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

Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

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

  • Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...nnsi&type=lgns

    No pay, no foul
    Marty Burns, SI.com

    In the spring of '99, I went to Portland to write a piece for Sports Illustrated about then-Blazers swingman Jim Jackson, who was getting set to make his first career playoff appearance after 446 games spanning seven NBA seasons. At the time it was the ninth-longest such drought in league history, and Jackson (who had spurned a bigger offer from the Clippers to sign a three-year $5.8 million deal with the Blazers) was clearly looking forward to his first dip in postseason waters.

    "This is the reason I came here," he said. "I wanted to be in a winning situation."

    Jackson wound up having a solid playoff run. Once a big-time scorer with the Mavs (he averaged 25.7 points per game in '94-95), he had willingly accepted a role off Portland's bench as Isaiah Rider's backup. Thanks in part to his defense and shot-making, the Blazers made it all the way to the Western Conference finals before blowing a huge fourth-quarter Game 7 lead against the Lakers. Unfortunately for Jackson, he was traded along with Rider that summer to the Hawks in a deal for Steve Smith. It was a tough break for the former Ohio State standout.

    But Jackson bit his lip and kept his grumbling to a minimum during the subsequent season-and-a-half in the Atlanta wasteland.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    I thought of this last week after hearing the news that Jackson had been suspended indefinitely by the Hornets. Unhappy about the Dec. 27 trade that sent him from Houston to New Orleans, he simply refused to report to New Orleans.

    At 34, Jackson apparently has decided that he doesn't want to waste his time on a 4-29 Hornets team. Every game he misses, he loses 1/90th of his $2.4 million annual salary. The meter is now at $161,333 and running. Jackson, naturally, is taking a PR beating. Hornets fans are calling him selfish and spoiled. Even some of his fellow NBA players think he's wrong.

    "If you get traded, you still gotta play," Warriors forward Cliff Robinson says. "That's the nature of the business."

    But if Jackson is willing to give up the cash, why should anybody be upset? After all, don't we criticize players for collecting paychecks when their hearts aren't in it? Isn't this better than showing up and pulling a Vince Carter? Jackson has already been through a hellish rebuilding situation in his career. His '92-93 Mavs team finished 11-71, second-worst of all time. The following year his Mavs were 13-69. Even if Jackson deserves some of the blame for those terrible records, isn't it understandable that he wouldn't want to relive that nightmare?

    Moreover, one could argue Jackson already more than repented to the basketball gods for his old Dallas sins. New Orleans would mark his 11th team in 13 NBA seasons. While that's often a sign of a malcontent, Jackson was an innocent victim in most of these cases.

    Portland just wanted to get rid of Rider. Atlanta dealt him to Cleveland to get a badly-needed point guard in Brevin Knight. Sacramento let him go for financial reasons. Jackson thought he had finally found a home in Houston, where he was a favorite of coach Jeff Van Gundy, but he fell victim to the Rockets' sudden need for an additional ball-handler (David Wesley).

    Now Jackson finds himself in the basketball backwaters of New Orleans with no clue as to why he's there. The Hornets made the trade to get rid of Wesley and acquire a decent young prospect in Bostjan Nachbar. Jackson was a throw-in to make the salaries match up. That's why Jackson is being so stubborn and holding out for a trade.

    He and GM Allan Bristow have spoken once, during a conference call shortly after the trade, but that has been the extent of the conversation. Mark Termini, Jackson's agent, declined comment Friday except to say that his client had nothing against New Orleans and was hopeful something could be worked out to the advantage of both parties.

    Clearly, the Hornets could get something for Jackson if they try hard enough. The Nuggets need a shooting guard and might be willing to part with Rodney White. The Heat have extra pieces in Wes Person and Rasual Butler, and Jackson was spotted recently at a game in Miami.

    But there is no guarantee the Hornets will do anything. Publicly, Bristow says he still hopes Jackson changes his mind and agrees to suit up. The Hornets even have a locker stall ready at New Orleans Arena, complete with a No. 22 Jackson jersey and an unopened box of Air Max Nikes, size 15. Or the notoriously tight-fisted Hornets might decide to keep Jackson on the suspended list so they don't have to pay his salary.

    Whatever the case, we're not saying anybody should feel sorry for Jackson. The NBA is a business. Players use their leverage all the time to maximize their gain. The Rockets had every right to trade Jackson, and the Hornets have every right to expect him to suit up. But don't put Jackson alongside Carter, Alonzo Mourning and Tracy McGrady in the NBA's Mt. Rushmore of Malingerers either.

    Unlike Zo, Jackson's not collecting on a fat paycheck to do nothing. Unlike Carter and T-Mac last season, he's not going out on the floor and playing at half-throttle. All Jackson wants is a chance to play for a contending team before it's too late. The Hornets need guys who truly want to be there. It seems something could be done to satisfy those goals and make this a win-win situation for both parties.


    Is Jackson doing the right thing or making a big mistake?

  • #2
    Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

    I agree with what he is doing.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

      I'm torn.

