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 KTK View Post
    He's also 2nd on his team in assists, 2nd in steals, 2nd in scoring, averaging over 40 minutes a game! Of course you're going to have TO's when you're a key player and in the mix constantly.


    Game 1: 3 TOs, 3-7 3FG
    Game 2: 8 TOs, 3-7 3FG
    Game 3: 4 TOs, 0-3 3FG
    Game 4: 1 TO, 3-7 3FG
    Game 5: 5 TOs, 3-8 3FG

    21 TOs in five games is a lot of turnovers for a PG who handles the ball every play and initiates the offense, but Stumblin' Steve has far more TOs than his PG in spite of handling the ball much less.

    I counted seven TOs last night, but at least twice after he dribbled off his own foot the ball ricoched off a Mavs player on its way out of bounds so the Warriors kept possession and no official turnover. Lucky guy.

    As I've said since the day the Pacers traded for him, you should really count his missed 3FGs as turnovers, too, for two reasons (1) he's not a very good three-point shooter in the first place, and (2) he usually takes them too early in the play and, thus, kills a possession. I haven't followed him at all until this series so I don't know if he's continued that trait for Nellie.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Nap, I have to disagree with you about Barnes defense. (yes he made a couple of mistakes, especially after his injury), but defense is what got him into the the NBA and kept him there - he is first a foremost a defensive player. That is what he's known for and overall I think he's an excellent defender.
      I disagree with you disagreeing with me.

      J/K. Don't get me wrong, I loved Matt Barnes at UCLA and he has a lot of potential to continue to improve but I still don't see him as anything more than an average man-to-man defender. He has length and speed but he bites on pump-fakes and gambles too much to be an "excellent defender." JMO.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by KTK View Post
        He's also 2nd on his team in assists, 2nd in steals, 2nd in scoring, averaging over 40 minutes a game! Of course you're going to have TO's when you're a key player and in the mix constantly.

        But not that many! That's just bad, and careless. Baron handles the ball much more than Jax, and he's still got much less TO's than him
        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by Jay View Post

          should really count his missed 3FGs as turnovers, too, for two reasons (1) he's not a very good three-point shooter in the first place, and (2) he usually takes them too early in the play and, thus, kills a possession. I haven't followed him at all until this series so I don't know if he's continued that trait for Nellie.
          Oh right, new NBA stat reporting just to make your case against SJax. Missed 3's equal TO's too! Please, he's shooting 38% from the 3PT line in the series. Might not be outstanding, but a perfectly acceptable clip. Second, the GS offense is built on the premise of first, even marginally open guy, shoots the ball. They get off scoring attempts in half the time other teams do. Has GS had even one 24 second violation in the series so far?

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
            But not that many! That's just bad, and careless. Baron handles the ball much more than Jax, and he's still got much less TO's than him
            He has 1.4 more TO's a game than Baron. 1.8 more than JRich. I hardly think giving up ~1.5 more possessions than those guys is the earth shattering, game costing stat you're trying to make it out to be.

            Per48 he is on par for TO's with Monta Ellis.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Not sure if people mentioned these (disregard if someone has):

              Barn Davis got double teamed, and Dallas cut off his passing lane to Jax. The logical thing to do is to step back to create an open passing lane. Baron assumed Jax would do this, and threw it behind him before it was too late. Jax didn't think ahead; turnover. That turnover belongs to Jax.

              The other was Jax slapping away that rebound from Matt Barnes after the free throw. Barnes had it all the way, but Jax messed up. The ensuing possesion sealed the game. If Jax had been aware, Golden State would have had one more shot.

              Add that to the hold-it-and-chuck job he did in the final two minutes, and you see the real Jax.
              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
              RSS Feed
              Subscribe via iTunes

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                My guess is if you just kept your eyes on jax for a whole game and counted every mistake he makes - there would be a ton of them. Of course he makes a lot of things happen. He's a high risk high reward type of player.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  When the game is that close at the end of the game, you don't foul out the other team's best player on a play that was extremely questionable. I guess more games means more money.

                  Ditto on Jack's carelessness.
                  You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by FlavaDave
                    The other was Jax slapping away that rebound from Matt Barnes after the free throw. Barnes had it all the way, but Jax messed up. The ensuing possesion sealed the game. If Jax had been aware, Golden State would have had one more shot.
                    Are you kidding me???? Mr. Dead-last-in-plus-minus Granger does that CONSTANTLY! Twice in their last game against Miami, and obvious by the reaction of the players he ripped the ball from and almost caused TO's!! But, I bet for Chalupa you have no problem with him doing it, right?

