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

Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

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

  • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

    Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
    16 points, 8 boards, 6 assists, 2 steals, 1 block... Horrible game by Jack. That no good thug...
    I love how the Jack lovers use this same exact 'thug' sarcasm every single time he has a good game. Noone ever said the guy cant put up decent numbers so youre not proving anything by posting this. And not that I think Jack is a thug but how does having a good game make him not a thug?

    I dont see that connection. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

      Bring it on, Grace.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

        Funny how both the NBA defending champs and the WC defending champs are in danger of being eliminated in the first round this year. This is turning out to be a very good playoffs.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

          Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
          Funny how both the NBA defending champs and the WC defending champs are in danger of being eliminated in the first round this year. This is turning out to be a very good playoffs.
          Yeah, you got to think it makes up for the incredibly boring regular season. I'm already thrilled with the playoffs and it's been like a week.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

            Originally posted by ajbry View Post
            Yeah, you got to think it makes up for the incredibly boring regular season. I'm already thrilled with the playoffs and it's been like a week.
            It just makes me all that more depressed that the Pacers arent in em this year. It also reaffirms my belief that at least trying to make the playoffs was a better decision then purposefully tanking to get a draft pick. The playoffs are just too damn fun to miss.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

              Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
              So everyone of Mavs key players will play at full potential. And they will figure out the Warriors offense. Is Michael Jordan gonna suit up too?

              Actually, I never said anywhere in my post that everyone would play to max potential. But would it really be that surprising for the Mav players to play to their normal abilities? Obviously they have trouble against Golden State, and they'll have to overcome those problems. Besides, I even said that I wouldn't be surprised if Golden State wins... I'm just not ready to proclaim them the 2007 champions yet either.

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                I'm not ready to proclaim either of these teams 2007 champions.

                I don't think Golden State makes it past either Houston or Utah if they DO beat Dallas. Both teams can attack the paint from the post at a high level, and can expose the Warriors in a half-court tempo.

                Dallas just doesn't match up at all with Golden State. It's that simple. Dallas drew the worst possible opponent.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                  Don't forget, SJax's one block was a huge rejection of Nowitski at the rim. He's held Dirk under his season's scoring average all 3 games so far. That SJax is putting up his numbers while being a lock down defender on the league's likely MVP.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                    Jack is making integral contributions to the Warriors playoff (and pre-playoff run up) succes and I am not surprised. Perhaps of most importance is his intensity, which in the right situation sets the tone for the team.

                    I can't say I'm at all surprised by this development. The key differences compared to the situation here is that Jack has a coach that commands respect and knows how to harness and manage him-no easy feat. Secondly, and at least equally important, he's surrounded by a way better talent pool and in a system that I think also encourages players by just letting them play.

                    I hope the Warriors win this series, although I won't be disappointed if they don't . I enjoy watching both these teams style of play. Nellie and Nellie's disciple. Doesn't Nellie talk about Keith Smart in the same vein he talked about Avery when he was his assitant? Hope we have Smart on the head coaching radar.

                    The one thing that frustrates me about the Jackson et al deal-well besides the contract status of some of what we got back-is just the loss of enthusiasm and intensity in the players we sent versus those we received.

                    I'd like Murhphleavy much moreseo despite their contracts and regardless of their skill sets if they weren't so damn soft. Not just physically, but mentally, too. A team that struggles to find focus and intensity. Let's see. Let's just ship of 2 or 3 of our most fierce competitors.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                      Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                      how does having a good game make him not a thug?
                      I dont see that connection. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
                      You got it right. No need to explain anything to you. I would add that how does someone who makes millions a year make him not a thug?

                      There's no question at all IMO that Jack would be an inmate if he did not play basketball. Even though he's a multi-millionaire, the guy wears gang colors and makes the kind of mindless choices that lead to that. Millions like him - most who are not terrible guys - are imprisoned in our justice system. In Jack's opinion, he's just an emotional guy. They all have excuses and explanations just like him.

                      Now, he is part of the reason GS is where they are right now. No way they would be in the playoffs had they not made the trade. Jack fit well with GS's style of play and enhanced a team that already had several talented players in Baron, Ellis and Richardson. Dallas does not matchup well at all with that group of players.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                        Gotta hand it to the Warriors, they have the Mavs confused, dazed and at a complete loss. I've not seen the Mavs play so poorly in consecutive games for quite a while. Warriors are playing very spirited with non-stop hustle.

                        Dirk is having it rough but it's just not him, the entire team are playing like rookies. They're playing very frustrated and out of sync. It's almost like they're mesmerized by the Warrior's tenacity and at other times, you can see the panic in their eyes.

                        However, the last I heard, it still takes 4 wins. Although, the Warriors rightly deserve the accolades now, I still believe the Mavs will get it together ad win the series. Stackhouse and Terry need to accelerate their games and act as if they're in the fight of their lives. All it will take is for the Mavs to drain a few 3's and it's an entirely different ball game.

                        The zebras weren't any worse in this game than most and are not to blame in the least but the style of play, very physical, favored the Warriors, I believe. The next game may be called closer and become a game of finesse, which I believe favors Dallas' style of play.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          You got it right. No need to explain anything to you. I would add that how does someone who makes millions a year make him not a thug?

