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

Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

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

  • #16
    Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    Juwan Howard
    Jalen Rose
    Chris Webber
    Jimmy King
    Ray Jackson

    Kinda surprising a Michigan fan didn't know that.
    wanna read what geezer said again?

    Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
    He was a Fab 5 remember? There were no members of the Fab 5 I could stomach (and I'm a Michigan fan remember)

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

      Eh I appreciate Jalen's contributions that being said I've never been a fan of his dating back to his Michigan days and I too hated the Fab 5 so I was thrilled they never won anything.

      However I believe him when it comes to Reggie. I think Reggie isn't as attached to the city of Indy as other former athletes and that's fine with me.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

        Definitely sensed some slightly misplaced bitterness from Jalen there but other than long getting long-winded it wasn't extreme. I can also see Reggie being loyal to Jackson to a fault and since Rose wanted to play point guard it probably showed in the relationship.

        My biggest issue with Rose was that he was a Two who thought he was a One and with the make-up of the team had to play a lot of time at the Three. At the Three he was often a defensive liability and generally a poor rebounder. Offensively though Rose was really smooth and IMO underrated by too many fans. His versatility, ability to score from many places on the floor and ability to set-up teammates allowed those late 90's Pacer teams to "out execute" other teams on their way to whole a lot of playoff wins. In 1999 & 2000 I thought Rose was way more important to those teams offensive efficiency than Mark Jackson ever was.

        Why does Rose always hold the bat in these things?
        Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 05-17-2014, 02:44 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

          I'm not sure what more you guys expect from Reg, the dude spent his whole career here. If you guys had the choice of having a nice home in Malibu or spending last winter here.... which would you pick?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

            Originally posted by Frostwolf View Post
            wanna read what geezer said again?
            I have to admit I'm suffering a migrane today but I don't get what you are driving at. I said Jalen Rose was a member of the Fab 5 and even though I'm a Michigan (football) fan, I couldn't stand any of the Fab 5. What am I missing?
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

              Originally posted by PaceBalls View Post
              I'm not sure what more you guys expect from Reg, the dude spent his whole career here. If you guys had the choice of having a nice home in Malibu or spending last winter here.... which would you pick?
              Indiana, but I'm not from California.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                Originally posted by PaceBalls View Post
                I'm not sure what more you guys expect from Reg, the dude spent his whole career here.
                Some indication that he spent his whole career here.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                  Originally posted by PaceBalls View Post
                  I'm not sure what more you guys expect from Reg, the dude spent his whole career here. If you guys had the choice of having a nice home in Malibu or spending last winter here.... which would you pick?
                  Oh I don't blame him one bit for not living in Indy. If I had his bank account, I'd be living on a beach too. However, I wish that he showed a bit more love to the organization itself. Since retiring, he just hasn't ever outwardly showed much love to the Pacers. I guess part of it is that he tries very hard to be seen as an objective commentator, but I don't think that people would fault him if he showed a little Pacer love every now and then. He doesn't even allow the gift shop to sell his jersey with the other retros.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I understand that Jalen's job is to talk and be outrageous so I pay him no attention for the most part.

                    But all you have to do to understand why many of us didn't like the guy when he was here is listen to him talk about his time as a Pacer. Self absorbed over important gas bag.

                    I'm glad he knows he never made the all-star team, he never deserved to.

                    Also Jalen one of the greatest moments of my life was when you scored your 39th & 40th point off of free throws and the entire time the crowd was chanting Reg gie Reg gie Reg gie!!! The look on your face was priceless and your comment after the game about how one of the greatest moments of your life was ruined by people chanting for someone else. That's because everyone in attendance knew that Reggie went out of his way to stop shooting and kept feeding you the ball just so you could hit 40.

                    Listening to you here it is no wonder none of the players of that team give you a second thought.
                    Agree 100%. IMHO, players like Jalen Rose do not have any concept of team, playing in a system, playing defense. He was always about himself and never about TEAM. I never liked him as a player but he is fun in that studio. What Larry Brown did for our franchise and those players (Davises, Reggie, Smits) is invaluable. I do not like basektball players like Jalen myself and I am glad Larry Brown thought the same way. I will take one Derek Mckey's or one Haywood Workman over 10 Jalen Roses. Dumb Donnie gave him a max contract - puzzles me to this day. Basketball is not just about scoring, there is lot of intangibles none of which Jalen has.

