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

SJax: JO wants out of Indy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

    Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
    Seth, are you actually arguing that confirmation form a recent teammate and friend has absolutely no influence on the trade offers we're going to get now for JO? Sorry, but I completely disagree. That's nearly as bad as Ron going public with trade demands.

    You're making this out to be much, much more than it is. This isn't a witch hunt. Jack has done nearly irreparable damage to this franchise, and now he's taking a shot at our fans to boot:



    It's called a honeymoon, Jack. Keep playing the way you have the last two games and Warriors fans will get tired of your schtick really fast as well.

    Jack has no sense of responsibility whatsoever. Nothing is ever his fault, if you listen to him.

    Boo-hoo, the refs are out to get me. Boo-hoo, the fans don't like me.

    Gee, Jack I can't imagine why that is. Could it be because your hot-headed "act-first-and-never-think" attitude helped escalate a riot that has ruined our last three seasons, including one in which we were legit title contenders? Could it be because you keep playing lax defense, let your man score while you constantly ***** at the refs, take ill-advised shot after shot, and cuss out the coach on national television? No, that couldn't be it, could it? You're just an innocent person "keeping it real" and "being discrimated against" because "you're Stephen Jackson."

    Jack needs to grow up and take responsiblity for his actions, and people need to stop making excuses for his foolish, childish behavior.

    Jack needs to grow up and take responsiblity for his actions, and people need to stop making excuses for his foolish, childish behavior.


    The Jack supporters just don't get it and they never will, it is delusional to think otherwise.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

      Originally posted by ajbry View Post
      This is a complete non-issue, Jack did absolutely nothing wrong here, if anything he's trying to advocate for the best possible deal to help both sides.
      That would be foolish, unless he has his NBPA agent's license, which would likely have instructed him to keep his mouth shut about things like this, even if he was privvy to what was going on.

      Under any of these defintions, the answer he gave would be entirely inappropriate for him, as a member of one NBA franchise, to be advocating a trade among other NBA franchises.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate

      1. One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender: an advocate of civil rights.

      2. One that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor: advocates for abused children and spouses.

      3. A lawyer.
      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


      • #48
        Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

        Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
        The Jack jockstrap hangers, just don't get it and they never will, it is delusional to think otherwise.
        What the hell does that add to the conversation?

        Man, the double standard around here, particularly regarding Jack, is RIDICULOUS.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
          I didn't think or know that there was any sort of tampering rule. ???

          And what has Carlisle said? I missed that entirely.

          Or am I too dense to get a joke?
          In Rick's press conference, he mentioned several potential candidates, all of which are under contract to other NBA teams. I think Rick forgot that he's still a Pacers employee as VP of Basketball something-and-such.

          The NBA is investigating, or was investigating, or something.

          It was foolish for Rick to speculate publicly on the coaching candidates.
          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


          • #50
            Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

            Originally posted by ajbry View Post
            How the hell are you guys getting all offended by this?

            Jack was asked a question about his friend and former teammate, and he answered with nothing but respect and praise.

            Y'all are really starting to look embarrassingly bitter.

            This is a complete non-issue, Jack did absolutely nothing wrong here, if anything he's trying to advocate for the best possible deal to help both sides.
            I think you're living in denial about Stephen Jackson where you can't see anything wrong, whatever he does. This behaviour of you (and some others) has led me to really dislike the guy, much more than I did when he just came to the Pacers.

            It's good to have favourite players (heck, I made the "wrong" choice to like Sarunas) but we don't have to go overboard and defend our guys to the end, and I know I did the same with the Sarunas bashfest some time ago. Looking backwards I can only smile about it and I don't get angry anymore if someone still says something negative about him. I certainly don't feel the need to make big argumentive posts to point out why I care about the guy, which only fickles the one who dislike him.

            It's allright to agree to disagree about certain subjects, but let's not aggrivate each other, it only makes us more cynical and bitter!
            Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

              Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
              I think you're living in denial about Stephen Jackson where you can't see anything wrong, whatever he does. This behaviour of you (and some others) has led me to really dislike the guy, much more than I did when he just came to the Pacers.

              It's good to have favourite players (heck, I made the "wrong" choice to like Sarunas) but we don't have to go overboard and defend our guys to the end, and I know I did the same with the Sarunas bashfest some time ago. Looking backwards I can only smile about it and I don't get angry anymore if someone still says something negative about him. I certainly don't feel the need to make big argumentive posts to point out why I care about the guy, which only fickles the one who dislike him.

              It's allright to agree to disagree about certain subjects, but let's not aggrivate each other, it only makes us more cynical and bitter!
              I completely understand your point. However, this particular instance just doesn't appear to be a big deal. He's not slandering the Pacers organization or anything, just trying to talk about his friend's frustrations.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                What the hell does that add to the conversation?

                Man, the double standard around here, particularly regarding Jack, is RIDICULOUS.
                You know, it's easy to cry double-standard when you quote a minutes-old post.

                I've asked Elgin56 to tone it down because I want everyone to stay cool and not get fired up over this. Please do the same by not hastily reacting to it.

                And IMO the other thing you need to keep in mind while you're here is that sometimes you truly have a beef with people taking shots at you, but other times you're feeling defensive over criticisms of a guy that's earned criticism. The line can get blurry.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                  Originally posted by Jay View Post
                  In Rick's press conference, he mentioned several potential candidates, all of which are under contract to other NBA teams. I think Rick forgot that he's still a Pacers employee as VP of Basketball something-and-such.

