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

The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

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

  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

    Anyone who doesn't defend Stephen Jackson (or any other knucklehead) is a person who "knows better". How hard is that to understand? Anyone who is willing to forgive Jackson's behavior simply because they think it isn't a big deal or that winning is more important has shown me a whole lot about their opinions. That may be the tip of the iceberg, but I can still tell it is an ICEBERG. While having those opinions doesn't tell me EVERYTHING about someone, I feel confident that it tells me enough.....Maybe it's just me...
    Listen to it again...

    "Heywood is a knucklehead and anyone that agrees with me is one of the people that understands things and knows better than to defend him. Having his opinion doesn't tell me everything about him but I feel confident it tells me enough....maybe it's just me."

    First off, it's a totally empty argument. The proof is that it's your opinion and that should be enough. In philosophy this is a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority, in which case you have made yourself the authority no less.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Naptown, you're all over the place.

      What does corporate crime have to do with anything? That people in positions of power have additional responsibilities and when they don't behave responsibly they should be held accountable? Just like ... say ... professional athletes?

      You're trying to smear other people and call them hypocrites but instead you end up proving their point.
      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
        I bought a ticket in the nosebleeds for like 80 bucks or so, a long time ago just in case the Warriors made the playoffs, and I sold it to my Warrior fan buddy for 250 bucks.
        Nice friend you are. if I had a friend who purchased a ticket for $80.00 and he turned around and sold it to me for $250.00 - I wouldn't be his friend much longer

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Nice friend you are. if I had a friend who purchased a ticket for $80.00 and he turned around and sold it to me for $250.00 - I wouldn't be his friend much longer
          I would sell it to my mama for a slice of that bread. All about that dollar bill baby.

          He wanted to go to the game it was either 250 from me or 500 from the ticket scalpers out side Oracle. And everybody that is my friend is very happy that they know me, they would never jeopardize that.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Is it wrong to want players on the team who don't embarass the franchise? When I wear my Pacer's cap in LA I don't want the logo associated with Stephen Jackson's actions. Am I a hater for that?
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
              Naptown, you're all over the place.

              What does corporate crime have to do with anything? That people in positions of power have additional responsibilities and when they don't behave responsibly they should be held accountable? Just like ... say ... professional athletes?

              You're trying to smear other people and call them hypocrites but instead you end up proving their point.

              Agreed.

              Nap, you having a bad day?
              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


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                Is it wrong to want players on the team who don't embarass the franchise? When I wear my Pacer's cap in LA I don't want the logo associated with Stephen Jackson's actions. Am I a hater for that?
                Absolutely not. I want the same thing when I go to Florida and Frisco. Most of the SF residents thing of Oakland as their poor brother so they'll be happy now that Oakland has Jax.
                .

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Golden State scares me more than PHX.
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
                  press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    So Jack was luckier than you when he was 13? I didn't have it all that great myself, but I had it better than that. This kind of "hate the rich" moral pontification really irritates me, it's so narcissitic and self-congratulating. The dude built a school for kids in a poor area of his hometown, did you ever do that?

                    I know plenty of average joe's with regular jobs who go out to bars, get drunk and start fights. Sometimes they get in fights over sports discussions even. In fact many stats trend towards more violent behavior among people with less money, people with regular jobs. You just don't read about them because no one cares.


                    The guy doesn't control his temper enough. And even with that it's only during sports or when other people start fights with him. NO ACCOUNT of Rio or the Palace have Jackson starting it. Did he finish it the right way? No. But getting physical with people that threaten you physically isn't exactly anti-human nature, especially with men.

                    People keep assigning him this long list of non-game emotional outbursts. Which ones are those? Before Rio when was he busted dealing drugs, getting in a bar fight, cheating on his taxes, embezzling city money....

                    Luckily regular job people have ever done those things, and certainly no proper, professional people have.


                    How many times must I repeat Hilbert's name. He's got the #1 best pair of seats to every Pacers game. He's got enough money to buy Jack 10 times over. How'd he finish up at Conseco and who's his wife again? (6th wife btw)


                    Here's one source for that, but it's from the AP feed I believe.
                    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1282536/posts

                    http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2...urts_tomi.html

                    Not a freaking peep is said about this by anyone but me. That makes most of the moral outrage bunch extremely hypocritical.



                    It's not a pro-Jack thing, it's an anti-"I'm so offended, he's so evil" stance. It's disgusting and disingenuine.

                    BTW, if you want morality questions then maybe do a search on LARRY BIRD and his daughter.
                    I left this whole rant quoted for a reason....I don't need to go on a crusade to make everyone believe my point of view. Sometimes it seems that is what you like to do. I'm not saying you don't have the right to say or type what you want; you do ABSOLUTELY.

                    Let's just say that you miss my points on several occasions, and assume too much from what I posted.

                    There are bad and immoral people everywhere, from all walks of life. I was not at all saying that Jackson was luckier than I, or anyone else, at age 13. Notice I said NBA PLAYERS and not 13 year-olds....The lucky part is that they are NOW paid a ton of cash to play a game. Thought that part was pretty clear. Especially when I alluded to the fact that I thought that was the problem; they come from harsh environments and get thrust into opulent living. Sigh.

                    If anyone can't understand how I feel about it, it is too nice of a day to sit here and try to explain it further. Maybe I'll attempt it later, maybe I won't....

