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

  • #16
    Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    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.
    Yes, I do. In fact, I've been conscious from time to time of looking for you around there, though I know you don't make a regular summertime habit of checking out the practice court. I know what you look like from the forum party photos, so I could spot you first and assume a defensive posture.
    Last edited by Putnam; 08-27-2008, 11:00 AM.
    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


    • #17
      Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      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.
      I really suspect that this is one of THE main reasons why JONeal was still on the roster. I think that DW tends to be more pragmatic when it comes to valueing ( or overvalueing ) his players and was always looking for the best deal to move him.

      The second I found out that DW was leaving and that Bird was taking over completely.....I immediately thought that JONeal was going to be shipped out. We have always heard that JONeal and Bird did not get along.....or more specifically a key "Decision Maker" in the Franchise did not get along with the recognized "Franchise Player".....you have to wonder why Bird didn't try to move him earlier.

      BTW....I really hope that Bird's comments about Foster means that it would take a lot for TPTB to move him...as well as intending to resign him next season for the next couple of seasons.
      Last edited by CableKC; 08-27-2008, 10:19 AM.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

        Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
        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'm reminded of the end of the 2006-2007 season when the Pacers were so close and yet so far from making the playoffs. When they needed a strong, encouring voice it wasn't JO who spoke up. It was Croshere!

        I knew then that something was wrong in the locker room...just didn't want to admit it to myself.

        Perhaps the person Bird hinted at being the team's new leader (in the locker room) IS Jeff Foster.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

          Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
          Perhaps the person Bird hinted at being the team's new leader (in the locker room) IS Jeff Foster.


          That could be! But, leader or not, we can be sure that Jeff will continue to be a good-*** teammate.
          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


          • #20
            Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

            Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
            He's been known to look pretty foolish.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

              Originally posted by intridcold View Post
              Larry doesn't look particularly happy to be there at that photo shoot!

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                Happy or not it [Donnie] made him look like a fool in hindsight.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                  Isn't Jermaine O'Neal a Raptor? I'm confused. Why are we talking about him? What about Ron Artest? Isn't he a Rocket? And I'm pretty sure Donnie Walsh is a Knick.

                  Can we move on? It's weird. We expect the "common fan" to move on and accept this team but we, the hardcore fans, still talk about the same stuff over and over again and don't seem to move on at all.

                  How about the fact that three of our young guys are working out in Indy right now-and looking good...or the fact that we're all developing UB-size crushes on Foster?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                    There have been quite a few "skeptical" references made by both Peck and I concerning JO. Foster's statement about JO not wanting to be here the past couple of years only solidifies my feelings. And the guy had the nads to ask Kravitz if he thought his number would get retired. His head was into JO and not the team.
                    Last edited by ABADays; 08-27-2008, 12:58 PM.
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                      Rexom
                      The topic came up and I divulged. The fact is we still have Bird here. He is connected to Walsh and JO. If you want closure to JO on this team you will not get it. Because if the Pacers ever fail to live up to standards, everyone will bring the skeletons out. It may not be positive, but the last time I checked this is not Pacers.com.

                      While some may see topics like this a negative, I see it as a positive. Chemistry is not overrated in the NBA. And if JO, who has been known to be dogging it and still getting the franchise tag, is gone. You will have to acknowledge that the team atmosphere is better than it has been in a lonnnnngggg time.

                      That is exciting.

                      Now to my SI photo. I was merely a joke.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                        Who on this roster WANTED to be here the past two years? No point in singleing JO out like Foster is doing when I'm certain that at least half the roster didn't want to be here. With (former) teammates like that, who needs enemies?

                        This seems to be the exact thing that our "friend" (not really) - the purple people eater - would harp on. Remember all the criticism Croshere got for speaking out about Artest to the New York papers. And it was a legit complaint, even if it did validate what some of us were thinking.

                        This team was a dysfunctional mess at the top. JO was more an innocent bystander than troublemaker. But if Foster is going to be calling out former teammates, who is going to want to be a "former" teammate of his in the future?

                        This could be the by-product of Bird's semi-refreshing-but-very-dangerous airing of the team's dirty laundry to the press. These players may now be in a race to see who can give the next juicy tidbit to The Star. I don't see how this possibly improves chemistry.



                        (All the more reason to purge the team of all veterans that were here when Rick/ Donnie was still here and start over with Ford/ Rush/ Jack/ Granger - not counting him as a veteran when Rick was here - Hibbert/ Rasho/ etc. A first round pick in exchange for Foster never looked so good.)
                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                          Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                          Rexom
                          The topic came up and I divulged. The fact is we still have Bird here. He is connected to Walsh and JO. If you want closure to JO on this team you will not get it. Because if the Pacers ever fail to live up to standards, everyone will bring the skeletons out. It may not be positive, but the last time I checked this is not Pacers.com.

