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

The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

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

  • #31
    Re: We should trade for this guy

    All those guys didnt make the playoffs because they had Murphleavy on their team for all those years. And we wont be making it with them either, they have a large amount of suck along with them. As soon as the Warriors got a player like Jack and Al who are hungry and want to win they made it.

    And if you saw this game and dont think Jack is better then Dunleavy then we are not watching the same player. IF JACK NEEDED TO GO AND IT WAS SET IN STONE THAT HE NEEDED TO GO, We should have just cut him, straight up cut him. Not take on 2 damn horrible contracts that are going to cripple our cap room till 2045.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: We should trade for this guy

      OK... I keep seeing this reference and I am sure it is going to be a guiding force for Walsh from here on out. "You don't make large trades midseason because it kills the team"

      Well, Golden State also made a mid season trade and it didn't hurt them.

      There's nothing wrong with mid season trades per se'.

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

      ------

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

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: We should trade for this guy

        I think some of the hate on Dunleavey is silly and misplaced.

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

        ------

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

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: We should trade for this guy

          personally I loved the trade when it went down and I love it even more now.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: We should trade for this guy

            Yeah I want to go on record saying that Dunleavy stands a good chance of excelling with his new Pacers team. I think this is much like saying that Jackson and Harrington stand a good chance of excelling with their new Warriors team.

            Dunleavy did a fine job this season, once he bulks up we'll see what he can do next season.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: We should trade for this guy

              Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
              What this also proves is that Rick Carlisle was the problem all along, look at Jack and Al play with a coach who knows wtf the word offense means. Just imagine if he had a real basketball coach all this time instead of some Larry Bird goon coaching the team.
              I hated the trade, but Jackson played like this in Indy too.

              He's had terrible shooting nights for GS, he still rips into refs too often, he still lets his emotions take him out of games. Same freaking guy we had here, even with Rick coaching. He went 45/35 for GS, a slight bump above his average but well within his general variance 44-46/34-36.

              In fact tonight was explicitly the reason that RC kept letting the guy play despite his backtalk and tantrums. With the bad emotions you also get the good ones, and the effort, the defense, and the awareness when he has his head in the game.


              BTW, anyone notice who guarded DIRK most of the 4th? That's right, it was Jack. Dirk struggled to get a good look against him (had a late airball even, 3 min mark) or even get a shot up at times (that bad miss was his last FGA of the game, the final 3 minutes of a playoff game).

              What did the Pacers do both years Jack was here? Made the playoffs. What seed were they at the time of the trade? 5th IIRC. How'd it go afterward?

              This isn't even a debate anymore. Stop overlooking the facts out of pure hate. I'm not saying he's perfect, but for just over MLE money he was very productive. Too many people compared him to guys making twice his money. I said it would happen and it didn't take long - national coverage, prime time stage, Jack goes off (along with Baron). Afterward Jack and Baron have nothing but compliments for each other.


              BTW, I'm sure there will be several games this series where Jack shoots poorly. Then all the haters will come back out just like Jerm came out to boost him up.

              Me, I think both parts are Jackson, good and bad. That's why he's middle of the road. He's Dunleavy with more defense and a smaller contract.

              And another thing, at some point it will be Harrington going off instead of Jack, or Ellis, or even Biedrens. That's why GS is so strong right now and why they are 4-0 vs Dallas this year, they have a variety of threats.

              It's not just about Jackson. It's just that the problems in Indy weren't just about Jack either.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: We should trade for this guy

                BBall, I say that and here's why. GS was OUT OF IT. They had nothing to lose. Indy on the other hand was coming off of TWO MASSIVELY disrupted seasons, and on top of that they did a huge overhaul of the team.

                So huge in fact that many of us said in the pre-season that it would take them 3-4 weeks just to start to gel. And dispite this the team was smack in the middle of the playoffs AND on top of that they were finally getting ready to hit the easiest part of the schedule.

                You are right to say that GS "survived" a huge mid-season deal. It is possible. But it's also possible to hit the hard 8 in craps. If you'd like to come to the next forum party and shoot dice for that bet I'll be happy to take your money.

                Why gamble if things are going moderately well, or at least in the ballpark of what you expected? How many people predicted better than the 6th seed for them? Less than predicted them to miss the playoffs, that's for sure. Nationally it was roughly the same.