                    In the podcast, I just see an old bitter man who still hears chants of Reggie, Reggie when he was making them 39th and 40th free throws in that game and generally over his career. And he sucked at playing the point BTW. He never played defense, pouted and complained to the refs all the time.

                    Reggie is a commentator and supposed to be neutral. He can't openly root for his former team. Patrick Ewing does not cry a tear for the Knicks now not does MJ wake up in the night about Derek Rose's injuries. I am not sure what the expectation here is.
                    ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                      I have always felt Reggie was going above and beyond to show he wasn't being a homer. I find no fault with him.
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                        Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                        I have always felt Reggie was going above and beyond to show he wasn't being a homer. I find no fault with him.
                        When it comes to calling games, yeah I get it. And I have zero problem with it. But Reggie has given Indy the cold shoulder. The whole not allowing his retro jersey's to be sold... Didn't he not even return to the Fieldhouse for awhile after he retired?

                        Idk, I just get an odd feeling from it all. Something seems off and its not to seem unbiased in his commentating imo.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                          When it comes to calling games, yeah I get it. And I have zero problem with it. But Reggie has given Indy the cold shoulder. The whole not allowing his retro jersey's to be sold... Didn't he not even return to the Fieldhouse for awhile after he retired?

                          Idk, I just get an odd feeling from it all. Something seems off and its not to seem unbiased in his commentating imo.

                          His number was retired in March 2006 - one year after playing. I don't think he made another trip to the Fieldhouse until he called a Pacer - Knicks game in January 2013. I was at that game and they played a cool video tribute to him with Pacer highlights that acknowledged his recent HOF enshrinement. He stood up and waved to the crowd. I was also at the Pacers-Knicks game in January of this year that was called on TNT. They showed him on the big screen and the crowd went nuts, but this time he didn't stand up. He barely acknowledged the applause and honestly looked a bit annoyed, IMHO.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                            Originally posted by pacerwaala View Post
                            Agree 100%. IMHO, players like Jalen Rose do not have any concept of team, playing in a system, playing defense. He was always about himself and never about TEAM. I never liked him as a player but he is fun in that studio. What Larry Brown did for our franchise and those players (Davises, Reggie, Smits) is invaluable. I do not like basektball players like Jalen myself and I am glad Larry Brown thought the same way. I will take one Derek Mckey's or one Haywood Workman over 10 Jalen Roses. Dumb Donnie gave him a max contract - puzzles me to this day. Basketball is not just about scoring, there is lot of intangibles none of which Jalen has.
                            Yet the Pacers never made an NBA Finals until they had someone who could consistently score 20 PPG and take pressure off of Reggie. 1995 Smits was the only other time that we had a great second offensive option.

                            By 2000, Smits was washed up, Antonio Davis was gone, McKey was an old bench warmer, and Mullin was extremely old. Reggie, Dale, and Jackson were all still very good, but the blossoming of Rose is what kept the team elite and made up for the fact that other players had declined. For once, we didn't have to depend so heavily on Reggie to carry us offensively. We had another player who was just as lethal on offense, and it's no coincidence that we went further than ever. You look at teams that make the Finals and almost all of them have two players who are consistently capable of putting up 20 PPG.

                            Great defense wins you a lot of regular season games and takes you far in the playoffs. Teams that win championships are usually both great offensive and defensive teams. But history has shown time and time again that when push comes to shove, the very top offenses can usually not be stopped in the NBA playoffs. There was no answer in the East for 2000 Reggie and Rose. There hasn't been answer for Lebron in the last couple of years. There was no answer for 2011 Dirk, 09-10 Kobe, 00-02 Shaq, Jordan, etc etc etc.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                              I guess I never really noticed how Reggie is towards Indiana. Is there any public reason why he would act so cold or distant from the place he played his entire career?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Jalen Rose (kind of) gave a shot at Reggie

                                Originally posted by Frostwolf View Post
                                wanna read what geezer said again?
                                He asked if Jalen was a member of the fab five, at least that's how it came across since there was a question mark after it.
                                Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-17-2014, 06:06 PM.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X