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

Articles out of New York -Tuesday - not much here

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

  • Articles out of New York -Tuesday - not much here

    I read several other articles but they were more or less the same as these


    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...orts/62917.htm

    NO MORE KIDD-IN' AROUND
    By PETER VECSEY

    April 25, 2006 -- IF you ask me, Jayson Wil liams might've enjoyed last weekend more than anyone currently associated with the Nets. Only those with a bad sense of smell and a satirical awareness of history would've expected an abdication of their home court advantage faster than former Gov. Jim McGreevey abandoned governing New Jersey.

    Quick . . . someone use the Jaws of Life to pry the ball out of Vince Carter's hands.

    Until laws are enacted to prohibit players from squeezing off 33 rounds in the process of misfiring 21, you'd think someone in a position of power, someone who knows better than to keep throwing good possessions after bad, would summon at least a morsel of unfashionable common sense.

    Paging Lawrence Frank and Jason Kidd.

    Instead, Carter's afternoon malfunction against the Pacers was aided and abetted by a cacophony of co-conspirators.

    To the detriment of the team, Frank curiously continued to order Carter be force-fed. Either that or handle the ball up high on isolations and pick n' rolls.

    To the consternation of all observers, Kidd inexplicably kept running his commanders' sets rather than avoiding them and instead of going more to Richard (6 of 11) Jefferson or Nenad (9 of 15) Krstic.

    To my unmitigated bewilderment, Mark Jackson held only the Nets coach culpable during his ABC postgame, unchallenged analysis. Normally never this far off target, Jackson, a regular Nets TV commentator, indicted "the man in the suit on the sideline" and absolved Kidd of any and all blame.

    How can one of the top ten playmakers in NBA history be so pointedly twisted?

    Put Jackson in Kidd's sneakers; I can just imagine him abiding by the game plan when it clearly wasn't working.

    Yup, he'd be the last quarterback to recognize his team was being blitzed and that an audible needed to be called at the line of scrimmage.

    Nope, can't envision Jackson tuning out an inexperienced coach, can't visualize him demanding Carter relocate to the low docks after three or four botched jumpers in order to find out what kind of mode he was in that day - aggressive or bail out.

    When, exactly, does an accredited floor general stop distributing live ammo to one of his disoriented troops? When he has shot 15 blanks . . . 16 . . . 20?

    Is Jackson telling us Kidd needs Frank's permission before making any alterations? How can that be? I thought the point guard, especially one of the all-time geniuses at the position, is supposed to be the coach's extension cord, with a green light to respond accordingly to what's going on out there.

    It's not as if this would've been the first time in his 12-year career Kidd disobeyed a direct order. It's not as if he hasn't tuned out a coach or two or three. It's not as if he ever has been shy about changing up on the run, or reacting to the rainfall of ricocheting jumpers.

    OK, so Jackson gave Kidd an EZ Pass. Big deal. Don't you hate when people make a big production out of one turn on camera?

    On the other hand, that doesn't mean we're going to let Kidd slide regarding his own wretched (2-for-11) revolver. Or let him get away with his pathetic defense on Anthony Johnson's drive-by in the waning seconds, forcing Krstic to pull his jersey from behind, putting A.J. on the line with nine-tenths of a tick left for two critical free throws.

    Jackson says it shouldn't have been a foul, that the tug on the Pacer's cape didn't disturb the shot, that the players should decide the game, not the refs.

    Nonsense! How can a tug (I don't care how teeny-weenie) while a player is in the act of shooting, not affect a shot that, by the way, went in-and-out, by the way? How can anyone claim it's irrelevant contact? Krstic grabbed Johnson. It was blatant!

    If you've played the game, you know that had to throw Johnson off balance a tinge at the very least. Krstic got caught. Why should the refs ignore it like it didn't happen? It's bad enough that they miss some, like Tim Thomas' nasty smack to Kobe Bryant's forehead (a knot soon appeared) in the final seconds of Game 1 of the Suns-Lakers series.

    Too many basketball fans/coaches/announcers want NBA refs to act like NHL officials and swallow the whistle late in the game. Are there rules against fouling shooters or aren't there rules?

    In any event, there were more than a couple of culprits for the Nets, who endured the ignominy of being the only homeland not to secure Game 1. And despite Jackson's contention, Kidd's performance warranted a slap from Bob Ryan.

    _________________________________________


    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...nets/62907.htm


    KIDD: WE HAVE TO REBOUND TONIGHT
    By FRED KERBER

    April 25, 2006 -- NET NOTES Jason Kidd wants the Nets to run. But you can't run if you don't rebound, so take a wild stab what one area Kidd hopes to see the Nets improve upon tonight in Game 2 of their first-round playoff series against the Pacers.

    "We just need to rebound," said Kidd. "We gave them some second opportunities, some 3-point field goals that they made. So if we can rebound, maybe we have a better opportunity to run and maybe that will loosen everybody up."

    The Nets especially were hurt late by the Pacers' offensive rebounds. In the final 85 seconds, Indiana got second chances three times, on offensive boards by Jeff Foster and Austin Croshere, and one team rebound by a Nets foul. It all led to five points, including the decisive Anthony Johnson free throws at :00.9.

    "We want to limit them to one shot. We felt the two crucial plays were the offensive rebounds late in the game," Kidd said. "If we can do that we can get out and run a little bit more."

    *

    The offense could have been better, veteran Cliff Robinson acknowledges, but he wasn't thrilled with how the Nets played the other way.

