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

Dennis Rodman runs with real bulls, plus other NBA stories.

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

  • Dennis Rodman runs with real bulls, plus other NBA stories.

    http://www.freep.com/sports/pistons/line9e_20050709.htm

    Rodman runs with real bulls
    July 9, 2005

    Dennis Rodman, who used to play for the Bulls, is now running with them.


    The two-time NBA All-Star, who won five championships -- three with the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls and two with the Pistons -- was among those who participated Friday in the annual running of the bulls in Pamplona, Spain.


    Known for his tattoos, piercings and outlandish behavior, the 44-year-old Rodman participated in conjunction with an online casino to raise money for multiple sclerosis research, said his agent, Darren Prince.


    Rodman finished unharmed, Prince said.


    Next year, Rodman wants to complete the run naked on behalf of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, his agent said. Rodman is a spokesman for the animal-rights group.


    The running of the bulls is part of the city's nine-day festival to honor its patron saint, San Fermin. The average run lasts about three minutes.
    ---------------

    Appears Rodman is determined to do something naked. He wanted to strip after his last NBA game. I guess he didn't because he never thought it would be his last game.
    ----------------

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3746160
    Dawkins: Guns have always been a part of NBA
    Charley Rosen / FOXSports.com

    In the past week and a half, two NBA players — Chris Wilcox and Alan Henderson — have been busted for carrying guns.

    This seems to be a continuing problem: the unfortunate case of Jayson Williams; charges that at least one member of Allen Iverson's posse was packing; Dennis Rodman's being nabbed with a rifle in his car and so on.
    What's going on here?

    The easiest rationale is to believe that, since many NBA'ers wear everyday jewelry that's worth more than most civilians earn in a year, and since players have occasionally been mugged, the guns are carried for protection.


    Another off-the-cuff possibility is that guns are so popular because the "successful" males in the hood — pimps, drug dealers, hit men, and the like — were packing. So carrying a gun has become a status symbol.

    But according to Darryl Dawkins, neither of these proposals is valid.

    With the folding of the Pennsylvania Valley Dawgs — the summertime USBL franchise that Dawkins has been coaching so successfully for the past five seasons — Chocolate Thunder has become the best unemployed big man's coach around. Back when he played in the league (1975-89), Dawkins says that about half of the active players all carried guns.

    "Sometimes the situation got to be outrageous," Double-D says. "One time a certain big man was teed off because a certain guard wasn't giving him the ball enough. 'People don't pay to see little guys like you dribbling around in circles,' the big man said. 'They want to see me go to work in the pivot.'"

    "The guard's response was this: 'Well, I've got something for you.' Then he dug into his gym bag, pulled out a piece and stuck it right into the big guy's nose. 'Listen up,' the little guy said. 'I ain't no play dude. I'm a real gangsta. So if you've got anything more to complain about, I'm gonna blow a hole in the middle of your face.' Needless to say, the big man never did get the ball. I've seen this go down on two separate occasions."

    Why, then, is gun-toting so common?

    "Lots of reasons," says Dawkins. "When all of us were kids, there were always guns around. And our mamas used to constantly tell us to stay away from guns. ... Now, with everybody out on their own, with mama somewhere else, and with money to burn, it's only natural to do all the things that we were forbidden to do coming up — owning a gun being one of them."

    As always, Dawkins has his own way of summing up the situation: "All rappers want to be ballplayers, and all ballplayers want to be rappers. And the both of them want to be gangstas."

    Why?

    "Because good girls like bad guys," he said.

    Dawkins also believes that gun-toting is sharply divided along racial lines. "Only the craziest of white players carry guns," he says. "Steve Stipanovich was one of them. Remember him? His playing career ended when he shot himself in the foot back in 1988. What always bothered me was trying to figure out how he was cleaning his gun with the barrel pointing down."

    Dawkins also recalls other white men who were armed: "The trainers. Because on road trips they carried the meal money, the emergency cash and the plane tickets."

    What about the situation these days?

    "Plenty of guys are still packing, but most of them are smart enough to get permits. Mostly they have .22 caliber or .25 caliber pistols. Just enough to sting somebody who gets too close. I mean, I've heard these guys talking. 'If you don't stop bothering me, I'll bust a cap on your butt.' A lot of guys chose to have their boys do the packing."

    But Dawkins is dismayed at how careless some of the players can be. "They don't respect the danger," he says, "or the harm that guns can cause. I see guys in just about every locker room getting dressed after games and their final accessory is the gun that they stick down the front of their pants. They do this so that the handle shows and everybody knows not to mess with them."