                          There's no question at all IMO that Jack would be an inmate if he did not play basketball. Even though he's a multi-millionaire, the guy wears gang colors and makes the kind of mindless choices that lead to that. Millions like him - most who are not terrible guys - are imprisoned in our justice system. In Jack's opinion, he's just an emotional guy. They all have excuses and explanations just like him.

                          Now, he is part of the reason GS is where they are right now. No way they would be in the playoffs had they not made the trade. Jack fit well with GS's style of play and enhanced a team that already had several talented players in Baron, Ellis and Richardson. Dallas does not matchup well at all with that group of players.
                          I just prefer not to enlist the term thug because it's quite problematic from a semantic standpoint. Kind of like the oft referenced "one's man freedom fighter is another's terrorist". Equating Jackson to a criminal has some validity given his legal situation and others can choose to agree or disagree on that.

                          However, can you please explain the logic behind the bolded parts in your post or otherwise elaborate on what you mean. What I can get from it is:

                          -Being involved with or in a gang and being a multi-millionaire either is or should be mutually exclusive

                          -Those incarcerated for gang membership or gang related activies or crimes "aren't terrible guys" but they are dumb and "all" have excuses or explanations.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                            Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                            It just makes me all that more depressed that the Pacers arent in em this year. It also reaffirms my belief that at least trying to make the playoffs was a better decision then purposefully tanking to get a draft pick. The playoffs are just too damn fun to miss.
                            Not when you're the Magic.


                            And the Pacers are worse than the Magic.


                            I'm not thrilled about a team stinking an entire year and then failing at a desperate, final-week push at the 8th seed in a weak Eastern Conference. Ever. You got your wish, they tried for the playoffs and failed as pretty much anyone could have guessed. The full consequences of finishing between failure and failure with a bonus (draft pick) will reveal themselves this offseason.

                            Dallas just doesn't match up at all with Golden State. It's that simple. Dallas drew the worst possible opponent.
                            True indeed.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                              I just prefer not to enlist the term thug because it's quite problematic from a semantic standpoint. Kind of like the oft referenced "one's man freedom fighter is another's terrorist". Equating Jackson to a criminal has some validity given his legal situation and others can choose to agree or disagree on that.

                              However, can you please explain the logic behind the bolded parts in your post or otherwise elaborate on what you mean. What I can get from it is:

                              -Being involved with or in a gang and being a multi-millionaire either is or should be mutually exclusive

                              -Those incarcerated for gang membership or gang related activies or crimes "aren't terrible guys" but they are dumb and "all" have excuses or explanations.
                              Let me clarify.

                              First, the category of Multi-millionaire is NOT mutually exclusive with Thug. Jackson is proof of that. I can see how you interpreted the "Even though" portion of my statement as stating otherwise. As for the term "thug", if the shoe fits wear it. You are free to be politically correct. I refuse to deny reality. I consider a person who blows himself up in a marketplace to be a "terrorist" killing innocent people. There is simply no excuse for it. That's a far cry from what a common "thug" does, but the term "thug" still has a definite meaning. Jack fits that description. He wears gang colors and commits criminal acts. Not a terrible guy...certainly no terrorist, but if the thug shoe fits...

                              Second, not ALL people in prison are terrible guys. In fact, a small percentage are completely innocent. However, the vast majority have made the wrong choices in life. That's the analogy with Jack. He makes wrong choices along the lines of those who become incarcerated. He acts without thinking and calls it emotion. That part of his character is consistent with many people who find themselves behind bars. They act out on their emotions and do stupid things that get themselves in trouble because they lack self control.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2007 Playoffs Thread

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Let me clarify.

                                First, the category of Multi-millionaire is NOT mutually exclusive with Thug. Jackson is proof of that. I can see how you interpreted the "Even though" portion of my statement as stating otherwise. As for the term "thug", if the shoe fits wear it. You are free to be politically correct. I refuse to deny reality. I consider a person who blows himself up in a marketplace to be a "terrorist" killing innocent people. There is simply no excuse for it. That's a far cry from what a common "thug" does, but the term "thug" still has a definite meaning. Jack fits that description. He wears gang colors and commits criminal acts. Not a terrible guy...certainly no terrorist, but if the thug shoe fits...

                                Second, not ALL people in prison are terrible guys. In fact, a small percentage are completely innocent. However, the vast majority have made the wrong choices in life. That's the analogy with Jack. He makes wrong choices along the lines of those who become incarcerated. He acts without thinking and calls it emotion. That part of his character is consistent with many people who find themselves behind bars. They act out on their emotions and do stupid things that get themselves in trouble because they lack self control.
                                Much clearer and I completely understand your thinking, particularly in the second part. I always find the multi-millionaire part (not only in your post) kind of difficult. Perhaps it's because I tend to discuss moreso in the areas of professional sports, but it seems like there's always more frequent amazement or outrage about multi-millionaire "thugs" as opposed to other types of multi-millionaire criminals.

                                Not stating you or others are giving those guys a pass either. Ultimately people making any amount of money are no less responsible for their actions than any others I suppose. Thanks for the clarification!
                                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                                -Emiliano Zapata

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X