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Originally posted by KTK View Post
                      He has 1.4 more TO's a game than Baron. 1.8 more than JRich. I hardly think giving up ~1.5 more possessions than those guys is the earth shattering, game costing stat you're trying to make it out to be.

                      Per48 he is on par for TO's with Monta Ellis.
                      And you don't think that's telling? He's averaging more TO's than assists, and and averaging more TO's than their point guard! Jack is just straight-up moronic w/ the ball in his hands, always has been. That doesn't mean he's a bad player, but add all those turnovers to all those ejections, and, well...
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                        And you don't think that's telling? He's averaging more TO's than assists, and and averaging more TO's than their point guard! Jack is just straight-up moronic w/ the ball in his hands, always has been. That doesn't mean he's a bad player, but add all those turnovers to all those ejections, and, well...
                        And shot selection...

                        I'll say it. I don't care that its not P-C:

                        SJax is the stupidest (on-court) professional basketball player I've seen in years.

                        Even dumber than Darius Miles. If he'd just stop being stupid, he could be game-changing player in the league. He's got plenty of talent, or we'd never see him on the court. Duh. But he wastes that talent consistently with terrible on-court decision making.

                        But he's just plain stupid with his turnovers - many of which are unforced. He's stupid with his shot selection - especially early in the shot clock. And he's stupid with his non-stop running mouth.

                        As it is, he's equally likely to change the game for his team's favor with an outstanding play or against his team with a boneheaded decision. Now in the right system (that plays more to his instincts), he might have less of a tendency to make boneheaded decisions. Under Rick's system, he was even more likely to hurt the team with his boneheaded decisions. At least SJax's positive attributes are aligned with Nellie's small-ball philosophies better than Carlisle's slow-down game.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by KTK View Post
                          Oh right, new NBA stat reporting just to make your case against SJax. Missed 3's equal TO's too! Please, he's shooting 38% from the 3PT line in the series. Might not be outstanding, but a perfectly acceptable clip. Second, the GS offense is built on the premise of first, even marginally open guy, shoots the ball. They get off scoring attempts in half the time other teams do. Has GS had even one 24 second violation in the series so far?
                          I didn't make up a new stat. I'm just pointing out that a large quantity of unforced turnovers don't fully reflect how much SJax can disrupt his own team's offense. He often disrupts it even more by trying (and only occasionally succeeding) to prove to somebody (himself?) that he can shoot three-pointers.

                          38% is probably fine for a guy to average 2-3 3FGA's per game. He's never been able to maintain 38% for the long-term (usually more like 33%), and he's still due for a 1-8 game this series. His volume of three-point shots is the problem. The guy is averaging more than 6 3FGAs per game out there, as if he's Reggie Miller or something. At the low thirties (his long-term average), his 3FGA rate should look much more like Daniel's 0.6/ game than Reggie's 5/game.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            ^Honest Question (as I'm not Jackson supporter): Are you factoring in game tempo?

                            Originally posted by Jay View Post
                            The Spurs had this kid named Ginobolli waiting in the wings. You might have heard of him.

                            A luxury that the Pacers never had.

                            How did Pop keep Steakin' Jackson under control - a seat right next to him on the bench. The best seat in the house to watch Ginobolli grow up and be ready to take over that position.

                            For the right $$$, I'm sure that Pop would've taken a chance on using SJax in a sixth-man role.


                            Most of the rest of the league continues to see a turnover-prone streaky shooter with a non-stop mouth.

                            Question is, how long can he keep up the "good Stephen" charade?
                            I really don't understand the whole beginning of this post. I mean, I can understand the words but whats the point regarding whether the Spurs wanted or tried to get/keep Jackson?

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              Originally posted by KTK View Post
                              Are you kidding me???? Mr. Dead-last-in-plus-minus Granger does that CONSTANTLY! Twice in their last game against Miami, and obvious by the reaction of the players he ripped the ball from and almost caused TO's!! But, I bet for Chalupa you have no problem with him doing it, right?

                              Sure I would have a problem with anybody doing it. Does anybody here think Granger is perfect?

                              The difference is that Granger has never cost his team a chance to clinch one of the greatest upsets of all time with an idiotic mistake. When he does that, feel free to bump this thread.
                              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                              RSS Feed
                              Subscribe via iTunes

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                "Jackson will be fined, by me, a substantial amount for getting thrown out again," Nelson said. "I guess he doesn't understand why clapping and not saying anything gets you thrown out. But it has before, and he's going to have to figure out: Just don't do it. Hopefully this will refresh his memory the next time."
                                That's all that needs to be said.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X