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

Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

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

  • Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04

    Jeff Foster no longer is the Indiana Pacers' "old man." That honor now belongs to Maceo Baston.

    Foster, 31 and two years younger than Baston, is their longest-tenured player, however. He has the gray hair and battle scars to prove it.


    "Obviously things haven't gone the way many people expected since the brawl and Reggie (Miller) retired," Foster said recently. "You would see that by how we played and the lack of support we got from fans."

    The Pacers made the playoffs in each of his first seven seasons, including the 2000 NBA Finals. The culture inside the locker room suffered the past two seasons, when they missed the playoffs.

    Foster insists better days are ahead. The roster transformation is almost complete. More players have spent the summer in town, working out at Conseco Fieldhouse. All-Star Jermaine O'Neal has been traded, albeit perhaps a couple of years too late.

    "It was tough because Jermaine really didn't want to be here the last couple of years," Foster said. "It was tough to become a team when your best player did not want to be on the team."
    Foster and Jamaal Tinsley are the only holdovers from the 61-win team of 2003-04, and Tinsley isn't expected back.

    Foster is entering his 10th season with the Pacers in part because he thrives in a role few want: He does things that often go unnoticed, from blocking out and diving for loose balls to being a presence in the locker room.

    Team president Larry Bird has noticed.

    "He's a glue guy to your team," Bird said. ". . . He's going to come in here and give you everything he's got."

    Training camp is seven weeks away, but Foster started noticing a change shortly after the Pacers acquired seven players in a two-day span in late June. Even the tone of fans' questions has improved. Instead of asking about Pacers' questionable actions off the court, they're asking about playoff seeding.

    Foster isn't calling the Pacers contenders, but he likes the motivation. Players such as T.J. Ford and Roy Hibbert have something to prove. Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy are trying to show they can lead a playoff team.

    "There are a lot of guys that are new to this and want to be part of the culture change," Foster said. "You have holdovers that are hungry . . . There's been a black cloud over us the last few years. We're ready to have a nice sunny day."


    Yea, I know there are other things in this article. But I think the fact that a team mate is now openly stating what we all have known for awhile.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

    Originally posted by Jeff
    "It was tough because Jermaine really didn't want to be here the last couple of years. It was tough to become a team when your best player did not want to be on the team."
    Ouch.

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    But I think the fact that a team mate is now openly stating what we all have known for awhile.
    This sentence is confusing me.
    Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
    Bum in Berlin on Myspace

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

      Originally posted by Raskolnikov View Post
      Ouch.


      This sentence is confusing me.
      He means Foster is just saying what was already known about JO.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
        He means Foster is just saying what was already known about JO.
        My own opinion is this is going to be a good TEAM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          He means Foster is just saying what was already known about JO.
          I got that, just thought the fact that he didn't finish his sentence properly....wait for it....was funny.

          Anyway, Jermaine didn't want to be here the last couple of years, and many of us wanted Jermaine traded the last couple of years. Wouldn't it have been neat for everyone if it had happened sooner...
          Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
          Bum in Berlin on Myspace

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

            Originally posted by Raskolnikov View Post
            I got that, just thought the fact that he didn't finish his sentence properly....wait for it....was funny.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

              Foster is doing more than talking. He is working and leading.

              Yesterday he was working in the Pacers' practice gym around noon when I passed by there. The others were McRoberts, Rush and Hibbert: three new guys . . . plus Foster, working as hard as the rest.

              Foster was working at one end of the court with Hibbert and I'm not sure which assistant coach. Foster was directing it, mostly, and he and Hibbert were both sweating up a storm.

              Rush was at the far end of the gym raining 3s from everywhere. McRoberts was getting in his daily 200 free throws, with Larry Bird tossing them back to him.
              And I won't be here to see the day
              It all dries up and blows away
              I'd hang around just to see
              But they never had much use for me
              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                Foster is doing more than talking. He is working and leading.

                Yesterday he was working in the Pacers' practice gym around noon when I passed by there. The others were McRoberts, Rush and Hibbert: three new guys . . . plus Foster, working as hard as the rest.

                Foster was working at one end of the court with Hibbert and I'm not sure which assistant coach. Foster was directing it, mostly, and he and Hibbert were both sweating up a storm.

