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

  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

    Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
    I dont agree with the GS not wanting Jack part.
    I agree. I think they saw an opportunity to steal him for nothing and took it.

    So basically the trade breaks down to this (not including cap equalizers).

    Al for Ike -> Not a terrible trade, but wouldn't a have been better to get if we're going to give up Al?

    Jack for Murphy and Dunleavy -> Leaves us without a SG, shooter, and defender. Burdens us with two long-term contracts.

    From a basketball-standpoint neither makes great sense. The first one is acceptable but the second one is just awful.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
      I dont agree with the GS not wanting Jack part.
      I googled "Dunleavy Jackson trade analysis" and read over 10 articles that were analyzing the trade at the time. Granted this was not what Mullin & Nellie were thinking, but I just wanted to see what the consensus was about the potential benefits going both ways.

      The analysts' keys to making it a good deal for GS, in order of how often they were mentioned:

      1) Golden State rid themselves of future salary obligations
      2) Golden State got the best overall player, Al Harrington (that's what they said).
      3) Golden State appeased fans by getting rid of a guy labeled a draft bust and loudly booed (Dunleavy)
      4) Golden State improved their defense at two positions (this was mentioned once)

      The analysts' keys to making it a good deal for Indiana, in order of how often they were mentioned:

      1) Indiana needed to find some deal, any deal, that would improve chemistry problems and off-court controversies swirling around Jackson.
      2) Ike Diogu might make this a long-term win for Indiana since he may wind up the best player in the deal.

      The analysts' reasons why it may be an even deal: Harrington and Jackson don't fit Indiana's/Carlisle's game to the same extent that Dunleavy/Murphy don't fit Golden State's/Nellie's game. The changes of screnery will make both teams better.

      So the only analysis I can find that argues Jackson as being much of any consideration in the trade AT ALL is one that discusses the poor Warriors defense and says that Jackson and Harrington will provide a very slight but potentially important upgrade in defense.
      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


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by ajbry View Post
        How do you figure? Jack's career PPG is 14.1 and Dunleavy's is 11.0. You've also got to consider that Dunleavy got a lot more minutes in his first 2 seasons that Jack did. Also, Dunleavy's two best seasons were 13.4 and 12.8 PPG. Jack's are 18.7 and 18.1.

        That's just scoring - I'm not even taking into account the difference defensively.
        Yes, you are just taking into account scoring, and not even talking about percentages.

        The difference in scoring is in fga/game. Dunleavy averages 9.3 shots a game, and SJax shoots 12.1 shots per game.

        Want more proof? Lets take a look at all their numbers for their careers......

        SJax
        42.1 fg%
        33.5 3pt%
        3.6 rbs
        2.6 assists
        1.3 steals
        0.3 blocks

        Dunleavy
        43.5 fg%
        34.1 3pt%
        4.8 rbs
        2.5 assists
        0.9 blocks
        0.2 steals

        Dun has shot a higher percentage in both field goals and 3s, rebounds better and every thing else is pretty much a wash.

        But we aren't taking into account Jackson's defense, and we also aren't taking into account the fact that Jackson has missed 30 games because he's a retard and jumped into the stands. Or the fact that he's been arrest and charged another time while playing for the Ps, which could lead to missing more games for the Warriors.

        Yes, but Dunleavy is SOOOOO much worse than Jackson, and his scoring averages prove that.


        Again, what is up with this lovefest for Jackson and the hating on Dunleavy, if it doesn't have to do with image?

        They both are streaky shooters, decent passers and decent rebounders. The one who plays better defense is also a franchise nightmare for PR.

        I'll take the player who stays out of trouble anyday, especially when production is near identical.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Numbers dont have nothing to do with it. And again I dont give a damn about what players do off the court. So what makes Stephen a better player then Dunleavy is heart and the way he approaches games. Dunleavy gets scared when the game is tight, Jack rises to the pressure. Dunleavy has never been in the playoffs, every where Jack goes he plays in the playoffs. Jack ALWAYS raises his game when the playoffs come. I bet money that Dunleavy would play just like Peja if he ever makes it to the playoffs in his career.

          Numbers dont tell the whole story everytime, look at Murphy's numbers throughout his career, one would think that he is actually a very good big man, when in fact he is horrible. Numbers do not prove passion and the will to win, nor do they prove how much better Stephen is one defense then Dunleavy.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
            Numbers dont have nothing to do with it. And again I dont give a damn about what players do off the court. So what makes Stephen a better player then Dunleavy is heart and the way he approaches games. Dunleavy gets scared when the game is tight, Jack rises to the pressure. Dunleavy has never been in the playoffs, every where Jack goes he plays in the playoffs. Jack ALWAYS raises his game when the playoffs come. I bet money that Dunleavy would play just like Peja if he ever makes it to the playoffs in his career.

            Numbers dont tell the whole story everytime, look at Murphy's numbers throughout his career, one would think that he is actually a very good big man, when in fact he is horrible. Numbers do not prove passion and the will to win, nor do they prove how much better Stephen is one defense then Dunleavy.
            You don't care about what happens off the court?

