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

All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

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

  • #61
    Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Donnie Walsh gets my vote, he felt in love with talent and kept a volatile team together, he is also responsible for Murphleavy and yep I'm not going to forget the horrible job he did last year costing the Pacers a chance to be in the finals.

    To me if you are blaming Artest, Jackson and whoever for ruining the Pacers chances to be in the finals you have to do the same thing to Walsh.
    I give Walsh credit for the Reggie years, but you have a good point. He indeed brought in a litany of head cases that caused the team to implode though, so I guess the buck stops there.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      I don't think Donnie should be anywhere near this list, but I included him because a lot of people on here (I'm guessing) will want to choose him. So I listed him.
      Troy Murphy either. He never caused off-court problems for the team nor become a lockroom disruption (as far as I know). So, why put him on the list?

      Stephen Jackson?
      Shawn Williams?
      David Harrison?
      Marquis Daniels?

      I could see any of those guys' name of the list because they did do things that brought undue attention to the team and/or tarnish its image at one time or another. But Troy Murphy? What did he do to deserve making the list of "undesirables"?

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

        Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
        Ron Artest never came nearly as close to running me off as a fan as JOB and Troy Murphy did.
        Why? I don't understand the disgust w/Troy Murphy. Did he not play tough enough under the basket for your taste? (Frankly, I had this same criticism of him, but that's no reason to put him on a poll of people/players who where the most "negatively influence on a franchise" of all-time! That's quite a bit of a stretch in my view because Troy never did anything off the court that I'm aware of that you could remotely consider as having tarnished the team's image.

        I just don't get the anti-Troy Murphy sentiments here.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          By that logic everything has to be traced back to the decision to sign Walsh as the GM. You can keep going back in time and connect every decision and action to JOB and Murphy, but at a certain point you have to draw a line and say no that was not caused because Hitler decided to let that Jewish girl live because he was horny and thought she was hot. I don't think you can put JOB and Murphy under the Artest umbrella.
          The way I look at it, you cast your vote based on individual actions. Donnie Walsh did nothing except trying to find the best players that fit for the overall cost the Pacers franchise had to work with. If you want to blame him for bringing in a player or two who of their own accord decided to be "individuals" and not team players or hot-heads instead of mature men or diplomats for the team, then you'd have to blame everyone within the Pacers front office from the Simons all the way down to the team scouts! That's not fair, is it?

          When it comes down to it the players make the team in the eyes of the fans. The CEO/POBO (Pres. of Basketball Operations) may hire them, the coach may teach and motivate them, but as mean the players make or break the "team spirit".

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            It wasn't his (Stephen Jackson's) punch that started it. It was Artest going into the stands aggressively.
            Actually, both were to blame.

            If I remember the events correctly, Stephen Jackson did follow Ron Artest into the stands and he was the first Pacers player to land a punch upon a Pistons fan. Ron Artest didn't hit anyone. He merely confronted the wrong guy. Fred Jones did fight back but only after a fan sucker punched him. JO cold cocked a Pistons fan who confronted him on the court. And I think it was Jamal Tinsley who tossed a folding chair into the stands after fans continued to pelt the Pacers as they made their way towards the lockeroom through the vomitorium. (I so hate that word!)

            So, in my view Ron Artest may have stirred the crowd's angst by going into the stands, but his actions alone didn't stir the crowd to anger. What did was Stephen Jackson's wild and unsolicited attack upon a fan who didn't attack him. That's why I still contend to this day that if anyone should have been banned for the season it should have been Stephen Jackson, not Ron Artest.

            To this day I have yet to see any video evidence that supports him hitting a fan. Nonetheless, his actions from that day onward cement him as the All-Time leading negative influence on "team spirit" and waning public (fan) support for the Pacers franchise.
            Last edited by NuffSaid; 08-31-2013, 10:16 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              If this is the actual question then the answer has already been given earlier in the thread but it is not an option to choose.

              Nobody did more to damage this franchise than Sam Nassi.

              We were hours away from losing the franchise had it not been for the Simons.

              I vote for the Silna's.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/sp...anted=all&_r=0
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                Actually, both were to blame.

                If I remember the events correctly, Stephen Jackson did follow Ron Artest into the stands and he was the first Pacers player to land a punch upon a Pistons fan. Ron Artest didn't hit anyone. He merely confronted the wrong guy. Fred Jones did fight back but only after a fan sucker punched him. JO cold cocked a Pistons fan who confronted him on the court. And I think it was Jamal Tinsley who tossed a folding chair into the stands after fans continued to pelt the Pacers as they made their way towards the lockeroom through the vomitorium. (I so hate that word!)

                So, in my view Ron Artest may have started the crowed, but his actions alone didn't stir the crowd to anger. What did was Stephen Jackson's wild and unsolicited attack upon a fan who didn't attack him. That's why I still contend to this day that if anyone should have been banned for the season it should have been Stephen Jackson, not Ron Artest. To this day I have yet to see any video evidence that supports him hitting a fan. Nonetheless, his actions from that day onward cement him as the All-Time leading negative influence on "team spirit" and waning public (fan) support for the Pacers franchise.
                Fan throws beer. Two possible decisions; ignore him and he gets escorted out and no one remembers this; or charge into the stands, tarnish your career and the franchise that employs you. Choose restraint and Stephen jackson never throws that punch; we don't squander a possible championship season; we don't endure a massive drop-off over the ensuing seasons; we don't fire Carlisle, and thus replace him with the worst coach ever; and we don't trade our best players away for undesirable players/contracts that hamstring our salary cap and therefore leverage for years. All because Artest couldn't show the restraint that he, as a man and a professional, should have. It's the classic example of consequences for bad decisions. Too many people are completely ignorant of this concept, and they generally side with Artest, naturally. This was the worst in a series of bad decisions made by this man, he has precedence and subsequent incidents of being an idiot.
                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-31-2013, 10:13 AM.
                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

