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: We should trade for this guy

    Originally posted by ajbry View Post
    Baron did the same thing...
    Exactly. And two on a team losing control is at least one too many.

    Comment


    • Re: Enjoy

      8 turnovers? Is that a typo?

      His first half was awesome. His second half was dreadful.

      He just summed up his entire career in a nutshell in one game.
      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
      RSS Feed
      Subscribe via iTunes

      Comment


      • Re: Enjoy

        I don't idolize him in the least, nor do I deny the faults to his game. Last night it wasn't the tech that was an issue. The game was out of reach by then and he was done anyway. He hurt the team with some dribble turnovers, same as he did here.

        However that was the only thing he did wrong in game 2, otherwise he was great once again. It was Baron getting himself tossed before the start of the 4th that killed them, and after that Jack took over the ball handling responsibilities, drove for the and 1 and in general seemed to keep the offense under a bit of control for 4-5 minutes.

        Again, this is a MLE salary type of guy doing that. You get a bit more than you pay for with him. Put together $65m of that and you get a team that plays like $80m.


        Don't blame us for discussing it. The math is simple on this, if the Pacers hadn't tanked after the trade, if the Warriors hadn't soared after the trade (post Jackson/Davis injury window that came after the trade), if we weren't seeing Jack as a key player in playoff games (ie, leading BOTH teams in scoring at the half in both games) then what would there be to say about it?

        But think about what I just listed, that stuff DID happen.

        If this was Detlef for McKey and the Pacers went into the gutter that season while the Sonics dramatically improved and Det was right in the heart of it all, would ANYONE not rip on that trade? As it was Det still went on to be a big part of a very good Sonics team.

        The only thing that kept that deal from getting beat on over and over was the fact that the Pacers pulled off the upset playoff run (remember they didn't even have HC that year, so they hadn't dominated the regular season like an ECF caliber team usually does).

        The only difference here is that people hate Jackson. Change the names and keep the results and the entire city is at Conseco with torches in their hands calling for Bird's head.

        Comment


        • Re: We should trade for this guy

          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
          Other teams and players, sure. But, this SJax love fest in 42348309 threads is getting ridiculous and has a high revisionist element to it.
          Exactly! A couple of posters who just won't let go of their for Jackson and they want to blame Pacer fans for saying enough is enough. HE IS GONE GET ON WITH YOUR LIFES!

          Comment


          • Re: Enjoy

            Jack sunk his own ship here and wasn't going to be the savior of the Pacers, so I don't waste time wishing he were still here or cursing the trade. Yes it was a downgrade in talent, but with all factors weighed in it's not the butchering some believe and if Diogu and/or Dunleavy improve at all it will look a lot better.

            But the bottom line is Marquis Daniels is why we tanked. Or more specifically, his knees are the reason we tanked. I firmly believe that.

            And Seth I don't think you idolize Jackson.

            Comment


            • Re: Enjoy

              Flava - he was still playing well in the 2nd half. One TO in the 4th was a travel that was a close call (in the low post), but he did have some classic Jack-off-the-foot TOs too.

              But note that he was running the show at that point because Baron got himself tossed 5-6 minutes before that. Baron, the big money PG btw, was turning the ball over just as badly and shooting it much worse than Jackson.

              In fact it proved the point on Jack that we all know is true, he CAN NOT BE your primary guy, your main ball handler and #1 offensive option. He needs to be part of the mix, 3rd in the chain. And he's paid like a 3rd-4th guy, even a perhaps a bench guy really.


              Jack was D'd up on Terry at times after Baron was gone, then switched back to Dirk. What really hurt Dallas late was REBOUNDING and missing their superstar, high pay PG.

              Dallas has them in size and it's going to hurt them if they can't establish their will early on.


              The guy we are NOT talking about right now, the guy who hasn't really come up big in the playoffs so far - Al Harrington. Of course he's been like that all year, even in Indy. At some point he'll go for 30 with 4-5 3pt makes and a whole 8 rebounds.


              And you know what else, watching Jack, Al and even James Jones is for me a little bit like seeing the Pacers in the playoffs. Without the Pacers there this is the next best thing for me, to see 06-07 Pacers players in the playoffs (or any former Pacers in the case of JJ).

              I could enjoy AJ and Croshere even if they were factors in the playoffs right now.

              Comment


              • Re: Enjoy

                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                Jack sunk his own ship here and wasn't going to be the savior of the Pacers, so I don't waste time wishing he were still here or cursing the trade. Yes it was a downgrade in talent, but with all factors weighed in it's not the butchering some believe and if Diogu and/or Dunleavy improve at all it will look a lot better.

                But the bottom line is Marquis Daniels is why we tanked. Or more specifically, his knees are the reason we tanked. I firmly believe that.

                And Seth I don't think you idolize Jackson.
                Just making it clear. Seriously some posters do think that. I like him more than I would if he weren't persecuted so much, simply because it forces me to take his side (which is where the middle is from the extreme views).

                If everyone loved him unreasonably you'd have what I had with Euro-Saras fans who couldn't accept when the results started coming in on him. I didn't hate Saras as much as that started to come across (at Star more than here I think) and in fact was one of his biggest supporters for his first few months.


                Anyway, my main reason to respond is to say that I agree about Quis. Outstanding creator, great finisher, so wonderfully crafty. Losing him killed the offense because without Quis or Jack you had no dribble attack...except Tinsley who simply couldn't hit the Earth if he fell out of a plane. I've never seen a guy waste so many good inside looks in my life, not even Foster in his bad month last season.

