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

    He didn't really say what the fan said but you certainly can read between the lines as to what he meant. This has no place in basketball or any other walk of life including rap music. Just my two cents.
    .

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      The Warriors crowd is AMAZING

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        So, was the fan black? (If anyone here thinks that doesn't matter, you obviously don't live where I live.)

        If so, was it condescending use or something else?

        1. It was Utah
        1. Jackson told the press that someone called him that word (which is not a six letter term when spoken as slang among african americans fyi)

        1 + 1 = 2. The fan was white.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
          Btw, why is it the Golden State Warriors rather than the Oakland Warriors?
          Um, they're playing the UTAH Jazz you know.

          Obviously they want to appeal to the affluent San Fran crowd too, heck the whole Bay area for that matter. Same reason as Indiana and Utah.

          Then you have that whole New England Patriots thing.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Shade. Jack got boo'd BEFORE RIO.

            Artest after the brawl - CHEERED MORE THAN ANYONE at Fan Jam and early in the season.

            Okay, so out the door goes any "it was his brawl actions". And out goes Rio since it happened before then.

            So what was the problem? He got too many techs? That's what passes for thug in Indianapolis? So anyone that gets upset with me over this issue is now a thug too?

            Being mad doesn't make you a thug, especially during a basketball game. AJBRY posted the YouTube clip of Dunleavy having a full-on meltdown on a ref himself, worse than Jack's display in Dallas, more physically confrontational.


            If everyone was behind Jack LAST SEASON and then on a dime turned after Rio then okay, I could see. Still a quick trigger on a player that hasn't yet been found guilty of either starting the trouble or harming someone else during the incident. But okay, perception changed.

            But it was going on 6 months before that on a TUE night because Jackson went 1-6 from 3 and turned the ball over 4 times. That's the new definition of "thug" around town.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
              1. It was Utah
              1. Jackson told the press that someone called him that word (which is not a six letter term when spoken as slang among african americans fyi)

              1 + 1 = 2. The fan was white.
              I'm asking if anyone knows for certain. I'm not asking to hear your stereotypes and erroneous conclusions.

              There are black people in Utah. Just like there are black people in Indiana despite the fact that my next door neighbor doesn't believe it for one minute. According to him, only white farmers live in Indiana.

              N**** is the same word as n*****. Spelling it phonetically doesn't change it's meaning. Dawg is the same as dog.

              My original point is that who says it and with what tone it was said would have a tremendous impact on our understanding of what happened.
              “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 3rdStrike View Post
                1. It was Utah
                1. Jackson told the press that someone called him that word (which is not a six letter term when spoken as slang among african americans fyi)

                1 + 1 = 2. The fan was white.
                One broad stroke as far as the ethnicity makeup of a city.
                .

                Comment


                • IndyStar} Happy Jack

                  May 12, 2007


                  Happy Jack

                  Fresh start and more freedom on the court bring smiles for player Pacers fans


                  By Mark Montieth
                  mark.montieth@indystar.com
                  May 12, 2007


                  It's just a joke, but one that indicates Stephen Jackson's new golden state of mind.

                  As he takes to the court during introductions of the starting lineup, he stops and places his hands behind his head. Teammate Matt Barnes frisks him and then sends him on his way.

                  It's a lighthearted reference to the legal issues Jackson still faces in Indianapolis for his role in a fight outside a Westside strip club last October.
                  That incident, stacked on top of his 30-game suspension for rushing into the stands to assist teammate Ron Artest two seasons earlier and repeated gripes against officiating and coach Rick Carlisle the previous season, turned public sentiment against him and planted the seed for the eight-player midseason trade between the Indiana Pacers and Golden State Warriors.
                  That trade helped boost the Warriors into the playoffs for the first time since 1994 and allowed Jackson a fresh start. His legally unresolved incident that caused him to be vilified in Indiana -- he has a court date here on June 21 -- can be viewed with a sense of humor in Oakland.

                  He also has found a style of play more suited to his skills and a coach in Don Nelson who has lifted his confidence and applied firm discipline.

                  Jackson, a key contributor on San Antonio's 2003 championship team, has been instrumental in Golden State's postseason success, although his play hasn't been without flaws. He is averaging 21.4 points in eight games while hitting 40 percent of his 3-pointers, and has played some stellar defense. He is shooting just 41 percent overall, however, averages more turnovers (3.6) than assists (3.4) and was ejected from two games in the first-round series with Dallas -- each of which brought an immediate fine from Nelson.

                  The Warriors trailed Utah 2-0 entering Friday night's late home game. Regardless of their current challenges, however, Jackson is feeling like the name that greets callers who leave messages on his cell phone: Ecstatic Jack.
                  "He loves the style of play, he loves coach Nelly, he loves this team,"

                  Jackson's mother, Judyette, said. "They're glued together. They get together and watch games, watch the fights, they do everything together.
                  "He loves being in Oakland, he loves the weather, everything."

                  Those words carry some sting for Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh, who has always taken pride in creating an environment that enabled most players to have the best years of their career in Indianapolis.

                  To see Jackson, as well as Al Harrington, having a better experience in Golden State brings its frustrations, but Walsh still believes he had no choice but to make the mega-deal.

