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

Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

    Dear Larry Bird,

    Thank you for all the Pacers memories you're given us over the years. We look forward to many more memories in the future.

    As you may know, there's a rumor that you're going to hire Mark Jackson to coach the Pacers. https://twitter.com/vgoodshill/statu...860385280?s=09
    If there's any truth to this, please consider the following reports about Jackson's character. The evidence leads me to believe that he's a fake, manipulative, deceitful person.

    Warriors' Owner: Mark Jackson Couldn't Get Along With Anyone

    "Part of it was that he couldn't get along with anybody else in the organization," Lacob said. "And look, he did a great job, and I'll always compliment him in many respects, but you can't have 200 people in the organization not like you." http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/12/...sons-joe-lacob

    Mark Jackson Created False Enemies: Players vs. Mgmt.

    "...Mark Jackson turned out to be a metaphorical cancer, creating his own devils within the Warriors organization as he fought to rally his players around him. This is according to non-management sources from within the Warriors locker room (as recently as Saturday’s Game 7 season finale in Los Angeles) who expressed a desire to tell “the real story” behind Jackson’s dismissal. This is their account...

    Jackson, in conjunction with Lindsey Hunter and Pete Myers, worked to create false enemies within the Warriors organization as a means to motivate his players and provide built-in excuses if he failed. Well, he failed. And today’s media tour has been a convenient outlet for his built-in excuses.

    When hired, Jackson claimed he was creating a new culture; that “things be changin’ in the Bay Area.” However, outside of his inner circle, he was creating a culture of fear. Warriors staff members were afraid to speak with Jackson, who had proven over and over that he would be friendly to your face and rip you behind your back. If you weren’t in his inner circle, you were the enemy. And he made sure the players got that message.

    He worked to convince players that he was the only one who believed in them. He created an “us against the world” mentality...

    But it became obvious over time that it was all about Jackson and his belief in the players. The “us” became Jackson and his players and the “them” was everyone else – including Warriors management and some of his coaches. Some players began to realize that it was unrealistic that those outside of Jackson’s inner circle would not want them to succeed. Would the organization really want players to fail just so they could fire Jackson? That was the message players were receiving. It didn’t make sense.

    When management became aware of this problem, Jackson increased his efforts and created a full-blown campaign to discredit them amongst the players. His inner-circle spent so much time on this smear campaign, they spent less time making the team better...

    Some of the players began to see through Jackson’s false bravado. The team was winning, but how much could be attributed to Jackson’s motivational tactics versus the fact that this was a talented group of players who were overcoming the coaching staff’s lack of preparation and game planning. Some players began to lose faith in their leader.

    Near the end of the season, this negativity was hard to ignore. Everyone involved behind closed doors could feel the awkward culture that Jackson had created. Players were distracted by Jackson’s “us against them” beef with management. It was creating division within the organization and impacted their play on the court. How could it not?

    This new information makes it hard to discredit stories about Mark Jackson creating a coup in the locker room against John Stockton late in his career with the Utah Jazz.

    He has a history of this behavior. It is who he is – create devils as a means to make others bend to your will and provide built-in reasons for things going wrong..."
    http://www.warriorsworld.net/2014/05...-mark-jackson/

    Coach Jerry Sloan Wanted to Retire to Escape Mark Jackson

    "...In April, the first reports of friction in the Jazz locker room leaked out, with Sports Illustrated’s Ian Thomsen writing:

    [Stockton] may be getting a push out the door by his new backup this season and the No. 2 man on the career assist list, 38-year-old Mark Jackson. Three members of the Jazz organization now understand why Jackson has been traded seven times in his 16-year career: They say that over a period of weeks, he succeeded in turning several teammates against Stockton by repeatedly remarking that those players would be better off if Jackson were the Jazz’s floor leader...

    Sloan reached a breaking point in mid-January, when he lost his temper over the divisiveness on his team and stormed out of the gym during practice. He was threatening to retire then and there, only to be dissuaded at an emergency meeting called by team owner Larry Miller, president Dennis Haslam, general manager Kevin O’Connor and Sloan’s wife, Bobbye. “That had the real potential of Jerry saying, ‘To heck with it,’ and walking away,” says Miller...

    In 2003 the rumors of the “divide” were that Jackson politicked with several Jazz bench-warmers that they deserved more minutes and that the team needed to run more (with Jackson claiming to be better suited to play that style than Stockton) while Malone, Ostertag, and Harpring backed Sloan (and Stock).