            TO just might be the best reciever in football, but most teams don't want him. Why? Because his off the field antics make him such a drain on the lockerroom he isn't worth it.

            How good did Jackson play during the '04-'05 season after the Nov. game in Detroit? He had one hell of a 30 game stretch during that time didn't he?

            Numbers don't prove how many times Jackson has hurt his team by *****ing at an official while his teammates played defense one man down. Or the numbers don't take into account the games he had to miss for suspensions or for legal matters. The numbers don't prove how many times he caused a rift between the coach and other players, or how many times he would spot up at the 3pt line during a fastbreak.

            In Shade's sig he has you quoted as saying you wanted the Ps to just cut Jackson. Now that he's gone, he's suddenly this awesome player and it's all because you don't like the one they got in return.

            You wanted him gone and the Ps get nothing back, but ***** when they do.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              If we cut him and got nothing back, I wouldnt have to worry about how much Dunleavy and Murphy get paid. If we cut him there wouldnt be no player for me to compare him to, but we got Mike Dunleavy and I will forever compare Dunleavy to Stephen Jackson because thats who replaced Jack. Just like with Danny and Ron and who ever replaces JO.

              If Dunleavy was better then Stephen like some people here make him out to be, I wouldnt be worried. But we traded Al and Jack and got crap back in return. Warriors are about to eliminate the best team in the NBA out of the playoffs, while we havent made the playoffs in 9 years, because our GM's are idiots. I'm mad doggy.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                There has already been a request to provide names with those posters who say Dunleavy is better than Jack.

                As another poster said earlier, I think Haywoode, it's not who's better but who doesn't suck the most.

                I'm glad they traded for actual players. Harrington couldn't play his way out of paper bag right now, not that Murph could though, we also got Ike out of it. Without the trade, and if they just cut Jack, we would have to play Quis at the 2. Oh wait, he didn't play.

                That means Saras, DA, or Orien Greene would have to start in the backcourt with Tins. I can only imagine the reaction if that happened.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                  He wasn't that much worse here than he is in GS, actually. He had a rough start due to a bad wrist but he got on track by January. Also, here, he fills a lot of needs-defender, shooter, SG, etc.
                  Exactly what am I missing in this thread? He wasn't much worse; he was an ok guy who played with a lot of heart and yet most people wanted him gone and he was traded because of that. Now you want to revise that history to say that there was really no good reason to trade him.

                  He was traded because most pacer fans wanted that. You know how to define pacer fans. Those are the people who walk through the turnstile after they buy tickets. They were not coming to the games. Those are the people who are responsible for the trade.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    I think it's easy to not care what players do off the court when you adore punk behavior and said punk is not representing your home state.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      I'm not surprised at all that Jackson is doing well. he is in a situation that combines both his stops in San Antonio and Atlanta. It is like San Antonio in that he is, at best, the 3rd best player on the team. He can play without the pressure of having to be the man.

                      It is like Atlanta in that there is really no pressure and he can pretty much do what he wants in the system. The whole Golden State team is playing loose because they have nothing to lose. If they win they have pulled off the upset of the ages. If they lose, oh well, they were supposed to anyway.

                      Jackson has shown in the past that he can produce on the biggest stage, so noone can say he is not talented. Unfortunately, he also makes some dumb decisions on and off the court. We didn't have the talent to hide them on the court, nor the bank of positive P.R. to cover them off the court.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                        If we cut him and got nothing back, I wouldnt have to worry about how much Dunleavy and Murphy get paid. If we cut him there wouldnt be no player for me to compare him to, but we got Mike Dunleavy and I will forever compare Dunleavy to Stephen Jackson because thats who replaced Jack. Just like with Danny and Ron and who ever replaces JO.

                        If Dunleavy was better then Stephen like some people here make him out to be, I wouldnt be worried. But we traded Al and Jack and got crap back in return. Warriors are about to eliminate the best team in the NBA out of the playoffs, while we havent made the playoffs in 9 years, because our GM's are idiots. I'm mad doggy.
                        Then we got a great deal trading Harrington for Ike.
                        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          If Dunleavy is as much of a 2 guard as Shawne is, and Shawne shoots better.

                          Tins-Danny-Al-JO-Foster would be much better then what we have right now. And Al is playing like crap with the Warriors because that style doesnt suit him just like UB said he needs to be in structured system.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                            Then we got a great deal trading Harrington for Ike.
                            From what I have seen from Ike, I dont know about that.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                              If Dunleavy is as much of a 2 guard as Shawne is, and Shawne shoots better.

                              Tins-Danny-Al-JO-Foster would be much better then what we have right now. And Al is playing like crap with the Warriors because that style doesnt suit him just like UB said he needs to be in structured system.
                              Al struggled here too. He's just not that good. When we shifted him to SF (as you suggest in that lineup), he was here in a very structured system.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                                I think it's easy to not care what players do off the court when you adore punk behavior and said punk is not representing your home state.
                                Aren't you concerned about infractions?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X