                    Oh, and if I had the money Jackson has, I would be building schools all over the place. I can ABSOLUTELY say that my behavior wouldn't be close to that of Jackson or anyone else who can't control their temper or seem to learn how to live within the law. I'm not condemning people who break the law, but they put THEMSELVES in that situation when they do break the law, so I have no sympathy for them either.

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    Listen to it again...

                    "Heywood is a knucklehead and anyone that agrees with me is one of the people that understands things and knows better than to defend him. Having his opinion doesn't tell me everything about him but I feel confident it tells me enough....maybe it's just me."

                    First off, it's a totally empty argument. The proof is that it's your opinion and that should be enough. In philosophy this is a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority, in which case you have made yourself the authority no less.

                    The problem with this argument is you are now comparing ME to Jackson. I am expressing my opinion. One that happens to be held by many other people. Jackson is a knucklehead because of his actions. My actions (and opinions) are NOWHERE NEAR HIS. When you see my name in the police blotter or when you read about me being ejected from my workplace and fined $50,000 for it, then your argument gets a little closer to reality. Right now it is rubbish.



                    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Greetings All,


                      This is just a friendly reminder from your local loving forum admins. that we need to make sure that we ALL (as in everybody) keep the discussion above the belt line. Let's not allow our own feelings to make this thread nose dive into name calling or derogatory posting.

                      This is not aimed at any one poster nor has this thread devolved into something that we feel the need to police, however there have been enough posts to peak our curiosity. So be ashured that every admin. is watching this thread closely.

                      Contrary to popular belief we do not want to control your thoughts or even your ability to express your opinion. We just want to make sure that this doesn't get personal.

                      Keep up the good discussion, I mean hey what else Pacer related do we have to talk about at the moment.

                      If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me or any of the other admins. on here.

                      Thank you all very much for your consideration

                      Love,


                      Peck


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post

                        Thank you all very much for your consideration

                        Love,


                        Peck
                        Closet liberal I see.
                        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


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                          Naptown, you're all over the place.

                          What does corporate crime have to do with anything? That people in positions of power have additional responsibilities and when they don't behave responsibly they should be held accountable? Just like ... say ... professional athletes?

                          You're trying to smear other people and call them hypocrites but instead you end up proving their point.
                          What additional responsibilities do they have? One of the things I've been attempting to point out is that wealthy people, people in the public eye, or people in powerful positions really haven't any more responsibilities than to be respectful human beings like any one at any other level of society.

                          I think, and of course I could be wrong, that Seth's intent, or at least part of it, was to show how many other wealthy or celebrity individuals are also criminals but are not dragged through the mud ad naseum by the general public, a la Jackson.

                          My take is that this is true, although there may be reasons for that, such as a pro athlete or an entertainer is more in the commercial mainstream to begin with. Personally, I think people make too big a deal about Jackson. Yes, certain of his exploits go far beyond what I think the limits for reasonable action should be.

                          On the other hand, the reality is he and people like him (in the genral sense that they don't conform to some more accepted or predominant social standards) exist, have existed, and will continue to exist forever I suspect. And the fact that somebody likes or supports Jackson does not mean they are necessarily public enemy number one without more in depth knowledge of said individual.

                          I don't get either why being rich makes one more responsible, subject to different or higher standards, or supposedly more inherently happy than anyone else. I guess I just don't equate exorbitant wealth with automatic happiness. Again, there are those who may disagree and that is fine.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            This Jack debate is starting to take some weird turns. The comparisons youre making between Jack and CEO criminals and Jack and the average joe blue-collar work are all pretty far stretches and dont do well to prove your point.

                            Lets try to ground it back in reality:

                            Jack is a decent SG who plays with a fire and intensity that some of our players are sorely lacking. However Jack also has plenty of negative aspects: specifically his poor decision making on an off the court and his lack of professionalism that hurt his value as a player, compared to other SG's in the league. In the correct situation with the right coach and with the right role on a team, some of his negatives can be mitigated.

                            However it was CLEAR that the Indiana Pacers were not the situation for Jack, and it was better late than never that he got traded. Indeed he showed some improvement this year, but the damage had already been done. He simply was not going to work out here. Can we all agree on that?

                            I think its time that we stop pretending we had a potential all-star on our team in Jack and if only we would have stopped holding him back, and would have let him play the way he wanted to, the Indiana Pacers would have suddenly been incredibly successful and turned their whole season around, sort of like the Warriors did. That wouldnt have happened, Jack is Jack, hes not some diamond in the rough, what you see is what you get. And the Pacers are the Pacers, and Jack and the Pacers didnt mix.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              D-BONE,

                              Respectfully, I must remind you that people in positions of "celebrity" ARE in fact held to a higher standard.

                              John Rocker, the Dixie Chicks, Tom Cruise, the list goes on. If you are in the "public eye," you face steeper consequences for the things you do and say. One slip-up and you're toast.

                              I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's the way it is.

                              Applied to this situation, Players of a professional basketball team have the name of a state on their chests. Whether they like it or not, they are a representative of the state and carry the responsibility that goes along with it.
                              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Nice friend you are. if I had a friend who purchased a ticket for $80.00 and he turned around and sold it to me for $250.00 - I wouldn't be his friend much longer

                                I'm hoping you wouldn't be dumb enough to spend that much money for a nosebleed seat.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X