      If this were a young player who had seasons left in the NBA I would be against him.

      However seeing as how he is at an end & he was just a throw in I can sympathize with him. I can't believe that he is in any long term plans of the Hornets so why bother going through the misery that is the season.

      But this is the same Jackson that held out so long as a rookie as well so we have to keep that in mind.

      I guess I feel sorry for the guy & if he is willing to lose the money I guess it's really not hurting anyone because his presence is not going to make a differance one way or the other to N.O.

      But if this were a player who mattered then I would be totally against what he is doing.


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

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

        I think he should hold out and demand a trade to Indiana for Michael Curry.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

          I think its easy to say until a player does that to your franchise....

          I think he should be a man about it and play.

          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


          • #6
            Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

            Well, I'm split. If my team is just horrible, I'm not sure I'd want a guy coming in and possibly tampering with my #1 draft pick. Face it, Jim Jackson isn't going to make the Hornets into a playoff team. But he might be good enough to get them into 2nd or 3rd to last place, which means less pub regarding your draft pick, less for fans to get excited about. In the meantime, your team is awful, and they'll continue to be awful with Jim Jackson, he's not exciting because he's not going to be a developing talent, then maybe I'd rather the owner not have to pay him. Also, it's not like he's holding out for more money, he's just a veteran player who doesn't want to suffer through any more terrible seasons.

            On the flipside, it would be a slap in the face for a guy to refuse to play for my team, no matter how bad it is. I guess I'd be so disgusted with the guy that I wouldn't want him on the team anyways. So I guess maybe I"m not as conflicted as I thought. Either way, it's fine if he doesn't want to play.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

              ooo, speaking of the Hornets, they'll undoubtedly have the #1 pick this year. Will they draft that PG from Wake Forest if he enters the draft? If so, will they be even more aggressively shopping Baron?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

                I like that trade fig...do you think we'd do it? Rick would kick and scream before he let them pull the trigger! What about! Curry +Edwards+Future conditional 2nd round pick!
                DEAL!
                and hornets HAVE to throw in PJ Brown...sound good?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

                  The NBA is a business. I agree with what he is doing. The team had every right to trade him for its benefit; he has every right to sit out to maximize his benefit and/or show his disgust, etc.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

                    Yup and he isn't getting paid either, so as a fan of New Orleans I would be disgusted too, but from the outside looking in and seeying he has been in more than his fair share of BAD teams and has been thrown in so much, yeah, I can sympathize with him.

                    Regards,

                    Mourning
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

                      If he doesn't need the money, it's in his best iinterest that he wait until New Orleans finds a deal for him. It's also in New Orleans interest since they don't have to pay him and they have don't need the temporary disruption on their roster. The trading deadline is not much more than a month away, so the Hornets will soon find a suitable deal for him.

                      You have to believe the Nets would take him today, and give up a second round pick in the process (they have the trade exception to allow them to take his salary) - but the Hornets are holding out for more.

                      I think the Pacers will enter the Jackson sweepstakes, if it becomes clear that Bender won't be able to play the rest of the year. If we want to compete in the East, we can't finish the rest of this year with just Stephen Jackson and our current small forwards, can we?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

                        I would love to have him on the team, but as always "for the right price" . I would be willing to give up more than a 2nd round pick like NJ is offering though

                        Regards,

                        Mourning
                        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

                          I have never been able to figure out this fascination that some of you have with Jim Jackson.

                          I consider him about on par with Ron Mercer, but slightly better. I have zero desire to see the guy on the team. 11 teams in 13 years should tell somebody something.


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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

                            I'm not a Jim Jackson fan at all. He's a lot like Rod Strickland or Adrian Dantley, there's a reason teams are willing to move him along to the next "sucker."

                            My usual comment it that, "you signed the contract, you should show up and play". But he seems to be willing to be suspended without pay. I'm usually offended by the guy who doesn't want to report but still wants his contract to be honored. I think I'm okay with this. Its equitable because NO isn't receiving nor paying for his services, and its equitable because JJ isn't honoring nor being paid for his contract. The one way this is inequitable is that NO might feel shortchanged by trading Welsey only for Nachbar, but I think everyone agrees that JJ was a throw-in. Its not like trading Franchise, Cat and Cato for T-Mac, and then having Franchise act like he doesn't want to ge to Orlando - in that case Franchise was one of the principal components of the trade.

                            These guys are human, I just wonder how we'd all react if we were in careers in which we could be uprooted and traded on a moment's notice?
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: Jim Jackson - Right or Wrong

                              I don't think that it's right what he is doing. He should have reported to the team and played a few games and then demanded a trade.

                              I'd love to have him on the Pacers squad. I totally disagree with your statement that Jim Jackson is like Ron Mercer. One thing the Jim Jackson will give us that Mercer never did is 3pt shooting and post scoring. He's also a much better defender than Mercer.

                              If the Pacers traded for him, he'd be the second best SF on the team (I really don't consider Freddy a SF and Bender is a huge ?). He's a better defender than Curry and JJ and a better scorer. I think he'd be a good fit.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X