                  "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                  - Benjamin Franklin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

                    I have taken issue with JO. I didn't consider it bashing because I like the guy. And I haven't based my opinions on just the playoffs. Jermaine has a lot of areas he needs to improve - REAL leadership is one of them. I hope it happens.
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

                      [QUOTE=fwpacerfan]
                      As to JO, I have been extremely disappointed in him and I have been critical. My biggest problem with him is his mouth and his mental toughness. He constantly feels the need to make his thoughts known. His comment about Ben Wallace not being able to guard him has proved suicidal - Ben has owned him since then. /QUOTE]


                      Whenever Sheed is in the game he guards J.O. Ben doesn't. In fact the few times Ben has guarded him one-on -one J.O has had pretty good sucess, a few times being able to back him in and shoot over him.

                      I hate when things get spun, J.O never said Ben wasn't a good defender. He said he was not that good a one-on-one defender when compared to Sheed

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

                        [QUOTE=Unclebuck][QUOTE=fwpacerfan]
                        As to JO, I have been extremely disappointed in him and I have been critical. My biggest problem with him is his mouth and his mental toughness. He constantly feels the need to make his thoughts known. His comment about Ben Wallace not being able to guard him has proved suicidal - Ben has owned him since then. /QUOTE]

                        Remember when we played NJ in the playoffs and after a big game 1, JO said nobody on the NJ team could guard him..........?? Kenyon Martin guarded him and ripped him up the rest of the series on offense AND defense. I was embarrassed for Jermanine after that. Just shut up and play. Well. Hopefully.
                        Dallas Clark>Tony Gonzalez

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

                          Originally posted by bmac
                          Remember when we played NJ in the playoffs and after a big game 1, JO said nobody on the NJ team could guard him..........?? Kenyon Martin guarded him and ripped him up the rest of the series on offense AND defense.

                          I remember what Jermaine said, and I remember that he didn't do much else in that series after that. But I do not remember it being because KMart suddenly owned him one on one. Can someone else verify this? I'm sure I remember NJ sending doubles at him the rest of the series that were, sadly, very effective. Is my memory failing me here?

                          -Namshub

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

                            Originally posted by NamShub
                            I remember what Jermaine said, and I remember that he didn't do much else in that series after that. But I do not remember it being because KMart suddenly owned him one on one. Can someone else verify this? I'm sure I remember NJ sending doubles at him the rest of the series that were, sadly, very effective. Is my memory failing me here?

                            -Namshub

                            The Nets did change their defense, they doubled at times, certainly shaded their defense towards him a lot more.

                            I really don't care what J.O says. What I mean is the fact that he struggled in the Nets series is enough for me, no matter what he said. it does not make it any worse because of what he said.

                            For those of you that it does bother. Would it be better for him to say, I really have trouble scoring against Kenyon, he is really good.

                            I just don't see how it matters what he says

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: For those questioning J.O., read this, possible surgery

                              In the NJ game it actually was that JO had a good half. Did he make the comments at halftime?

                              I agree with the point I don't care what he says... As long as he backs it up and plays well. Otherwise he looks like a fool. You can't just 'say' stuff, you have to rise to the occassion with your actions as well.

                              -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

                              Working...
                              X