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

should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

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

  • should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

    This is obviously a loaded question, none the less. I was thinking jackson really thrived, ESPECIALLY last year when he played the SF position. Compared to other SG's he is clearly slow. Could it be that Jackson is more of a SF than a SG? I absolutely think he plays like one (sf), but that is just my opinion.

    This team desperately needs a shooting guard and that is painfully obvious. The only way we are getting a GOOD shooting guard is by trading Jermaine or Granger. Those are the only players we have who have any trade value.

    I think if Jackson isn't on a team with other "knuckleheads" or whatever you want to coin guys like Tins and JO, that he can be productive. We all know with a disciplinarian style coach Jackson would be a player we could root for.

    Here's what I am leading up to. Could jackson be the 6th man behind Peja. Then we could make a blockbuster type deal involving JO, Granger, and Tinsley for essentially an all-star caliber SG (other players obviously involved) you name it.

    I know a lot of your jaws are dropping right now. But a package of JO and Granger would interest a LOT of teams. We can get a LOT of talent back there also. We're not getting anything back for Jackson/tinsley guys so that is not gonna happen. Donnie will not trade for garbage.

    I think Milwaukee would be a good trading partner. We get Magloire, Redd (the new NBA demands you have this kind of player for success, a SCORER) and Mo WIlliams, maybe their draft pick. I am just speculating so don't think im proposing this actual trade.

    All of you here want to just trade Jackson and Tinsley, but you have to realize we get nothing for those guys together or as parts of single deals involving each of them.

    Anyways, I think a blockbuster deal like that is what this team needs. I don't think minor changes are going to help us at all.

    I also am deep down an avid stephen jackson fan who is a firm believer that he wants to win more than anyone on our squad since Reggie Miller. I also believe what we have all come to hate about Stephen Jackson can be attributed to coach Carlisle's lack of discipline.

    I think a rotation with Stephen Jackson as the 6th man could be VERY solid. I know a lot of you don't think Jack would accept that role but I do. He'd get starter minutes essentially and he'd be our main scoring option off the bench.

    Anyways, im speculating sure...but hey its the offseason and its slow around here.
    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

  • #2
    Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

    you lost me when you put "trade" and "Granger" in the same sentence...

    I see no reason to trade good things to give a knucklehead a chance.

    Why not just trade the knucklehead?
    Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

      Jax is probably better at small forward. But he won't be a pacer next season so it doesn't really matter

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

        If Jackson is back, I'd be okay with making him the third-string SF between Granger and Peja.

        Maybe if he only got off the bench every fifth game or so it would coincide with his current, "only playing well once every five games or so."

        Or not...
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

          well granger unlike our whole team has trade value. We are team that is in desperate need of a change.

          JACKSON AND TINS FOR OTHER GARBAGE ISN'T GOING TO WORK, REALITY CHECK.
          --- Edited Follow-Up ---
          Jackson has a ring.
          *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

            Jud Buchler has a ring too! So, whats your point?

            As for not getting anything back for Jackson & or Tinsley in a trade..... we get them off our team. To me, at this stage, that is more than enough.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

              Granger is a fresh start. Trading him is stupid.

              Also, I don't attribute knucklehead to JO, I give that to Jackson and Tinsley.

              Where are getting decent deals for Jackson and Tinsley it seems, higher draft picks and all, even though we'd all like more.

              I see it stupid to trade Granger, this kid has what it takes to be a lockdown defender and a very good scorer, basically a Ron Artest type player, that is so far not mental. Trading him and keeping guys like Jackson only hurt the team and the fanbase, IMO.

              Although I will say, I do like Jackson, I like how his ethusaism about the game and winning. But, the bad overplays the good in Jack. He's constantly barking at the refs, not getting back on defense, picking up T's and such. Add the fact he is a very, very inconsistant scorer. Sorry Jackson, I like you as a man, but not really as a player.

              Time to go, IMO.
              --- Edited Follow-Up ---
              Originally posted by Jose Slaughter
              Jud Buchler has a ring too! So, whats your point?

              As for not getting anything back for Jackson & or Tinsley in a trade..... we get them off our team. To me, at this stage, that is more than enough.
              Agree so much. That's how bad it's been at times.
              Super Bowl XLI Champions
              2000 Eastern Conference Champions




              Comment


              • #8
                Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                If Jackson is back, I'd be okay with making him the third-string SF between Granger and Peja.

                Maybe if he only got off the bench every fifth game or so it would coincide with his current, "only playing well once every five games or so."

