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

    Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
    It's definitely the worst trade I've ever seen that I've cared a little about. And if you think Ike is going to offset the lopsidedness in the trade, then you gotsta lead me to that hookah.

    And Jack has been playing great and everyone is cheering for the Warriors. This is tough for David Stern but has been one of the most exciting series of teams not called the Pacers I have ever seen. I'm not that old obviously but this series has been a testament to the huge gap between the West and the East. Teams like the Pacers care about image and will trade wins so that non-fans will b surprised we have a ton of white players. On the other hand, GS went for speed, athleticism, talent, and confidence.

    And they're about to beat the West's 67-win team.
    Management bloody well better care a little about image about now, yeah.

    After said player and Artest raped the good image this franchise has had for a long time, killing part of it's fanbase and support in the process the franchise better care about a decent image if it wants to have a future.

    I would like to see what teams like San Antonio, the Clippers, Sonics, Rockets and, yikes, the Jazz would do if something remotely compareable happenned to them. The only recent example that I can think of and comes close is Portland and look what they have been doing the last few seasons.

    And, yeah, I think Ike is going to be the key piece IF JO does get traded. And even if that doesn't happen I see him fullfilling a much more important role towards the end of next season at the latest.

    I'm not even going to dignify your "white players" part with a response. Just take a look at this franchises history and the trades that Walsh has made in which "white players" were shipped out and players of other colour came in, together with the willingness almost obsession of management to want to make the playoffs. You do that with the best players you think you can get, whatever colour or race they may have.

    Regards,

    Mourning
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      The Simons have said that they have lost a considerable amount of money the last three years with the Pacers. HMMM, what has transpired in the last three years? Bad press caused by a couple of players is what happened, and yes Jack lovers, he was at the heart of all of that bad press.


      Jack is an average player with an above average public perception problem, a deadly combination.


      Good luck and good riddance!

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by ajbry View Post
        Hollinger is clueless, I don't know why people take him so damn seriously. He's just a stat nerd who happens to apply his little formulas to the NBA and obviously ESPN gave him a job. Jack is averaging 22, 5, and 4 so far in the series, it speaks for itself.
        The only part that I can agree with you on this is that SJax is a significant upgrade over Dunleavy..not a marginal upgrade. I know that SJax has really propped up the Warriors during the on/off health of BDiddy and JRich....but the Ws IMHO didn't really step up until both Biddy and JRich were both healthy and were on the court with the rest of the team.

        But the whole jist of his response was aimed towards Harrington...not SJax. I just think that he undervalues SJax's contribution to the team.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          The only part that I can agree with you on this is that SJax is a significant upgrade over Dunleavy..not a marginal upgrade. I know that SJax has really propped up the Warriors during the on/off health of BDiddy and JRich....but the Ws IMHO didn't really step up until both Biddy and JRich were both healthy and were on the court with the rest of the team.

          But the whole jist of his response was aimed towards Harrington...not SJax. I just think that he undervalues SJax's contribution to the team.
          I agree.........

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Here let me assist you then.

            He is saying that your statement that this trade was made so that non-fans would care that we have white players on this team is bogu
            Being white is the only reason that I think Bird took both Dunleavy and Murphy in the trade, thinking the fans would come back and watch. Thats just my opinion.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
              Being white is the only reason that I think Bird took both Dunleavy and Murphy in the trade, thinking the fans would come back and watch. Thats just my opinion.
              I'm shocked YOU would think that. Shocked I tell ya. But that would explain taking Alford over Miller.
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Ya dont say

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                  Being white is the only reason that I think Bird took both Dunleavy and Murphy in the trade, thinking the fans would come back and watch. Thats just my opinion.
                  I agree 100%, don't let anyone make you feel like your opinion is out of bounds.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    I'm glad that Jerm's opinion is now out in the open, because I personally feel that's why some have hosility towards Dunleavy, because he IS white.

                    Statisically they're almost the same player, yet some how Jackson has the huge following. I think it has to do more with who Jackson is as a person, and who Dunleavy is as a person.

                    There's nothing wrong with it, but the argument is a whole lot easier to understand if that's true.

                    Personally, I'd rather not have either of the two, but Dunleavy would be my choice between them due to him not having the off-court/on-court antics that Jax does.

                    EDIT: After rereading it real quick, I want to clarify it. Its not so much skin color, but attitude. Jackson portrays the hip-hop scene, still wears colors, cornrows, tats, etc, whereas Dunleavy is the middle of the road clean cut looking person, eventhough he has longer hair than most.

                    Again, there's nothing wrong with liking a player that you identify with, but knowing the whole reasoning for liking the player is easier to understand when all info is out in the open.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      If anyone can prove that there was an offer of better black players on the table for Jackson and those offers were turned down for a white player, you might have something to go on.

                      Otherwise, your just making **** up.

                      Plus you're ignoring that two black players came in the trade and one white player was traded.

                      Wasn't Austin Croshere traded for a black player? And wasn't Johnson traded only for black players?

                      - - - - - - - - -

                      I would agree that people think Murphy and Dunleavy are "soft" in part because they are white.

                      Usually the people who are first to bring up racial stereotyping are the ones most guilty of it in the first place.
                      “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 CableKC View Post
                        The only part that I can agree with you on this is that SJax is a significant upgrade over Dunleavy..not a marginal upgrade.

                        You must qualify that however.

                        Jack playing, as his is now, is a significant upgrade over Dun, as he played late this season.

                        Over the course of their entire careers however, statistically they are pretty much the same player. Dun is a way better rebounder. Jack is a better defender and that is hard to quantify statistically.

