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 Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

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

    Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

    Much of the column is about the Knicks but there is some stuff about the Pacers. Keep in mind Vescey is a huge Jamaal Tinsley fan




    http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...ter_vecsey.htm


    CURRY A NEW MEMBER OF THE THOMAS CULT AFFAIR
    By PETER VECSEY


    February 9, 2007 -- ONE sector of the deputy dogs I regularly brainstorm with view Eddy Curry's "I'll be trying to get out of here" (should Isiah Thomas be expunged from the Knicks after this season) pronouncement as just another easily influenced kid being stage-managed by a legendary cult leader.
    "People talk about Pat Riley being a master of manipulation in terms of his players, but he could learn a lot of tricks from Isiah Thomas," says an eyewitness observer to the control he tries to assert throughout an organization.

    Outside its domain, too!

    As the Raptors top basketball executive and as the coach of the Pacers, he coordinated local media blitzes. Friends were asked to call radio talk shows or write letters to editors/on-line/whatever and either condemn negative things circulating about him, or glorify stuff he was doing. Toronto co-workers were ordered to do the same. Indiana management refused to engage in such tawdry tactics.

    In New York, Thomas is the chief operating officer of that daily propaganda game, as well as its director, producer and lead actor.

    So, it's an effortless mental leap to visualize Thomas orchestrating Curry's pledge of allegiance. Especially when I know how easily Jermaine O'Neal was converted to his cult. How hard is it to win the fidelity of the team's biggest, baddest and best player when he's the focal point of the offense and you're constantly stroking him-though privately you're often demeaning his production as "another useless double-double."

    As a result, Thomas had O'Neal's undivided commitment. In fact, Curry duplicated his declaration. I'm told the screenplay will be different.

    Keep in mind, the Pacers' All-Star elect (by the coaches, over Curry, to name one) issued his warning before and after Thomas was fired - following the signing of a maximum ($18.08 million with $63M remaining over the next three seasons) free agent contract.

    That was the summer Thomas kept pushing O'Neal to pressure management to trade Ron Artest, Jamaal Tinsley and Ron Mercer or else he'd sign elsewhere. Considering what's happened and continues to happen to Artest, Thomas' shady scheme evidently had some merit.

    (I fully scaffold Tinsley's version of the latest Indianapolis bar brawl until it's proven otherwise. He tells someone he trusts and someone I trust he didn't throw a single punch. At the same time, for a point guard he's showing dreadful judgment. I got into a skirmish in a Seattle toy store in 1996 and I never went back - to that toy store or that city. You'd think Tinsley would have learned by now to stay out of romper rooms.)

    Further keep in mind, as much devotion and support as O'Neal may have felt he owed Thomas it was Donnie Walsh who acquired him from the Blazers. It was strictly his call; Thomas was unsure about his talent after eyeballing him on a special scouting mission to South Carolina in August, 2000. It was Walsh who placed O'Neal in a position to statistically succeed. It was the CEO/president who set up O'Neal and convinced the Simon brothers to financially reward him beyond reason.

    Curry will have no such conflict of interest tugging at his heart come the end of this season. By giving up last year's first round pick and flip-flopping this season's (Bulls' choice), as well as investing $54M guaranteed over six seasons in an undisciplined, overweight youngster with a butterfly heart, Thomas put his NBA executive career on the line for him.

    No matter what you've read to the contrary, the Bulls thought highly of Curry's offensive power tools. No matter what you've heard, GM John Paxson and coach Scott Skiles wanted him back to complement their wealth of perimeter pea shooters. They wanted him back so badly they were prepared to give Curry $33 million or so even if he failed a physical he refused to take.

    But Thomas took his desire to extreme by forking over those coveted draft picks, assets in all likelihood that were unnecessary to include. There was no competition for Curry's services, thus the Knicks were bidding against themselves.

    Wrong or right, dim-witted or cagey (and it's certainly looking as if the odds have shifted dramatically in you know who's favor) a till-death-do-us-part loyalty has been forged, simple and true.

    OK, say it's not entirely simple or totally true. So we discover at some point in the future the power of Thomas' suggestion put the words in Curry's mouth. Say the 24-year-old student was in some shape, manner or form manipulated by the master.

    You know what? I applaud Curry for championing Thomas' cause, anyway. It shows he understands his rapidly escalating clout and isn't shy about using it to bolster the person responsible for bucking New York's mass protest. It shows he's not afraid to take heat for speaking up for the person responsible for giving him the chance to reconfigure today's perception of a large portion of his game (19.6 points) by those who ragged the whole body of work yesterday.

    "My, how brazen we are after the Knicks string together back-to-back wins for the first time in nearly a month, and just one win away from matching last season's total of 23-skidoo," zaps column castigator Frank Drucker, attempting to cheapen Curry's zeal.