                So what exactly was going wrong at the time of the trade? That was what 6th seed looks like, but despite fans knowing what was coming they still flipped out when it actually happened, as did TPHB.

                You don't take a bad bet right when the game is going how you planned and expected. You take a bad bet when you've got nothing to lose, or a lot less to lose than the risk will cost you.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: We should trade for this guy

                  Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                  I'm glad you know him personally.

                  I would rather have a two guard that has won a ring. One of those two guys is injury prone and the other is getting paid about twice what he is worth and has never sniffed the playoffs.
                  Worse. One of the 2 guys was at TWICE as many bar incidents as Jackson was. DOH!

                  Hate rants are fun, no need to bother meshing them with reality. Jack is a bad guy because of Rio (Quis there) so I'd rather have 8 Seconds/Rio Quis instead. That's one way to apply Bond's Foot Cream to your tonsils.



                  BTW, I don't hate Dunleavy either. I'm not picking sides, I just see that Dun doesn't offer quite as much as Jack in total, costs more, and that Jack wasn't pure evil or something.

                  For all the rants about his on-court antics, I have photo proof of him being the good peacemaker between AJ and the refs. It happened many other times, that's just one I can prove. I've posted the photos before in fact.

                  But again, why let contraditory evidence get in the way of a good one-dimensional, black and white portrayal of the person/player.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: We should trade for this guy

                    Keep watching.

                    We all know Jax has a few 3 or 18 games left in him for this series. At least he would if he were still wearing blue and gold. It's now obvious that he was sandbagging in the last days as a Pacer, playing lazy and unmotivated, only looking forward to postgame gunplay and club hopping.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Re: We should trade for this guy

                      Do we really need to go over this again about why Jackson was traded.

                      Enough

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: We should trade for this guy

                        Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                        Keep watching.

                        We all know Jax has a few 3 or 18 games left in him for this series. At least he would if he were still wearing blue and gold. It's now obvious that he was sandbagging in the last days as a Pacer, playing lazy and unmotivated, only looking forward to postgame gunplay and club hopping.
                        Really? Is this true?

                        This is why I hate the trade. We traded Jack for nothing. I thought moving Al was a good idea. He wasn't fitting, basketball-wise. I don't have a problem with those decisions. And they traded him to a trading-partner who was willing to overpay.

                        Jack was traded, however, not for basketball reasons but because there's a general perception that he is the most hated player in Pacer history and a thug...and we can't have that in Indiana. He is not a fantastic player and he takes A LOT of shots he shouldn't take but he is an above-average defender. He has great size. He can hit threes fairly consistently. He shoots pretty good for a SG from the field as well. And I think he was a good fit with the team. Jermaniac's thread title is dead on because we could use a player just like Jack.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: We should trade for this guy

                          Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                          The main problem is that Jack is a good guy, he ain't what the damn mainstream media feeds you to believe. Somehow people don't have the patience to realize that.
                          I didn't need the mainstream media to describe the images of SJ ripping his jersey off and thumping his chest in Detroit...or of him yapping at a stripes and being suspended within a couple of games of coming off the brawl suspension, or their explanation of somebody carelessly firing a weapon into the air with total disregard for where the bullets might go, or of him confronting his COACH (no matter what you may think of him, he is still the coach).

                          The man brought it on himself. Blame the man for his actions NOT the media.
                          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: We should trade for this guy

                            Jerm, you are overreacting as usual. I was pulling for the Warriors last night too. Jack looks so much happier in Golden State, and it is not just the coach. He had poisoned the waters here to such a degree that he was past the point of no return. I really think that I like Jack as a person (I of course don't know him but he seems like a nice guy), but he made a series of poor decisions here and needed a fresh start.

                            BTW, for those who expect Dun Dun to improve next year, don't hold your breath. The league has been waiting for many a year for him to live up to his talent and we are all still waiting. What I don't understand is how a guy that shot so well in college could shoot so poorly in the NBA? An open shot is an open shot, and he was money in college.
                            Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                            http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: We should trade for this guy

                              I'm with Bball. TPTB need to take a long look in the mirror.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: We should trade for this guy

                                So Jack had one good playoff game. Big deal. He had some of those for us, too. GS fans wil regret trading for him eventually.
                                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X