                Keep in mind that it isnt' that I wanted them to keep Jack no matter what, just that you don't trade 1 of your 2 SGs when your backcourt is already a little thin, at least not without getting a SG back.

                My stance as I've mentioned is "Peitrus instead of Ike, and only 1 of the 2 bad contracts". Jack and Al for Murph or Dun and Pietrus...that I can see perfectly. The Warriors get what they wanted still and the Pacers aren't forced to help GS fix all their contract issues in one deal.

                Comment


                • Re: Enjoy

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  He didn't get better. This thinking just proves how undervalued he was here. He had a brilliant game for the most part, got burned on a couple of traveling call turnovers, lost his dribble a couple of times and then got tossed for discussing a foul call too long (and then wouldn't quickly leave the court which was foolish).

                  Par for course with Jack. Some nights he won't shoot well and won't complain to the refs either. He does a little bit of it all, but he always could drive the ball and D it up. He also is clearly emotional. His game is flawed and has been at GS just as much as it was in Indy.

                  For 5.5m I'd take it in a heartbeat. Other than rookie contracts you aren't going to find too many guys that play any better for that price, and I'm pretty sure what people like about Army is his fire and drive. That used to be a good thing, but apparently now it sours the milk.


                  BTW, he didn't get tossed till the game was out of hand and long after Baron Davis got himself tossed for clearly showing up the refs and even being warned to stop it or he would get T'd.

                  Jack didn't lose his cool till after he got tossed, then he looked PO'd, probably because he didn't think he'd gone over the line in the first place. Barring what words he might have used I'd have to agree. The tech that sent came out of nowhere to me. Some of the blame has to go on Baron for starting the process of frustration for no good reason at the end of the 3rd with the game still close.


                  Jack didn't lose his cool till after he got tossed, then he looked PO'd, probably because he didn't think he'd gone over the line

                  Your kidding, right? This statement by you, goes straight to the heart of the problem that Jack has and Jack apologists also have. He didn't think he went over the line the night of the Club Rio shootout either, HMM?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Enjoy

                    I was one of Jax's biggest detractors. I didn't like the way he played selective defense and his poor shot selection or the way he hung around the perimeter instead of driving for the rack. On nights, playing a tough assignment, he would rise to the occasion and play good defense. However, most of the time he chose to play off his man 4-5 feet and his man would shoot over him or juke around him and all Jax could do was offer a swipe at the ball when it was over the guy's head going for a lay-up. He rarely bodied up his man to keep him out of position.

                    His arguing with the refs and the off-court episodes didn't upset me nearly as much as his disrespecting of RC in front of the rest of the players. It's obvious, RC could not handle him and condoned being shown up in front of the rest of the team, a definite recipe for lack of respect from the other players.

                    However, the Jax I've seen in the last two games is a beast. I never knew that he could play so aggressively. I was use to seeing the shuffling up the court instead of an all-out dash back on defense. He has body checked and hand checked Dirk to keep him from his comfort zones. He rarely played in your face, hand checking defense with the Pacers. What is remarkable, is that he didn't ease up as he did when he played with the Pacers. He shot a couple of ill-advised 3's but has driven to the rack like he was possessed.

                    I don't care what anyone says, this is not the same guy who played for us. I have to believe Nellie is the difference. Whatever, I have witnessed a great transformation of a player. As I mentioned before, I believe that RC was an impediment to Jax's style of play....he no longer is a plodder.

                    No doubt, Jax is playing a large role in the Warriors success. Losing his cool after getting ejected is just Jax being Jax and that sort of stuff never bothered me if a guy is bringing it every night and laying it on the line.

                    Dallas is going have to pull out all stops to win this series, especially going back to the Bay area without the home-court advantage.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • Re: Enjoy

                      Jack is basically Ron Artest Jr, as he showed again last night. If we had to keep a headcase, I would have rather kept Ron.

                      Regardless, it was not only Jack's attitude that got him out of town, but his lax play on the court. When he wants to, Jack can be very good. But he too often decides to whine and complain rather than play any defense, and he takes tons of shots out of the flow of the offense. It works in Golden State, because they have no offensive setup rather than to chuck up jumpers. It works when you're hitting, and doesn't when you aren't.

                      Like I've said before, I don't like the trade, I haven't from the beginning. But I'm not at all sad that Jack (and Al, for that matter) are gone.

                      Don't underestimate how much losing Quis for the rest of the season hurt us. Jack was supposed to be replaced by Daniels, not Dunleavy. And Quis was starting to show that he can be at least as good a starting SG as Jack was. And Granger is already well on his way to becoming better than Al.

                      Comment


                      • Re: We should trade for this guy

                        Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                        Other teams and players, sure. But, this SJax love fest in 42348309 threads is getting ridiculous and has a high revisionist element to it.
                        There is 2-3 threads on Jack MAX.

                        Comment


                        • The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Can we please keep this all in here? There are so many Warriors threads on this forum now you'd think this was Warriors Digest or something.

                          Comment


                          • Re: We should trade for this guy

                            Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                            There is 2-3 threads on Jack MAX.
                            Let's scroll down, shall we?

                            This thread

                            These others:
                            GS winning because of Jackson?
                            Official playoff thread
                            Warriors= Western Conference bound
                            I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...
                            I'm a Happy encouraged Pacers fan
                            Huge trade...

                            And now an official thread that may take the place of the seven others.

                            There are lots of homes for Jackson haters and Jackson fanboys.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              I'm tired of the debate

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                I'm sure glad you started another thread on him Shade, we don't hear nearly enough about him lately.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X