    Dawkins, who measures 6-foot-11 and 280 pounds, says that only guards carry guns. "That's because they were smaller than anybody else when they were kids so they always got picked on and bullied by the big guys. Centers, power forwards and some small forwards can get respect without having to rely on a shooting iron."

    David Stern take note. Maybe metal detectors in the locker rooms isn't such a bad idea.


    Charley Rosen, former CBA coach, author of 12 books about hoops, the current one being A pivotal season — How the 1971-72 L.A. Lakers changed the NBA, is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com.
    ---------------------

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../ASSAULT09/TP%

    Fight with NBA players 'ridiculous,' witness says
    By JAMES RUSK

    Saturday, July 9, 2005 Page A12
    The altercation in front of a King Street strip club that led to three NBA players being charged with assault was "a pointless fight" that lasted only a few seconds, according to an exotic dancer who witnessed it.

    Nicole Stone told the trial of Gary Payton, Sam Cassell and Jason Caffey that as she was leaving For Your Eyes Only on the night of April 13, 2003, "some swinging" occurred between the players and Adrian Cimpian, but it was quickly broken up by the club's bouncers.

    After Mr. Cimpian and his girlfriend, Vida Asante, reported the altercation to police, the three players, who were then with the Milwaukee Bucks, were charged with assault causing bodily harm and common assault on two men and two women.

    Mr. Cimpian has said he is planning to sue Mr. Payton, Mr. Cassell and Mr. Caffey after the criminal trial.


    Ms. Stone, 27, testified the three basketball players arrived at the club after midnight and she made $500 (U.S.) dancing for, and being with, Mr. Payton for an hour before the club closed.

    Ms. Stone said that because she had a boyfriend, she had already turned down Mr. Payton when he asked her back to his hotel room.

    As the players were leaving the club, Ms. Stone said, there was a discussion between the players and the dancers about "who was going home with whom."

    She went to change out of her dancing clothes, and when she left the club with Ms. Asante and Mr. Cimpian, the three players were waiting in a cab parked in front of the club.

    The fight started after Mr. Cimpian and Mr. Payton got into a heated argument.

    "The reason why it got out of hand was that something was said," Ms. Stone testified.

    She said she had not expected Mr. Payton to get out of the cab, but after Mr. Cimpian said something to him, he jumped out.

    "I don't know what taunted Payton, but he came out of the car. . . . They were arguing, Adrian and Gary," she said.

    Ms. Stone said she was not paying much attention to the argument but recalled Mr. Cimpian saying, "They aren't going home with you."

    Just as she heard Mr. Payton say "do you know who I am," she turned in their direction just in time to see Mr. Payton take a swing at Mr. Cimpian.

    The club's bouncers stepped in to try to break up the fight, and that was when Mr. Cassell and Mr. Caffey, who had not been involved, got into the melee, Ms. Stone said.

    Ms. Asante "grabbed Adrian to pull him away, but by the it's a swinging match. Everyone's going to get hit," she said.

    Mr. Cimpian was hit by Mr. Payton, and she and Ms. Asante were hit by errant blows. But it was all over quickly, as soon as people realized the bouncers were breaking it up.

    Once it broke up, "everybody went home," she said, verbally underlining each word.

    Ms. Stone's account differed markedly from Mr. Cimpian's.

    He testified the fight lasted for as long as five minutes.

    "The conversation lasted longer than the fight. No way it lasted five minutes," Ms. Stone testified.

    Mr. Cimpian said he was pushed to the ground, and hit and kicked by the players to the point he suffered severe injury, including brain damage.

    Ms. Stone stood in court to demonstrate that he was crouched in a defensive position, with his knees bent, and his fists in front of his face.

    And while Mr. Cimpian said the fight happened 10 to 15 metres from the vehicle, she said it occurred on the strip of sidewalk between the front door of the club and the cab.

    As for the altercation being something that merited charges, Ms. Stone said the idea was absurd.

    "I've blocked this incident out because I didn't think it would come to this. . . . I find this ridiculous."

    The trial resumes Aug. 15.

  • #2
    Re: Dennis Rodman runs with real bulls, plus other NBA stories.

    Here's a blub I found with JO in it.

    Former Denver Rockets star Spencer Haywood is in Las Vegas for a World Series of Poker event today featuring former pros such as Charles Barkley and Rick Barry against current NBA players such as Jermaine O'Neal and Paul Pierce.

    Comment

    Working...
    X