                        If Jack played like he has played the past 2 weeks when he was a Pacer, consistently, and with no offcourt issues, he would be BELOVED by Pacer fans.

                        He didn't and he isn't.

                        Whatever got to him in GS has changed him into something much much more on the court than he ever was in Indy.
                        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

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I'm glad that Jerm's opinion is now out in the open, because I personally feel that's why some have hosility towards Dunleavy, because he IS white.

                          Statisically they're almost the same player, yet some how Jackson has the huge following. I think it has to do more with who Jackson is as a person, and who Dunleavy is as a person.

                          There's nothing wrong with it, but the argument is a whole lot easier to understand if that's true.

                          Personally, I'd rather not have either of the two, but Dunleavy would be my choice between them due to him not having the off-court/on-court antics that Jax does.
                          I could care less what color Dunleavy is, the guy is a bad player thats my problem. Jack is playing in a system that suits him well and he is playing great, thats my problem. Jack used to get ragged on for his play all the time, but he is better then Dunleavy and people on here treat Dunleavy like he is Larry Bird in his prime. Jack plays with passion and heart, Dunleavy plays like he is playing in the YMCA against Jim,Bob and John. And its a HUGE reason why we are not in the playoffs, same goes for Murphy.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                            I could care less what color Dunleavy is, the guy is a bad player thats my problem. Jack is playing in a system that suits him well and he is playing great, thats my problem. Jack used to get ragged on for his play all the time, but he is better then Dunleavy and people on here treat Dunleavy like he is Larry Bird in his prime. Jack plays with passion and heart, Dunleavy plays like he is playing in the YMCA against Jim,Bob and John. And its a HUGE reason why we are not in the playoffs, same goes for Murphy.
                            I hate, hate, HATE to say this...but Jerm has a really good point here. I would say more, but I think we just need to move on from the racial debate.

                            As for the trade, there were two mistakes:

                            1.) Not getting more for Al, who we knew GS was overvaluing.

                            2.) Picking up Murphy. I can't believe we had this guy scouted SO poorly. I would be ok with him if he made less too, but otherwise I have no problem.

                            I actually really like Dunleavy. He brings different things to the table than Jack (less to the table as of right now IMO) but I think he still has a chance to be a really good player...but he needs a better shot (around 38-40%) if he's going to be starting at the 2 with a non-shooting PG.

                            Also, Ike is definitely the real deal.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                              You must qualify that however.

                              Jack playing, as his is now, is a significant upgrade over Dun, as he played late this season.

                              Over the course of their entire careers however, statistically they are pretty much the same player. Dun is a way better rebounder. Jack is a better defender and that is hard to quantify statistically.

                              If Jack played like he has played the past 2 weeks when he was a Pacer, consistently, and with no offcourt issues, he would be BELOVED by Pacer fans.

                              He didn't and he isn't.

                              Whatever got to him in GS has changed him into something much much more on the court than he ever was in Indy.
                              I guess its hard for me to quantify this......but all I can say is that SJax play since he was moved to GSW...most notably AFTER BDiddy and JRich returned is outstanding.

                              It could be argued that if Dunleavy was still there with a healthy BDiddy and JRich that they would not have gotten the same type of production out of him that they got out of SJax and be where they are now in the Playoffs.

                              But to support Dunleavy, I think that with all that has happened after the trade ( Marquis being injured and Granger...not quite ready to step up to fill the role that SJax and Harrington filled when they were here...basically become a consistent 2nd scoring option on the team ) I'm not surprised that Dunleavy's contribution to the Pacers isn't viewed as favorably as SJax's contribution to the Warriors. I think that Dunleavy was asked to be more then what he is capable of being....hence his inconsistency in his game. I really think that once we get a solid 2nd scoring option that can be depended on to score on a regular basis ( hopefully that person can be Granger ), then Dunleavy would be allowed to play more "within his game" then beyond what he is clearly capable of.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Yeah, seriously, white people should never debate race. But the reason I made the comment about white players was because it showed how the Pacers wanted to change their image (non-fans referred to both the general public whose view of the team was that they were in fact a bunch of thugs and fans of other teams who harbored similar views). Oh yeah, and the point isn't bogus. As far as I know, these past few years have been the worst publicity nightmares that the Pacers have had. If there have been worse times before I was born please enlighten me. Taking that into consideration, whether we drafted Alford over Reggie or not is not at all applicable but I think the poster that said that was joking anyway. The point is, the situation changed and Bird et al did what they thought would be good for our image and our fanbase. Unfortunately they traded for TROY MURPHY. The trade was obviously not a basketball trade but the aforementioned rebuilding of a shattered image. So, Peck, Idk where you are getting that I had no point in stating the fact that they brought in some untroubled, rather emotionless guys in for the guys that were seen as "gangstas" or "hoodlums" or whatever label they obtained in the course of their stay here. This is very very minimally a race issue and arguing about it will prove nothing.

                                And I actually don't hate Dunleavy that much although I believe he is nowhere near starter material if the team hopes to go somewhere. Troy Murphy on the other hand should not be in the NBA, let alone a possible starter on a respected roster, that of course is dwindling hence the trade. Btw, if I ask another poster what he meant by something, isn't it somewhat arrogant of another just to go all up in it like that (that's urban for being mean lol)? I figured he could answer his own question but whatever.

                                ANd just for the record, people are throwing around words like "future star" and "real deal" for Ike; what option (3rd, 4th?), in the future I guess, do people think he'll be? Straight up, no foolsies.
                                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X