    "It was a defensive failure," Robinson said. "Defensively, we made mistakes, we let them penetrate in the paint too much. We didn't take away their strengths consistently. I think we'll play a much better game defensively, just by taking away individual strengths.

    "We have to get them out of their comfort zone. Stevie Jackson was able to get off to a good start just by catching the ball without any pressure on him and getting a wide-open jump shot."

    *

    The Pacers hardly could have been surprised that former teammate Ron Artest was suspended by the league for his forearm antics against Manu Ginobili in the opener of the playoff series between Artest's Kings and Ginobili's Spurs.

    "I'm disappointed," said Indy coach Rick Carlisle. "I want him to do well, even if we don't have him any more. I pull for guys who have helped us win games in the past."

    *

    There will be a reunion of sorts on the TV side tonight. Working the Nets-Pacers for NBA-TV will be Ian Eagle and Bill Raftery, the former Nets broadcast team.


    ________________________________________

    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...nets/62908.htm



    DEFENDING VINCE
    By FRED KERBER

    April 25, 2006 -- Nets coach Lawrence Frank hauled out the war analogies yesterday then launched a counterstrike in defense of Vince Carter.

    Reacting with obvious annoyance at critics of Carter's 33-shot Game 1, Frank went on the offensive stressing that the Nets lost a battle to the Pacers but not the opening-round series war.

    "I read what everyone writes, how he took [33] shots," said Frank, whose Nets seek to even the series tonight in Game 2 at the Meadowlands. "Go back and tell me how many shots he took against the double team, all right? I'll give you the answer. One.

    "So when you criticize a guy's shot selection, because he missed them doesn't necessarily make them bad shots," continued Frank, who stressed, "I take the stuff very personally" when one of his guys gets ripped.

    "Vince is an elite player and we have a great deal of faith and trust [in him]," Frank said. "This guy has helped turn the franchise around."

    So there.

    "To win the war," Frank added in full Patton mode, "sometimes you lose a battle. Winning the war is a series of little battles, we got to find a way to win the war. Let's not just all jump in and say, 'What's up with Vince Carter?' "

    Carter, in Frank's word, got "crushed" after shooting 12-of-33 in the Nets' 90-88 loss to the Pacers on Sunday. Teammates said that Carter has been the focal point of the offense and that's what got them here in the first place.

    "He's our leading scorer. He always takes the majority of the shots. A lot of people that don't watch us a lot throughout the year don't understand that's how we play," said Richard Jefferson, who only took 11 shots, although he seemed to score at will early with drives past Peja Stojakovic. "Whether I get more looks and shots is whether or not we get things in the offense. This is the way we've been playing all year, so no need to question it now."

    Said Jason Kidd: "I thought all [Carter's] shots were pretty good."

    Carter, who declared himself fine after a hard fourth quarter fall that left him with a bruised right wrist and tailbone, shrugged off the hysteria. Carter getting criticized? Wow. Dog bites man.

    "I can care less about scrutiny and all that. If it was a bad game, it was a bad game. Just because of what people say and what people think, they don't dictate my game and how I play," said Carter, who, by Frank's count, had 13 point-blank shots at the rim. "I've been in the playoffs before and I've had bad games in the playoffs before. It's just one of those things."

    So now the Nets are faced with as much of a "must win" game as they've faced in recent memory. But their core group has seen virtually every scenario and panic simply is not a part of the makeup.

    "There is no pressure. for us it is pride and go out and play hard," said Kidd who had his own trouble on offense (2 of 11 from the field) in Game 1.

    For the Pacers, it's a matter of doing what they did in Game 1, with improvements - like reducing 19 turnovers.

    "We have to have the same hungry attitude. They're going to come out with a lot of emotion and energy," said Stephen Jackson. "We played like the underdogs, like we had to have the game. We have to do the same thing."

    fred.kerber@nypost.com

  • #2
    Re: Articles out of New York -Tuesday - not much here

    Peter Vecsey cannot write. What a jumbled mess.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Articles out of New York -Tuesday - not much here

      Originally posted by bulletproof
      Peter Vecsey cannot write. What a jumbled mess.
      True Dat

      Originally posted by Messy
      Quick . . . someone use the Jaws of Life to pry the ball out of Vince Carter's hands.
      This was funny, though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Articles out of New York -Tuesday - not much here

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        Jackson says it shouldn't have been a foul, that the tug on the Pacer's cape didn't disturb the shot, that the players should decide the game, not the refs.

        Nonsense! How can a tug (I don't care how teeny-weenie) while a player is in the act of shooting, not affect a shot that, by the way, went in-and-out, by the way? How can anyone claim it's irrelevant contact? Krstic grabbed Johnson. It was blatant!

        If you've played the game, you know that had to throw Johnson off balance a tinge at the very least. Krstic got caught. Why should the refs ignore it like it didn't happen? It's bad enough that they miss some, like Tim Thomas' nasty smack to Kobe Bryant's forehead (a knot soon appeared) in the final seconds of Game 1 of the Suns-Lakers series.

        Too many basketball fans/coaches/announcers want NBA refs to act like NHL officials and swallow the whistle late in the game. Are there rules against fouling shooters or aren't there rules?
        Absolutely................Now if the NBA could bring itself to call more travel and carrying the ball fouls maybe some of the fan base would return.
        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Articles out of New York -Tuesday - not much here

          Originally posted by bulletproof
          Peter Vecsey cannot write. What a jumbled mess.
          Maybe not but his point is valid. Jason kidd has to have the freedom to make his own decisions.

          Comment

          Working...
          X