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

    As much as Stern hates Jack, a suspension instantly turns this game into the Mavs favor by quite a bit. The more competitive, the better.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I think Jax is very fortunate he didn't get suspended for tonight's game
      I said there was no way he would get a suspension. The NBA is a business, and the business makes more money with a more interesting matchup.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by ajbry View Post
        http://www.nba.com/news/jackson_fined_070427.html

        Damn. Most people thought it would be around $25K, but apparently Stu Jackson wanted to send a message.
        If he truly wanted to send a message, he would have suspended him.

        50K is **** in a bucket for a multi-millionaire.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          The Warriors arena is going to be crazy tonight.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            The question is whether we could have traded Jax for Dun straight up. That would have been a win for both teams. We could have traded Al for some others . GS was tired of Dun and we were tired of Jax. The big negative is Murphy who seems to not understand that basketball for a 6'11'' guy is a contact sport.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              I just checked ESPN insider and found this interesting.

              Apr 27 - Al Harrington's contract can not be insured because of the back and knee surgeries he had in his first run with the Pacers.

              That means if he suffers a career-ending injury the Warriors will have to pay him off without being able to collect on an insurance policy. Probably and hopefully it never comes up.

              Could this be another reason why the trade went down?

              Also . . .

              NBA Investigating Jackson
              Apr 27 - The exit of Golden State's Stephen Jackson after his ejection Wednesday is being investigated by the NBA, a league spokesman confirmed.

              Included in the inquiry is a verbal altercation between Jackson and Mavericks president Terdema Ussery in the midcourt tunnel at American Airlines Center.

              "We're investigating on the court and what transpired after he left the game," NBA spokesman Brian McIntrye said Thursday. -- Fort Worth Star-Telegram

              # "I didn't know who he was, but I really don't care. I still don't care," Jackson said. "He was probably trying to help calm me down, but at that point, I knew that I had the people that were with the Warriors with me, and I didn't know who he was. So at the time, I wasn't trying to hear nothing from nobody else.

              "I was with my people. I was going into the locker room. Everybody else that wasn't with us, I wasn't concerned. If I see him, I probably would've apologized to him, because I didn't know who he was, if he was trying to help me." -- San Francisco Chronicle

              http://www.star-telegram.com/287/story/82979.html

              http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PGHTPGKB81.DTL

              "Jackson, Mavs exec have words: The league continues to look into the circumstances involving Jackson's exit from the court, during which Jackson was apparently directed into the wrong tunnel by NBA security and had what one observer called a "heated" exchange with Mavericks team president Terdema Ussery.

              "We're investigating the way (Jackson) walked off the court and what transpired after he left the game," league spokesman Brian McIntyre said.

              The Warriors have already contacted the league to express their concerns, which include Jackson having to walk past Dallas fans on his way to the locker room instead of using the usual visitors' tunnel located by the Mavericks' bench.

              Ussery, who was standing just outside of the midcourt tunnel at the time, trailed Jackson toward the locker room and the two exchanged words for about 10 seconds, according to a witness.

              "I didn't know who he was, but I really don't care. I still don't care," Jackson said. "He was probably trying to help calm me down, but at that point, I knew that I had the people that were with the Warriors with me, and I didn't know who he was. So at the time, I wasn't trying to hear nothing from nobody else.

              "I was with my people. I was going into the locker room. Everybody else that wasn't with us, I wasn't concerned. If I see him, I probably would've apologized to him, because I didn't know who he was, if he was trying to help me."
              PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by RWB View Post
                I guess season ticket holders don't matter then. The Mrs. and I renewed tickets because the Pacers did remove some cancer. I wonder how many other ticket holders or business owners renewed because they felt the Pacers WERE trying to improve their image.

                The Pacers surveys seemed to really want to know.
                Maybe they improved their image, but putting a mediocre product on the floor isn't much of a draw either. If I had season tickets, I'd be thinking long and hard about nonrenewal regardless of the "image".

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post


                  Well this explains it. If you truly believe part B then maybe you see this as still working out. Honestly I don't think it's certain to not work out, but I LOATHE people spinning how it CURRENTLY looks. Haven't we had enough of "potentially" around here?

                  Sure, if Dun can keep that 50%+ from inside the arc, regain a 38% from outside the arc, learn to play defense at a normal NBA 2 guard level (or at SF if Danny or Shawn can becomes SGs, ugh, terrible idea) and Troy can learn to rebound and defend at 85% of the level of Foster rather than about 40% of his level then I can see this team being pretty darn good.

                  For Troy's money he MUST be shooting 40% from 3 AND doing exactly what Foster does. He wasn't even close to matching Jeff in defense/boards last year (Reb/48 - Troy 10.4, Jeff 16.8, just to put in facts to back the opinion).

                  And honestly Dunleavy also MUST learn to finish on dribble-drives. If he doesn't getthe foul call these are almost always a bust and that's something the team must have from it's perimeter guys.