                  Jackson was out of control as well but it was total chaos that night lots of blame to go around, however people are forgetting that Jackson punched the fan after that fan threw his drink at Artest, as he grabbed the first fan.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ThA HoyA View Post
                    Jackson was out of control as well but it was total chaos that night lots of blame to go around, however people are forgetting that Jackson punched the fan after that fan threw his drink at Artest, as he grabbed the first fan.
                    It was chaos, and it doesn't happen had Artest made the right decision.
                    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

                      No Indianapolis Colts option?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Fan throws beer. Two possible decisions; ignore him and he gets escorted out and no one remembers this; or charge into the stands, tarnish your career and the franchise that employs you. Choose restraint and Stephen jackson never throws that punch; we don't squander a possible championship season; we don't endure a massive drop-off over the ensuing seasons; we don't fire Carlisle, and thus replace him with the worst coach ever; and we don't trade our best players away for undesirable players/contracts that hamstring our salary cap and therefore leverage for years. All because Artest couldn't show the restraint that he, as a man and a professional, should have. It's the classic example of consequences for bad decisions. Too many people are completely ignorant of this concept, and they generally side with Artest, naturally. This was the worst in a series of bad decisions made by this man, he has precedence and subsequent incidents of being an idiot.
                        Don't get me wrong. I wasn't defending Ron-Ron. Not at all. I get that had he not gone into the stands the brawl never would have happened. I get that he was the match the lite the fuse. But he wasn't the explosion that caused the destruction. That came the moment Stephen Jackson threw the first punch. Still, I put blame on both of them, but I place more blame on Jax2 than on Artest. He may have been cocky and antagonistic by laying on the table, he certainly was wrong for rushing the stands and IDing the wrong person for throwing the cup, but he wasn't the spark that sent things into total chaos.

                        To the point of this thread, however, I can see why some are saying Jamal Tinsley was the biggest All-Time negative influence on the team over Ron Artest. Consider this:

                        Artest's negatives, so to speak, took place over a near 2-year span from the brawl until he went behind Bird's back and demanded a trade. Fans considered Artest to have been a major drag on the team but only insofar as his actions led to the league tearing the team down via all those suspensions which subsequently led to the team's inability to compete. Tinsley's actions had a far different impact on the team, its image and, thus, the fan's perspective not just locally but nationwide.

                        The public shootings and bar fights led by Tinsley, Stephen Jackson and Marquis Daniels all led to a slew of trades, many of which were grasps at straws not to build a team of skilled players seeking to win a championship but rather to stem the tide of reckless hot-heads who had a total disregard for how their actions impacted the image of a franchise. The negativity that was Tinsley, Jackson, Daniels, Harrison and Williams was replaced by Murphy and Dunleavy, two calm White players who didn't cause a fuss AND who brought fundamentals and maturity to the team. Problem was while they helped calm the public temperament for troublemakers on the team, they did nothing for bringing the team closer to being true competitors as the fans were once accustomed to. To be frank, fans wanted that Pacers team from 2004 that was on the verge of beating the Pistons and winning the Central Division. The Murphy/Dunleavy Pacers fell far short of attaining that goal, but what they did bring was the initial steps in a complete departure from a culture of individuals to a culture of team players.

                        So, upon deeper reflection if I could change my vote, I'd vote for Tinsley as being the All-Time most negative influence on the Pacers franchise.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

                          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                          No Indianapolis Colts option?
                          I know you're kidding, but there is some truth in it. Gonna be interesting with both our pro teams being good at the same time.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

                            Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                            Don't get me wrong. I wasn't defending Ron-Ron. Not at all. I get that had he not gone into the stands the brawl never would have happened. I get that he was the match the lite the fuse. But he wasn't the explosion that caused the destruction. That came the moment Stephen Jackson threw the first punch. Still, I put blame on both of them, but I place more blame on Jax2 than on Artest. He may have been cocky and antagonistic by laying on the table, he certainly was wrong for rushing the stands and IDing the wrong person for throwing the cup, but he wasn't the spark that sent things into total chaos.
                            No, the explosion was Artest charging into the stands. That's what set it off. I barely even remember SJax punch. My entire memory is beer splashing on Artest, and BOOM ---- stands, throttling a fan. SJax was secondary, it wasn't even until I saw the replay that I realized he had thrown a punch. It was the Incredible Hulk leaping over normal people, throwing people left and right, grabbing a guy, and a whole stream of teammates following him. SJax was just another idiot with a gang-up mentality. As for Tinsley, he was an idiot too, but he was just the nail in the coffin. He wasn't the one who completely *reversed* a franchise like Artest did.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 08-31-2013, 11:11 AM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              No, the explosion was Artest charging into the stands. That's what set it off. I don't even remember SJax punch. My entire memory is beer splashing on Artest, and BOOM ---- stands, throttling a fan. SJax was secondary, it wasn't even until I saw the replay that I realized he had thrown a punch. It was the Incredible Hulk leaping over normal people, throwing people left and right, grabbing a guy, and a whole stream of teammates following him.
                              Then you were not watching. Things escalated as soon as Stephen Jackson "defended" Artest by punching some drunk in the mouth. Given 30 more seconds, the entire thing would have settled down. That is Artest's MO, btw. Create controversy (e.g. throwing a camera), then it settles down.

                              Artest would still have been suspended for going into the stands, but there would not have been a brawl involving Jermaine O'Neal and other Pacers.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: All time most negative influence on Pacers franchise

                                So a professional athlete leaving the floor area to run into and through the crowd to go grab somebody and threaten them isn't escalation? Wow.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X