                  "I can't think of anybody who spoke to me who didn't say, 'Trade him,' " Walsh said. "But beyond that, and more importantly, when I went to the games, I saw he was getting booed. It was like the whole town was down on him. I thought it affected him and it affected us. I thought it would be better if we just ended it."

                  Walsh doesn't pass judgment on the public reaction to Jackson's misadventures. He acknowledges Jackson's emotional nature and mistakes. He is disappointed, however, by the rush to declare Jackson guilty before the legal system decides.

                  He also was surprised by the amount of booing at Conseco Fieldhouse, the first time he had witnessed that for a Pacers player in his 23 years with the franchise.

                  "I did feel people were convicting this fellow before anything happened," Walsh said. "I felt like no matter what we said, that didn't seem to change the situation. He was being held in the worst possible light. (The players at the strip club) were trying to get out of a situation, trying to leave, and it was forced on them.

                  "But what happened, happened."

                  And what's done is done. The Pacers are regrouping, searching for a new coach and looking for roster moves that will enable them to get back into the playoffs after missing for the first time in 10 years.

                  Jackson, meanwhile, is thriving with the Warriors, enjoying life with a clean slate.

                  "How can you judge somebody because of their past?" his mother wondered. "I'm just happy that God doesn't do it to us. Man does, but God doesn't."

                  Jackson's impact

                  Stephen Jackson arrived in Indianapolis with a reputation as a clutch playoff performer. He's living up to that with Golden State. Here is a look at his playoff resume:

                  Year Team G PPG FG% RPG APG
                  2002-03 Spurs 24 12.8 41.4 4.1 2.7
                  2004-05 Pacers 13 16.1 39.3 3.8 2.2
                  2005-06 Pacers 6 13.3 36.6 4.5 3.3
                  2006-07 Warriors 8 21.4 40.8 3.9 3.4
                  ...Still "flying casual"
                  @roaminggnome74

                  Comment


                  • Re: IndyStar} Happy Jack

                    Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                    "How can you judge somebody because of their past?" his mother wondered. "I'm just happy that God doesn't do it to us. Man does, but God doesn't."

                    I realize Moms are supposed to defend their sons and yes mothers day is tomorrow, but I was taken aback by this comment.

                    The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. So, I'm sorry, but people are judged by their past - everyone is, everyday, all the time and in every walk of life. (I won't get into a discussion about God here)

                    OK, I'm going to make a huge assumption here, but if Stephen's mother raised him with the motto, "how can you judge someone because of their past", then I'm starting to understand Stephen a little better - his mom obviously didn't raise Jax to understand that past behavior has consequences.

                    Comment


                    • Re: IndyStar} Happy Jack

                      I wasn't thinking when I created a new thread for this article. I should have placed it in the Stephen Jackson thread.

                      Any mods want to help me out?
                      ...Still "flying casual"
                      @roaminggnome74

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                        1. It was Utah
                        1. Jackson told the press that someone called him that word (which is not a six letter term when spoken as slang among african americans fyi)

                        1 + 1 = 2. The fan was white.
                        Also, the work "cracka" is actually a 7 letter word when spoken among my fellow French Americans. It is a term of endearment when spoken by a certain race, only.
                        .

                        Comment


                        • Re: IndyStar} Happy Jack

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I realize Moms are supposed to defend their sons and yes mothers day is tomorrow, but I was taken aback by this comment.

                          The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. So, I'm sorry, but people are judged by their past - everyone is, everyday, all the time and in every walk of life. (I won't get into a discussion about God here)

                          OK, I'm going to make a huge assumption here, but if Stephen's mother raised him with the motto, "how can you judge someone because of their past", then I'm starting to understand Stephen a little better - his mom obviously didn't raise Jax to understand that past behavior has consequences.
                          That's all basically what I was going to post. No accountability. Not that she has to feel he SHOULD have any for the things some of disagree with during his stay in Indiana, but I'm speaking generally that paints a picture where what you did yesterday is irrelevant. I can understand and agree with that... to a degree, but personally, there's a point where that doesn't and can't work. If my kid said a cuss word in school, sure, move on. If he brought a gun to school and shot it at the sky outside the door..... no. I'm not trying to compare that to Jackson, I am simply presenting a hypothetical example of what would and would not fit under my personal "let's please move on" policy.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            I don't think it's absurd to suggest that Jackson would only mention it if a white fan said it.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                              So, was the fan black? (If anyone here thinks that doesn't matter, you obviously don't live where I live.)

                              If so, was it condescending use or something else?

                              Why don't you let someone make the aurgument, before you make yourself look like and ignorant kid who thinks only white people live in indiana. On a side note, Jackson is gone becuase the majority of fans used him as a scapegoat. Anyone who blames Bird for trading Jackson must have no short term memory.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                                Why don't you let someone make the aurgument, before you make yourself look like and ignorant kid who thinks only white people live in indiana. On a side note, Jackson is gone becuase the majority of fans used him as a scapegoat. Anyone who blames Bird for trading Jackson must have no short term memory.
                                I don't think you understood what I wrote. Please read it again

                                I know this topic is touchy. But I'd rather have an open discussion about it than ignore it for whatever reason.

                                - - - - -

                                Mal, you make a good 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

                                Working...
                                X