                  See my problem on the long term grade is that neither of these guys address the team's real needs. They needed a TRUE SG, not another SF being asked to rotate around. They didn't need anything Troy offered.

                  That's why I say they should have made it Pietrus instead of Ike, and they should have only taken on one bad deal instead of both of them.
                  Murphy did shoot like 39% from 3pt one year and he should be capable of doing it. He had no rhythm this year.

                  As for "Dun can keep that 50%+ from inside the arc, regain a 38%," that is a pipe dream. Dunleavy is a terrible shooter and defender. I know he pisses Lebron off, but that's about it.

                  If you hinge anything on Dunleavy it will break.



                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I think Jax is very fortunate he didn't get suspended for tonight's game
                  Why... for him mouthing off?? He didn't deserve a suspension.


                  As for the poster asking earlier

                  "would GS do the trade Jax for Dunleavy," the answer is YES.

                  I think Dunleavy was hated more in Oakland than Jax in Indiana... hard to believe? Sure. Is it the truth? Hell yea!

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by Dez Junuts
                    I think Dunleavy was hated more in Oakland than Jax in Indiana... hard to believe? Sure. Is it the truth? Hell yea!
                    That's very very true.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Damn the Warriors game is gettin quite the late start tonight...

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by Dez Junuts
                        Murphy did shoot like 39% from 3pt one year and he should be capable of doing it. He had no rhythm this year.

                        As for "Dun can keep that 50%+ from inside the arc, regain a 38%," that is a pipe dream. Dunleavy is a terrible shooter and defender. I know he pisses Lebron off, but that's about it.

                        If you hinge anything on Dunleavy it will break.





                        Why... for him mouthing off?? He didn't deserve a suspension.


                        As for the poster asking earlier

                        "would GS do the trade Jax for Dunleavy," the answer is YES.

                        I think Dunleavy was hated more in Oakland than Jax in Indiana... hard to believe? Sure. Is it the truth? Hell yea!
                        That is very true. The Warrior fans hate Dunleavy's guts. Go to any of their forums and see it for yourself if you dont guys, if you think we are talking about Jack too much go see how much they talk about Dunleavy.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Damn look at that crowd. I wish I was at this game

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                            This is your problem. You are trying to ignore Jack's negatives and make your judgement on the trade based soley on numbers. The trade wasn't about numbers. You CANT ignore Jack's negatives. They are part of the player he is and thats why he was traded.
                            I disagree, the trade was 100% about numbers - $42,349205 and $37,561,984 to be exact. Thats the amount owed over the next four years to Murphy and Dunleavy. Thats the reason it was a horrible deal. For comparison Al is owed $27,678750 and Jax is owed $21,420,000, each over the next three years. If Troy and Dun had Al and Jax's contracts it wouldn't nearly be as bad a trade. I guess it's a good thing alot of fans like the deal - The Pacers are stuck with these guys for atleast the next three years. My guess is they will be the same cornerstones of the Pacers rebuilding that they where for the Warriors rebuilding process. At the rate management is going the Pacers won't see the playoffs for another three years - when these guys contracts are finally tradeable.

                            Forget about Jackson for a minute. Remember how everyone on this board was talking about Isaih destroying the Knicks by taking on horrible longterm contracts for mediocre players? That is exactly what the Pacers just did. IMO it is way worse than $6m per year for Jerome James.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              My boy just called me from the game and said its absolutely nuts there. He said everybody is standing up and sweating, jumping, and going crazy on every possession. Said its packed to the last seat in the nosebleeds (where he's sitting). Damn I wish I was there

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                                I disagree, the trade was 100% about numbers - $42,349205 and $37,561,984 to be exact. Thats the amount owed over the next four years to Murphy and Dunleavy. Thats the reason it was a horrible deal. For comparison Al is owed $27,678750 and Jax is owed $21,420,000, each over the next three years. If Troy and Dun had Al and Jax's contracts it wouldn't nearly be as bad a trade. I guess it's a good thing alot of fans like the deal - The Pacers are stuck with these guys for atleast the next three years. My guess is they will be the same cornerstones of the Pacers rebuilding that they where for the Warriors rebuilding process. At the rate management is going the Pacers won't see the playoffs for another three years - when these guys contracts are finally tradeable.

                                Forget about Jackson for a minute. Remember how everyone on this board was talking about Isaih destroying the Knicks by taking on horrible longterm contracts for mediocre players? That is exactly what the Pacers just did. IMO it is way worse than $6m per year for Jerome James.
                                No its not just about numbers. Jack had to go, there was no way he was gonna be successful in Indiana again with the history he had here. And his trade value was severely hindered by his on and off-court behavior. Therefore we werent going to get much for him and had to take on bad contracts to get rid of him. Im not saying that the trade was good or bad, just neccesary.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X