                  The NBA is investigating, or was investigating, or something.

                  It was foolish for Rick to speculate publicly on the coaching candidates.
                  Didn't know that - but I missed the press conference because I was obsessed with going surfing as soon as the season ended.

                  Whether the harm is intentional is besides the point - harm is still done when you try and speak for others.
                  “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


                  • #54
                    Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                    I have to give Jackson a pass on this one. You can tell his deep, deep concern about JO is the reason for his 9-32 shooting against the Jazz.
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                      Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                      Seth, are you actually arguing that confirmation form a recent teammate and friend has absolutely no influence on the trade offers we're going to get now for JO? Sorry, but I completely disagree. That's nearly as bad as Ron going public with trade demands.

                      .
                      How? Ron demanded his trade publicly and openly. This isn't JO, hell this isn't even a current member of the Pacers. This is a guy who already has a negative image around the NBA opening his big mouth and saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear. If you think NBA GMs are tuning into Stephen Jackson to get their trade news on the Indiana Pacers you are sorely mistaken.
                      If this was truely JO asked a friend to tell the world how he feels why wouldn't he have Al do it? A guy that wasn't involved in the worst brawl in NBA history and wasn't being booed by the home fans when he left? Why would he have Jack do it?
                      This is no more than Jack being Jack. Thinking he is far more important to the grand scheme of things then he really is.
                      Jack isn't on the Pacers anymore, Jack isn't in the same conference anymore, Jack doesn't even play in the same time zone anymore. Jack could come out tomorrow and say that JO hates the whole state of Indiana, and his opinion would still mean zilch. Why? Because at this point Stephen Jackson has about as much involvement with the Indiana Pacers as you or me.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                        LOL @ This being as bad as Ron going out and saying he wants to be traded. This has no impact on the trade.

                        WTF Do you think GM's will go "Ohh man Stephen Jackson said Jermaine O'Neal wants to be traded, now Donnie Walsh is going to have to give up Jermaine for a 2nd round pick." If Jermaine is going to be traded GM's will know Jermaine is going to be traded what Stephen Jackson says has no impact on it.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                          Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                          Just get JO to play with Kobe thats all I want to see before I die. Kobe and JO.
                          **yawn**

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                            I don't think what Jax says amounts to a hill of beans about JO. Everyone knows JO has talked about being traded for a long while now. I do think that JO is mealy-mouthed and is playing both sides. There's no doubt in my mind that he wants out and he knows it but he's trying to straddle the fence. That way he comes out smelling like roses, either way.

                            I do take offense with what Jax said about the trade not working out. Maybe not in the short haul but this time next year there may a completely different scenario. If Davis can't stay healthy and Harrington is not playing up to snuff, Jax will be playing on a loser. I can't phantom how he thinks the deal didn't work out. Just because Davis came back playing all-star ball doesn't make them the benefactors of the best trade.

                            A full season has to transpire at least before you can ascertain the
                            soundness of the trade. I think Ike will come along and Dun will be a much better player with 20lbs of more muscle. Murph is still in the equation, also. He's not as bad as most people have been saying. In the long run, I think it will prove out that the Pacers got the better end of the deal.
                            .

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                              Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                              How? Ron demanded his trade publicly and openly. This isn't JO, hell this isn't even a current member of the Pacers. This is a guy who already has a negative image around the NBA opening his big mouth and saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear. If you think NBA GMs are tuning into Stephen Jackson to get their trade news on the Indiana Pacers you are sorely mistaken.
                              If this was truely JO asked a friend to tell the world how he feels why wouldn't he have Al do it? A guy that wasn't involved in the worst brawl in NBA history and wasn't being booed by the home fans when he left? Why would he have Jack do it?
                              This is no more than Jack being Jack. Thinking he is far more important to the grand scheme of things then he really is.
                              Jack isn't on the Pacers anymore, Jack isn't in the same conference anymore, Jack doesn't even play in the same time zone anymore. Jack could come out tomorrow and say that JO hates the whole state of Indiana, and his opinion would still mean zilch. Why? Because at this point Stephen Jackson has about as much involvement with the Indiana Pacers as you or me.
                              Do you really believe that, because Jack and JO now play on different teams, they never speak to each other anymore? Or that they're not friends anymore?

                              I believe Jack is telling the truth, otherwise there's really no reason for him to say what he did. But the point is the timing of the comment. It can do no good for JO to come out and say what he said, and then have Jack come out and publically refute him.

                              But, who knows? Maybe Jack really didn't mean anything by it. He does have a nagging tendency to speak without thinking. Kind of like another infamous ex-Pacer...

                              I definitely don't appreciate him taking a shot at our fans, though.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                                Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                                LOL @ This being as bad as Ron going out and saying he wants to be traded. This has no impact on the trade.

                                WTF Do you think GM's will go "Ohh man Stephen Jackson said Jermaine O'Neal wants to be traded, now Donnie Walsh is going to have to give up Jermaine for a 2nd round pick." If Jermaine is going to be traded GM's will know Jermaine is going to be traded what Stephen Jackson says has no impact on it.
                                Trade offers are generally lower for players that are publically known to be disgruntled.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X