                Rush was at the far end of the gym raining 3s from everywhere. McRoberts was getting in his daily 200 free throws, with Larry Bird tossing them back to him.
                Cool, thanks for sharing, Putz
                Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
                Bum in Berlin on Myspace

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  Foster is doing more than talking. He is working and leading.

                  Yesterday he was working in the Pacers' practice gym around noon when I passed by there. The others were McRoberts, Rush and Hibbert: three new guys . . . plus Foster, working as hard as the rest.

                  Foster was working at one end of the court with Hibbert and I'm not sure which assistant coach. Foster was directing it, mostly, and he and Hibbert were both sweating up a storm.

                  Rush was at the far end of the gym raining 3s from everywhere. McRoberts was getting in his daily 200 free throws, with Larry Bird tossing them back to him.
                  Sounds like some good signs. Intersting that Foster of all people would verbalize the JO thing when seemingly nobody wanted to admit it or just come out and state the obvious for two years. I suppose being essentially the last guy from that group he feels as if a huge weight has been lifted from his shoulders.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                    I guess this answers the "Will Foster be traded" question. After all that Larry has said, he'd look pretty foolish trading his "glue" guy.
                    Turn out the lights, this party's over!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                      He's been known to look pretty foolish.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                        Originally posted by 2minutes twowa View Post
                        I guess this answers the "Will Foster be traded" question. After all that Larry has said, he'd look pretty foolish trading his "glue" guy.

                        That really doesn't answer anything. Granted Foster isn't going to be traded for the sake of trading him, but if the right trade comes along he will be traded. There are NO untradeables on this team if the right trade comes along, and that includes Granger, Dunleavy, etc.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                          Originally posted by Putnam View Post


                          McRoberts was getting in his daily 200 free throws, with Larry Bird tossing them back to him.
                          This is what caught my attention. I like the fact that Bird was working with the players instead of sitting up in the corporate office of the "puzzle palace." He needs to be involved on an elbow rubbing daily basis with the players.

                          Who knows maybe McRoberts has something Bird likes to be working with him, or he's evaluating him to see if he's a keeper instead of having to look for another "big". Whatever, I just like that Bird is doing it.

                          Thanx for posting your enjoyable observation it is appreciated.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                            Thanks Putty, your observation has been the most informative thing I have read on the Digest in about a month.

                            ...Boy, that feels good!

                            It is getting pretty easy to feel good about this team. Record wise we won't be a contender, but management is improving this team!
                            Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 08-27-2008, 09:35 AM.
                            ...Still "flying casual"
                            @roaminggnome74

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                              Foster is doing more than talking. He is working and leading.

                              Yesterday he was working in the Pacers' practice gym around noon when I passed by there. The others were McRoberts, Rush and Hibbert: three new guys . . . plus Foster, working as hard as the rest.

                              Foster was working at one end of the court with Hibbert and I'm not sure which assistant coach. Foster was directing it, mostly, and he and Hibbert were both sweating up a storm.

                              Rush was at the far end of the gym raining 3s from everywhere. McRoberts was getting in his daily 200 free throws, with Larry Bird tossing them back to him.
                              You might recall me posting a photo of Foster working on his game the summer of the Al trade. I poked around one day when we were wondering about "Al at Conseco" rumors and saw Jeff with a trainer working hard. That would have been around the same time in the summer.



                              As for JO, it's been frosty between he and Bird for some time. One of the posters at Star ran into him and heard his displeasure straight from JO's mouth a few years ago. I don't let Bird off the hook totally on this issue, it's on both of them. Larry tried to push JO in the press and I think JO resented Larry for the Isiah thing, plus the Ron thing, and lots of other issues I'm guessing.

                              Possibly JO didn't want to be in Indy for some of the same reasons fans didn't want to watch the team also. Obviously the water hole was so poisoned by the end that it was just pointless to go on. I wonder how much Walsh influenced the situation and kept it lingering? I also wonder just how much this affected JO's health, though I would suggest that money and the ability to be moved to another team would keep JO trying hard rather than faking/amplifying his injury.

                              Uninspired, sure. Frustrated, no kidding. But I think he really was injured and if he plays better in Toronto it will be due to healing enough much more than being inspired again. I think Toronto was taking a legit risk in trading for him, it's not going to be a simple as "now he's happy" to get the deal to work out on their end.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X