    Thomsen’s reports and these whispers were corroborated by Salt Lake Tribune columnist Steve Luhm..."
    https://jazzbasketball.wordpress.com...ohn-stocktons/

    Mark Jackson Lied to Warriors That Festus Ezeli Was Cheering Against Them

    "Jackson had some interesting tactics when he was the head coach and didn’t get along with the front office and some assistant coaches. That’s actually a big reason why Jackson was let go, but there was other incidents that could have led to his departure as well. According to Zach Lowe of ESPN, Jackson lied to the players about Festus Ezeli rooting against them: When Ezeli was injured last season, Jackson and his staff told the healthy players that Ezeli was cheering against them — so that he would look good, according to several team sources. Players confronted Ezeli in a meeting, and he wept at the accusation — which he denied." http://www.warriorsworld.net/2015/06...-festus-ezeli/

    Mark Jackson Extorted for Adultery With Stripper

    "...Mark Jackson is a licensed minister who has been married to a gospel singer who is now his fellow pastor since 1990. In June of 2012, the then 47-year old Mark Jackson made headlines as victim of an extortion plot that revealed he had an extramarital affair with a 28-year old stripper in 2006. Jackson initially paid off the victim and her co-conpsiritor with $5,000 and Warriors tickets before eventually going to the FBI as the monetary demands continued..." https://jazzbasketball.wordpress.com...ohn-stocktons/
    Last edited by Greg; 05-03-2016, 05:56 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

    Mark Jackson aside: this illustrates what I've noticed from many people I know for the longest time. They claim be religious and go to Church, but they totally ignore everything taught there as soon as they walk out the doors. I know Church goers who are some of the most manipulative back stabbers you can imagine. Can't just show up to Church once a week and sign your ticket to Heaven. Rant over....back to Mark Jackson.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

      Plus there was the whole commentary about gay players in the locker room


      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

        Luckily I think there's less than a 0% chance Larry would hire Mark Jackson anyway, hell as coach Larry didn't play Mark at the end of games...I don't think the relationship would be all that strong anyway.
        "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

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

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

          Its sickening that this is even a possibility...
          Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

            You left out the part where Jackson's close confidante at the church he preaches at turned out to be a drug kingpin. Of course Jackson denied they were even friends after the guy was caught.

            Or when Steph Curry left him completely out of his MVP speech last year, as he'll do again this year.

            Or when he barred Jerry West from coming to practices because West had concerns and suggestions about how the offense was being run.

            Or a whole laundry list of other stuff that is literally too long to list.

            Or the fact that everything listed so far hasn't even mentioned the fact that he's a terrible basketball coach.

            The man is a fraud of a coach and a fraud of a human being.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

              Pretty sure the Mark Jackson thing is a false rumor.

              I mean it better be a false rumor

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

                Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
                Its sickening that this is even a possibility...
                Wait...why is this even a possibility?

                Possibility cuz we are open to any new HC ( one of which could be Mark Jackson....just like George Karl or any other Coach could be an option )cuz of what could happen with the fate of Vogel as our Head Coach?

                or

                A possibility cuz there is a rumor that Mark Jackson is a possible candidate the Bird/Simon are considering?

                Can someone post the Tweet/Rumor if Mark Jackson is part of some rumor mill of Coaching options?
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

                  All those things may be true. But he's really good at saying, "hand down, man down."
                  You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    Wait...why is this even a possibility?

                    Possibility cuz we are open to any new HC ( one of which could be Mark Jackson....just like George Karl or any other Coach could be an option )cuz of what could happen with the fate of Vogel as our Head Coach?

                    or

                    A possibility cuz there is a rumor that Mark Jackson is a possible candidate the Bird/Simon are considering?

                    Can someone post the Tweet/Rumor if Mark Jackson is part of some rumor mill of Coaching options?
                    Its a possibility only because we haven't locked up Vogel for next year. And Jacksons name is sure to be on the short list if it really comes to the point where we are looking for a HC.
                    Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

                      If Jackson (or another coaching prospect for that matter) is really that
                      bad of a F-up, between Larry, Donnie, and Kevin, they are well enough
                      connected that they would almost certainly already have pretty good
                      knowledge about it.

                      It would appear from reports that Jackson has rubbed a few people the
                      wrong way, but if you think that further besmirching his character in an
                      effort to "educate" our front office is really neccessary, then you must
                      not have much faith in their ability to make informed decisions.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

                        Presto123, sadly you're right. I've been a born again, Bible believing Christian for 37 years. Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that hypocrites are NOT Christians. That's why I'm calling Jackson a fake Christian and fake person.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

                          Sorry, I forgot to document the rumor source for Jackson's hiring. I got this from another PD thread: https://twitter.com/vgoodshill/statu...860385280?s=09

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

                            Originally posted by Greg View Post
                            Sorry, I forgot to document the rumor source for Jackson's hiring. I got this from another PD thread: https://twitter.com/vgoodshill/statu...860385280?s=09
                            If you read later in the thread, you can see where it's a fake account.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Open Letter to Larry Bird: Mark Jackson's Fake, Manipulative, and Deceitful Character

                              Originally posted by Greg View Post
                              Presto123, sadly you're right. I've been a born again, Bible believing Christian for 37 years. Jesus and the apostles clearly taught that hypocrites are NOT Christians. That's why I'm calling Jackson a fake Christian and fake person.
                              That's a bit extreme. Christians mess up. Make mistakes. You can just say Mark Jackson has some character problems and has some glaring episodes of hypocrisy.

                              I wouldn't want him as a coach, and I'm not happy with how he represented Christ in those situations. But let's not indict his entire faith.
                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X