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

Vescey: on Artest, Peja and Bender

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

    Vescey: on Artest, Peja and Bender

    Vescey obviously wrote this before learning of Artest's trade "demand"



    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/pfriendly_new.php


    TNT FEEDS BARKLEY
    By PETER VECSEY

    HOOP DU JOUR WHEN Charles Barkley — whose weekly substance abuse for TNT is comically commended by many men of the couch — is spoon-fed an item that actually might be newsworthy, it's prudent to pay attention.

    Several nights ago, Sir Charlatan claimed the Pacers and Kings had revived trade discussions involving Ron Artest and Peja Stojakovic. Despite Larry Bird's stated fascination with Indiana's compulsive competitor, I've got to believe there's something to it.

    For one thing, CEO Donnie Walsh always has coveted the Sacramento sharpshooter.

    Number two, without Artest (sprained right wrist) the Pacers' offense conspicuously opened up in the final three quarters of Wednesday's dominant win over the Wizards.

    Thirdly, the unbalanced Kings (7-12 going into last night's game in Seattle) need to shake things up. Either Geoff Petrie must fire his best friend, Rick Adelman (I've heard he's asked the Raptors permission to talk to Gene Keady; I'm lying), or he must import a demonic defensive player who derives equal enjoyment from punishing people on offense.

    Not that Peja doesn't have other suitors; the Heat, his first choice (he owns a South Beach condo and fantasizes about finishing his career living off the open looks Shaq would create) surely have made a bid, and that goes for the Bulls, as well. But, as far as I can tell, they can't come up with such a savage.

    Lastly, TNT's junk journalist wouldn't know fact from fiction if Larry Brown diagrammed the difference on Barkley's drive-in movie-screen forehead.

    Therefore, he really has to trust the person who put him up to it. I'm talking colleague Reggie Miller. He's the only one at the network privy to such classified material. Of course, as the former prince of all Pacers, he wouldn't dare break the news on his own.

    Is there a Peja-Artest offer on the table at this time?

    "No," I'm informed. Nor is it currently being considered.

    Have there been conversations along that line?

    My source could not tell me that. Not wouldn't, but couldn't. He said he simply did not know. At the same time, he volunteered that the team definitely is entertaining subtractions and additions, because numerous players are unhappy about playing time — Fred Jones, Anthony Johnson (when Jamaal Tinsley's healthy) and David Harrison, who was fined for breaking a glass picture frame of himself near the locker room.

    I'm taking that long-winded answer as a "yes."

    One more Pacer note: Jonathan Bender will announce his retirement within the next 48 hours due to unbearable problems with both knees. By all accounts, the exceptionally likable Bender may have been the best practice player in NBA history, but bone-on-bone pain was too much to endure.

    Forget about going two games in a row, Bender couldn't play back-to-back quarters.

    *


    John Paxson was asked for his fondest memory of Scottie Pippen, whose No. 33 jersey was retired Friday when Phil Jackson's inflamed 10-9 Lakers liquidated the Ben Gordon-less Bulls. His response was identical to mine when I posed the same question to myself the entire year after Michael Jordan retired.

    "Everybody thought we would fall apart as a team [in 1993-94], and Scottie literally carried us to 55 wins and had a season in which he easily could have been the MVP," the Bulls GM submitted.

    Pippen established career highs in average points (22) and rebounds (8.7) and added 5.6 assists, four-tenths above his 17-year mark. I actually rooted out loud on NBC for the Bulls because their success minus His Airness was such an inspirational story line.

    "We started out something like 4-10 (4-7, in fact, then took 14 of 15) and won 55," Paxson recollects. "As you know, we lost to the Knicks in the conference semis on the infamous Hue Hollins call. Had we won that Game 5 in New York, we were going home to clinch and would have. Then we would've been one series away from the Finals . . . the year after the greatest player in the game left. Scottie was phenomenal that season."

    For some odd reason (a sure sign of senility, I'm afraid), I can't recall how awful Hollins' call was that send Hubert Davis to the line. However, I acutely recall Pompous Pilate, er, Darrell Garretson, supervisor of officials/observer that afternoon, standing in back of the scorer's table afterward, muttering to the free world how the call never should've been made.

    The Bulls led 86-85 when Hollins felt the urge to whet his whistle with 2.1 seconds remaining on the game clock. Davis misfired from the top of the key, and I'm told by a still-active ref there was plenty of daylight between him and his defender.

    Davis cashed both welfare checks for the victory and the Knicks went on to beat the Pacers, only to lose to the Rockets in the Finals after being up 3-2 going back to Houston.

    Of course, that also was the season/series Pippen became professional sports' poster boy for self-absorption. With 1.8 seconds left in Game 3, he had a spit fit when Jackson set up a shot for Toni Kukoc and Scottie refused to play along. Rather than in-bound on the play The Incredible Sulk morphed into Sitting Bull while Kukoc flushed the 104-102 game-winner.

    I might've been the only national voice to sympathize with Pippen trippin' out. I still believe Jackson should've allowed No. 33 to settle matters. I'm still convinced Pippen earned the right to win the game and so does Scottie, unapologetic to this day.

    Pippen returned my allegiance by almost always making himself unavailable for comment after practices and games throughout the team's second trio of titles. Imitating Jordan's big-time attitude, he made himself as scarce as the league allows, breaking countless promises to participate in a feature interview.

    In light of my tendency to carry grudges into the Hereafter, Scottie Pippen will always be a hoople.

    *


    Like John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and 9/11, nobody ever forgets where they were when heard John Lennon was shot and killed.

    Twenty-five years ago last Thursday, I was playing full court with Dave Cowens in some high school gym outside Boston. Sport Magazine had assigned me to check out how he was handling retirement, his first prolonged one — on impulse he'd quit for six weeks or so during the '76-77 season to drive a cab.

    Upon retuning to Cowens' home later that night, my wife called to alert us of Lennon's death.

    peter.vecsey@nypost.com
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Vescey: on Artest, Peja and Bender

    "One more Pacer note: Jonathan Bender will announce his retirement within the next 48 hours due to unbearable problems with both knees. By all accounts, the exceptionally likable Bender may have been the best practice player in NBA history, but bone-on-bone pain was too much to endure."

    Finally. I liked Jon,but it's time to get somethings resolved NOW.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Vescey: on Artest, Peja and Bender

      [grassy knoll]So the info was leaked intentionally, either to brace the fanbase for what was coming or else to signal the rest of the league we're taking offers for Artest[/grassy knoll]

      Or was Reggie just being a good TV soldier and giving his buddy a scoop?

      -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

      • #4
        Re: Vescey: on Artest, Peja and Bender

        because numerous players are unhappy about playing time — Fred Jones, Anthony Johnson (when Jamaal Tinsley's healthy) and David Harrison, who was fined for breaking a glass picture frame of himself near the locker room.
        Ahh , Has this been overlooked? ......

        Why Not Us ?

        Comment

        Previous template Next
        Working...
        X