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

Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

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

  • #16
    Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

    I thought it was abundantly clear watching the documentary that Jalen was voicing his thoughts of Duke while he was a Freshman, not his current thoughts.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

      Originally posted by Day-V View Post
      I thought it was abundantly clear watching the documentary that Jalen was voicing his thoughts of Duke while he was a Freshman, not his current thoughts.
      You, and just about everyone else that wasn't looking for an excuse to get offended.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        He had two hours to say it and didn't, but it's nice that he polished it up after the fact.

        He likely enjoys the extra attention he gathered from the [intentional?] omission in the show
        The documentary wasn't about today, it was about 91-93. Quite frankly I think if he and the others would have gone on saying how they all think Duke is great and all now it would have taken away from the documentary.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

          it's pretty clear the only people who took his comments out of context were people who had bias against the fab five to begin with. Most people were smart enough to put it in the right context.

          If you take Jalen's thoughts now, and compare it with Hurley and Hill's thoughts now, Jalen comes off as the far classier and more mature human being.
          Last edited by Kstat; 03-17-2011, 06:39 PM.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Well, either that, or he just didn't expect a Duke graduate to not be intelligent enough to connect the dots.
            I would expect even Michigan graduates (or were Jalen and Jimmy just Michigan attendees?) to each realize that when he throws out very offensive, hurtful, and inflammatory labels like "Uncle Tom" and "Bit*h" that he must make it crystal clear that his perspective has changed. It was certainly not crystal clear in the show, or else there would be no controversy at all. Jalen also felt it was not crystal clear in the show, or else why would he apologize in advance to Grant?

            If some public figure were (as an example) talking about how as a youth he believed that the Holocaust did not happen, told examples about WHY he had believed it hadn't happened, I would expect sometime in the immediately following discussion he would very clearly disavow those offensive beliefs rather than leave it to the viewer to decide. I'm not equating falsely calling someone an Uncle Tom to being an anti-Semite, it's merely an analogy showing a clearly offensive viewpoint. As a prominent black columnist put it, the words "Uncle Tom" are "the worst two words one black man can direct at another" http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...bLS_story.html

            Is that crystal clear?
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 03-17-2011, 07:16 PM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

              Don't we already have a thread dedicated to this?

              BTW, that is a rhetorical question as I know we do.


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

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                Originally posted by CircleCity3318 View Post
                Jalen is great, very articulate and told the story how he saw it.
                i didn't see the documentary but i think there is certainly something to be said for this point.
                "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  Jalen comes off as the far classier and more mature human being.
                  Thanks for the laugh! Gotta wipe the diet coke off my screen. Grant Hill is nothing but maturity and class.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    Thanks for the laugh! Gotta wipe the diet coke off my screen. Grant Hill is nothing but maturity and class.
                    If he was about Maturity and Class, he would've found a way to call Jalen and have a discussion with him, not go and act like a pissed off high school girl and write a blog that deliberately threw Jalen under the bus.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                      Grant Hill went to my high school and I have met him, and besides him being a bit standofish (he was on crutches and being harassed by high school kids all night) I really thought he was a stand up guy.

                      That said, he probably should have called to clear this up.

                      That said, I think it was obvious that there was at least a little confusion, and even Jalen saw that or he would not have clarified (and I doubt he hates the publicity this is getting either, he is a producer for this after all isn't he?)

                      That said, all Grant Hill had to say was 3-0.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                        This got me to thinking about a column I read about Jay Williams when he was a rookie, before the motorcycle accident that effectively ended his career. Everyone expected Williams to light it up, but he struggled. In detailing why, it was explained that he fed off the closeness and adulation from his teammates and fans at Duke more than others did, which he wasn't getting in the NBA. When he asked veteran Rick Brunson about it, he simply told him "You're from Duke. Everyone hates you."

                        Think about Duke for a second. All that program does is win games, graduate players, and follow the rules, all under a successful, respected, and classy coach. And yet EVERYONE HATES DUKE. I think the former players know that but don't understand why. And I think that's part of the reason behind Hill and Hurley being so defensive.

                        I don't blame Hill for writing his article. As a white male who grew up in a rural area, I knew "Uncle Tom" was offensive, but I didn't know how offensive. If that makes me naive, then so be it. And I think Hill's rebuttal helped explain that, so it was a worthwhile exercise.

                        That said, I'm glad Jalen (and the rest of his Fab Five brethren) said what they did. To me, it was obvious they were explaining how they felt as college kids. That's exactly the type of insight I'm looking for when watching these type of documentaries. I wouldn't have wanted them to change a thing.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                          http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nc...ory?id=6270285

                          Mike Krzyzewski reacts to Jalen RoseEmail Print Comments161 ESPNChicago.com

                          Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski took exception to critical comments that ESPN analyst Jalen Rose made about the school, saying they were "very insulting to everyone here at Duke."