                          While some may see topics like this a negative, I see it as a positive. Chemistry is not overrated in the NBA. And if JO, who has been known to be dogging it and still getting the franchise tag, is gone. You will have to acknowledge that the team atmosphere is better than it has been in a lonnnnngggg time.

                          That is exciting.

                          Now to my SI photo. I was merely a joke.
                          And a good one. My comments weren't really targeted. They were more or less an expression of my JO-Artest-Walsh fatigue.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                            I've been conscious from time to time of looking for you around there,I know what you look like from the forum party photos, so I could spot you first and assume a defensive posture.
                            Learning from heywoode, I see.

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            Who on this roster WANTED to be here the past two years? No point in singleing JO out like Foster is doing when I'm certain that at least half the roster didn't want to be here. With (former) teammates like that, who needs enemies?

                            This seems to be the exact thing that our "friend" (not really) - the purple people eater - would harp on. Remember all the criticism Croshere got for speaking out about Artest to the New York papers. And it was a legit complaint, even if it did validate what some of us were thinking.

                            This team was a dysfunctional mess at the top. JO was more an innocent bystander than troublemaker. But if Foster is going to be calling out former teammates, who is going to want to be a "former" teammate of his in the future?

                            This could be the by-product of Bird's semi-refreshing-but-very-dangerous airing of the team's dirty laundry to the press. These players may now be in a race to see who can give the next juicy tidbit to The Star. I don't see how this possibly improves chemistry.



                            (All the more reason to purge the team of all veterans that were here when Rick/ Donnie was still here and start over with Ford/ Rush/ Jack/ Granger - not counting him as a veteran when Rick was here - Hibbert/ Rasho/ etc. A first round pick in exchange for Foster never looked so good.)
                            Good to have you back, Jay. Between you and count55, I don't even need to post anymore...which is probably preferred by all.

                            Jeff Foster's comments about JO not wanting to be here should indeed by prefaced by the fact that, undoubtedly, Jeff Foster didn't want to be here the past two years either. Nor did Donnie. Nor Larry. Nor ...
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                              Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                              Isn't Jermaine O'Neal a Raptor? I'm confused. Why are we talking about him? What about Ron Artest? Isn't he a Rocket? And I'm pretty sure Donnie Walsh is a Knick.

                              Can we move on? It's weird. We expect the "common fan" to move on and accept this team but we, the hardcore fans, still talk about the same stuff over and over again and don't seem to move on at all.

                              How about the fact that three of our young guys are working out in Indy right now-and looking good...or the fact that we're all developing UB-size crushes on Foster?
                              I've always liked Jeff Foster and have considered him to be a very important part of this franchise for years. I've just always wanted him to develop more of an offensive game. Last year was the first time I've ever seen him be more aggressive offensively and actually look for his own shot instead of relying on gimme putbacks/bunny layups. He needed a coach who has confidence in his ability to knock down the mid-range jumper and JOB has given him the go-ahead to take that shot when it's there. Still, I'd so much rather he developed a power-move from the top of the key when coming out of high screens or PnR plays. He's always so wide open on those plays but he always dumps the ball off to somebody else. A few strong steps to the basket like he does with give-N-go plays and he'd quickly become a real offensive threat out there if he could combine such a move w/his ability to knock down the mid-range jumper he has.

                              Having Jeff step up and teach is great! But I also want him to step up and do a little bit more on the offensive end.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Foster say's O'Neal did not want to be here the last two seasons...

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                Learning from heywoode, I see.



                                Good to have you back, Jay. Between you and count55, I don't even need to post anymore...which is probably preferred by all.

                                Jeff Foster's comments about JO not wanting to be here should indeed by prefaced by the fact that, undoubtedly, Jeff Foster didn't want to be here the past two years either. Nor did Donnie. Nor Larry. Nor ...
                                The difference between Foster and JO is that Foster did not play like he didn't want to be here.

                                That may seem unfair, but I still can get over the fact that JO was lacking passion. Even when we could have made the playoffs he failed to take over and play like the player he once was. Some say it was injury. I don't think that was entirely the case. It was volatile for months on end. But Foster played his role. JO never really established one after Ron left. Was that his fault entirely? No.

                                JO and the Pacers will always have something in common. That when the going gets tough, you make excuses to cover your poor showmanship/play.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X