                Or not...
                Okay, I know we all don't like Jackson here but, third string lol... Remember Jackson was one of our only none injured players last season. If we trade him we need to get someone to fill his shoes. If we just let him go our team is going to be in alot worse shape then we probably relize.

                About the question, I don't know if SF would be a good full time position especially have Peja back maybe he could sub in and out the SG SF position

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

                  Originally posted by Jon Theodore
                  well granger unlike our whole team has trade value. We are team that is in desperate need of a change.

                  JACKSON AND TINS FOR OTHER GARBAGE ISN'T GOING TO WORK, REALITY CHECK.
                  Granger IS the change that the team is in need of.


                  As to Tinsley and Jackson, it doesn't have to be garbage for garbage. Most trades involve equal amounts of perceived value. What makes a beneficial trade possible is that one team perceives more value in a player than the team that is trading him away.

                  In the case of Tinsley, a team that just needs a back-up point guard might value Tinsley, if they believe he can stay healthy working only every 2-3 games or that he'll straigthen up under a different coach. With Jackson, a team might value him more than than the Pacers do, if they believe that he'll behave better there than he has here. Or if they want his 1,200 points and his 288 rebounds and don't care that he's a knucklehead.

                  I'm guessing this is very likely in the case of Jackson, less likely for Tinsley.



                  Re: the original thread question: No!
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

                    Originally posted by Jon Theodore
                    This team desperately needs a shooting guard and that is painfully obvious. The only way we are getting a GOOD shooting guard is by trading Jermaine or Granger. Those are the only players we have who have any trade value.

                    Here's what I am leading up to. Could jackson be the 6th man behind Peja. Then we could make a blockbuster type deal involving JO, Granger, and Tinsley for essentially an all-star caliber SG (other players obviously involved) you name it.

                    I know a lot of your jaws are dropping right now. But a package of JO and Granger would interest a LOT of teams. We can get a LOT of talent back there also. We're not getting anything back for Jackson/tinsley guys so that is not gonna happen. Donnie will not trade for garbage.
                    Trade Granger, eh? LMAO!!!!!!!! LOL! Oh boy...........wow. Wait a minute, are you being serious?
                    LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!! You know what I like about you, Jon, is the way you make me laugh. lol so uh, this is a joke, right?
                    "Remember the pain of my fist. That is my power!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

                      The "trade Granger" notion is out. No way that's gonna happen. There's just too much upside to this kid to let him walk in the hopes that packaging him will bring much in the form of improvement(s). So, my vote is a flat out "NO!!!"

                      As to the point of this thread, I've said plenty of times in the IndyStar forum (aka, INdyBoy39 over there) that Stephen Jackson (Jax2) is more suited to play SF than SG. But if he is to remain at the 2-guard, RC should reconsider the way he is utilized. In other words, don't use him as a shooter because he's too streaky. Instead, let him attack the basket as a "scoring" guard. The only problem here is like Tinsley (TinMan), Jax2 tends to get too caught up in 1-on-1/isolation plays, but as a slasher he's not too bad.

                      Both player and coach will have to re-think their approach to the game before Jax2 could really take advantage of his strengths as a slashing 2-guard. He has the tools. He just needs to unlearn some of the tendencies he has learned over the years. I think if he is able to adjust his game and stop doing some of those things that the fans dislake about his character (i.e., arguing w/refs, taking ill-advised shots, shunning his teammates), he'd be just fine. It's for those reasons Pacers fans want him gone. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if he did make the adjustments and is then embraced more by the fans. It's a long shot, but hey, fans didn't like Reggie when he first came to town either.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

                        JO a knuckle head? Says who? Come on Jon, I know that you don't like him for some silly *** reasons, but to label him a knuckle head in the same vain as Jackson is just over the top.

                        I can see some not liking him for his:
                        -Contract
                        -Style of play
                        -Flamboyant Nature
                        -"preceived" lack of skill

                        None of these merit him being a knuckle head!!!
                        ...Still "flying casual"
                        @roaminggnome74

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

                          I'm not worried about what position SJax plays cause I don't think he's gonna be here. I would say staying at the 2 best fits his game though.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

                            i was actually expecting much more of a reaction out of you guys over this. Im dissappointed.
                            *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: should jackson play SF? (if he stays)

                              Jax can play SG adequately, but he is more effective at SF...at least if he played like a SF and did not try to be the go-to guy from outside. He is much better when he drives to the bucket, rather than when he shoots from outside. He gets fouled often, is solid from the line and is pretty nifty at converting from close range. Defensively, it is a wash.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X