                          Waddle & Silvy
                          Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski called "The Waddle Silvy Show" while Jay Williams was co-hosting and discussed the Fab Five documentary as well as the Bulls and Derrick Rose.

                          More Podcasts ยป

                          Rose, as part of an ESPN Films documentary "The Fab Five" that aired March 13 (Rose was an executive producer), said black Blue Devils basketball players recruited in the early 1990s were "Uncle Toms."

                          "I hated Duke and I hated everything Duke stood for. Schools like Duke didn't recruit players like me. I felt like they only recruited black players that were Uncle Toms," Rose said in the documentary.

                          Former Duke and NBA star Grant Hill already called the comments "sad and somewhat pathetic."

                          "Obviously, that was a poor choice of words and very insulting to everyone here at Duke but especially, not just our African-American players, but any African-American students," Krzyzewski said on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000 in Chicago Tuesday. "When you judge within a race, you start judging, like you put categories as to who you are. I think that's just the wrong thing to do."

                          Krzyzewski said one of the Fab Five could have ended up at Duke.

                          "We were very successful against them and, to be quite frank with you, we recruited Chris Webber," he said. "I didn't recruit Jalen Rose because we had Grant Hill and I'm happy with that. We didn't look at the other, Juwan Howard [because] we knew he wasn't going to come to Duke. The other two kids we didn't think were the caliber that could play as well as Thomas Hill and Brian Davis and Billy McCaffery. They're good kids. They were good kids."

                          Duke beat the Fab Five in the 1992 NCAA championship game. Michigan made it back to the title game in 1993 but lost to North Carolina.

                          "They had a heck of a run but, they didn't leave anything, they didn't establish anything there," Krzyzewski said. "The guys that I had established something that Jay Williams continued to do 10 years later -- the standards of what it meant to be a Duke basketball player."

                          Williams, a college basketball analyst for ESPN, spoke about the topic on ESPN 1000 as well Tuesday. He said that Rose texted him and Hill on the eve of the show and said that his quotes did not pertain to them. When Williams saw the show, he was still unhappy.

                          "Listen, I know that it's obviously how Jalen reflected upon it when he was a 19-year-old kid," Williams said of the Uncle Tom comment. "But, I think the thing that got a lot of people disgruntled was the fact that he never came out and said, 'Listen, this is not how I feel now' in the documentary."

                          Williams also said that there is a debate in the African-American community on what it means to be "black." He said he lived in a black neighborhood as a kid but went to a predominantly white school. When he played basketball in his neighborhood he was razzed for "talkin' white."

                          "How is it to be less black?" he said. "If the definition of an Uncle Tom is me coming from a dual parenting home where my mother and father worked harder for me to receive a better education; if the definition of an Uncle Tom is for me going to a prestigious school like Duke or Harvard or learning how to flow from being in the inner city and also being on TV and in the corporate world, I'll be an Uncle Tom all day long."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                            Meanwhile, in Jalen's life:

                            http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/29/jalen-...-michigan-nba/

                            He is arrested for DUI.
                            Last edited by Cherokee; 03-29-2011, 09:55 PM. Reason: corrected from DWI to DUI.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                              For the record- I am a huge Jalen fan. Number 5 was my number all the way through highschool ball because of him... huge fan.

                              Anywho, a lot were insinuating to some degree Grant Hill was being a drama queen by writing a public response to Jalen Rose. Just remember, that it seemed Hill's intent was to tackle an important issue in today's society. And he did. Whether or not you want to argue over Jalen Rose's intents, it was a great chance for Hill to use his celebrity to discuss a very important issue.

                              I don't want our forum to get into this discussion, because it can definitely get completely out of control. But we can all recognize without debating, that their is a clear disconnect between blacks in our society who don't come from a completely broken, and poverty stricken home, and those blacks who had to grow up in that society. There has been a someone what prevailing theme that people such as Hill for instance are somehow "less black" as Hill put it.

                              As a bunch of white people from a predominantly white populated state, we probably aren't the best to get into that discussion. However, it is great that Hill did respond in the way that he did. He was very balanced, and did not attempt to attack Jalen in any way. He did his best to highlight what was at the heart of this controversy, and I think he was trying to speak for all black American's who have had a much more blessed life than those who've grown up in the "'hood."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Interesting article about Jalen Rose and "Dukies"

                                I know my opinion is highly valued around here, but for what it's worth, I'm echoing all of KStat's posts in this thread.
                                Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X