    I disagree. I accept Curry's message as being real. Other than the fact he leads the league in in-bounds (as opposed to rebounds), I appreciate the way his aptitude for passing is expanding and I'm impressed with how he handles himself with just the right mix of modesty and confidence. Nothing he's said or done makes me think he's anything but a good kid who's finally learning what it takes to be a professional ball player.

    And regardless of whether Thomas stays or goes, I'm sure Curry will come to comprehend he didn't sign a personal services contract with his guru, he signed with the Knicks. That's who deserve his ultimate loyalty.



    .
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

    Originally posted by Vecsey
    I fully scaffold Tinsley's version

    Can anyone tell me: What is the meaning of the word "scaffold" in this sentence?
    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

    • #3
      Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

      9. to support by or place on a scaffold.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scaffold



      Vecsey is quite the wordsmith, but's an odd one.
      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

      • #4
        Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

        Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
        Vecsey is quite the wordsmith, but's an odd one.

        PD Award nomination for Contraction of the Year?
        The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
        http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
        RSS Feed
        Subscribe via iTunes

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

          Something happened to the word "that".



          You'll have to excuse me while I go reprimend the quality control department.
          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

          • #6
            Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

            In all honesty, what a better Pacers world it would have been, if DW had listened to Zeke and his protege, JO, and traded Mel Mel the abuser and Ron in that summer of the big bucks for JO.

            Ron and Jamaal would have fetched a fine player, back then too.

            At least Ron Mercer didn't come back. So thanks for small favors.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

              Originally posted by sixthman View Post
              In all honesty, what a better Pacers world it would have been, if DW had listened to Zeke and his protege, JO, and traded Mel Mel the abuser and Ron in that summer of the big bucks for JO.

              You bring up an interesting point.

              Someone within the Pacers organization must really like Tinsley. Most of us don't think Rick does like JT - I personally don't believe DW does likes Jamaal - maybe Bird does likes him - but someone must like him because he's still here.

              I do wonder what trade offers we have received for him over the years - I have to believe (in order to keep my sanity) that no other team wants him and that is why he hasn't been traded.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                You bring up an interesting point.

                Someone within the Pacers organization must really like Tinsley. Most of us don't think Rick does like JT - I personally don't believe DW does likes Jamaal - maybe Bird does likes him - but someone must like him because he's still here.

                I do wonder what trade offers we have received for him over the years - I have to believe (in order to keep my sanity) that no other team wants him and that is why he hasn't been traded.

                If Bird likes him, why the infatuation with Sarunas? Actually... I'd think it's Walsh that likes him. Or maybe he just over-values him and while he's waiting on the stock to go up, Tinsley is sending it down even more. Actually, I don't know how anyone could like him after watching his act a few times.

                -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

                • #9
                  Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

                  I think it's possible they like(d) Tinsley as a good point guard for reasonable salary. Problem is, he's not excellent, and he doesn't have a good attitude, so you can't try out other pieces without a cancer forming within the team.

                  If it's true that JT abuses drugs, is "the real problem" that Reggie referred to (other than Artest), etc., then we just have another example of TPTB not being very discerning when it comes to human character.

                  It wasn't until this last trade that you can see TBTB finally making a move that emphasizes high quality character. Let's see, our past trades . . .

                  Croshere
                  AJ
                  JJ
                  Freddie
                  Al for Jax

                  Jalen for Miller/Artest was probably a wash and Artest for Peja was under duress. So, before that, how far back do we go before we see a trade up regarding character? Been a while.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

                    It was originally Zeke that liked him and gave him the starting spot. But Walsh picked him before Zeke was on board.

                    Carlisle didn't used to like him, but Jamaal has kept out-playing the guys in front of him. I'm with those that thinks Carlisle's trying to make Jamaal into a certain type of point guard, but we'll see.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      It was originally Zeke that liked him and gave him the starting spot. But Walsh picked him before Zeke was on board.
                      Isiah was here the year before we drafted Tinsley. He was very much on board.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                        If it's true that JT abuses drugs, is "the real problem" that Reggie referred to (other than Artest), etc., then we just have another example of TPTB not being very discerning when it comes to human character.

                        It wasn't until this last trade that you can see TBTB finally making a move that emphasizes high quality character. Let's see, our past trades . . .
                        This is not a surprise. They didn't want milk drinkers before. That's what they said. Now, they are trying to clean-up the mess.

                        As for drugs, the NBA supposedly does random testing...what? 4 times a year? The drugs can be detected if taken within a couple months of the test, so it seems it would be impossible for him to be doing drugs unless the whole testing process is corrupt.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

                          Word is Cavs are chasing Mike Bibby. Wonder if they'd want Tinsley, and what we could get from them for him.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Vescey on Isiah, JO, Tinsley.....

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Isiah was here the year before we drafted Tinsley. He was very much on board.
                            Don't know what I was thinking.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...
                            X