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

SJax: JO wants out of Indy

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

  • #31
    Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

    Just maybe, JO asked his buddy Jack to make those comments for him, HMMM. Yep, I think is just about right.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

      That is it we need to trade Stephen Jackson......Oh wait we already did

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        This guy needs a smack in the mouth.

        He has as much class in his whole body as JO has in his little toe.

        **** you, Jackhole. Quit doing us "favors".
        Well said. No- VERY well said.

        Jackson has an axe to grind with the Pacers. How dare they trade his mediocre ***! Look how great he is now!

        Never mind that it's the just second round of the playoffs-he's obviously a star!

        Never mind that he missed that open three to beat the Jazz in Game 1- he makes love to pressure!

        Never mind that he's hopping up and down like a 3 year old when he doesn't get a call while his man goes down and nails a three on the other end- the Pacers traded away the player JO needed to win- HIM!

        And on and on. He's got an agenda to make himself look like the victim and like a star. The trade is one half season old, and obviously the Warriors are the winners? Give me a break.

        Keep kissing Baron Davis' ***, Jackson, because he's the reason you are where you are. Just like with Tim Duncan.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

          Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
          Jackson is intentionally talking crap about our franchise
          I don't see it.

          If anything, his words will drive the price up, not down. "It's going to have to be a perfect deal" = "People are going to have to pay through the nose to get JO", but "monster" = "JO will succeed wherever he goes."

          That's the kind of thing I like to hear.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

            Don't tell it like it is, Anthem. The sky is falling! Jack is out to get us! Call the cops!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

              Come to think of it, this doesn't even make sense...

              "I don't think he has any patience (left), but Jermaine is the ultimate professional," Jackson told Yahoo! Sports on Wednesday. "But he wants to get out of there because all of the guys they brought in to build the team around him are gone now. Me, Ron (Artest) and Al (Harrington). I've heard rumors that (Jamaal) Tinsley wants to leave, too.
              Um...Al was traded for Jack, and Ron was essentially traded for Al. It wasn't possible to have all three guys on this team around JO.

              Btw, Ron demanded out, he wasn't forced out. And last I heard, JO wanted him out, too.

              As for the JO-Al-Jack era...yeah, that worked out just dandy. You had your chance, and you didn't get it done.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                NBA trades are not negotiated through the press, I can't see where this has any REAL impact on the JO situation.

                Originally posted by Big Mouth Jackson
                because you know from the deal they made with us (landing Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy) it didn't work out for them," Jackson said. "They don't want to make a bad deal again.
                Bull****. It is impossible to judge that trade from the Pacers' perspective. The Pacers didn't make that trade for the '07 playoffs, they made that trade to get a head start on the '07 training camp. And they may not be done fixing the roster that at one point in time was broken with so many self-centered pricks like SJax, Artest, Saras, AJ and perhaps (according to many of you) JO, Tinsley, and Al, led by Mr. Personalit himself, Carlisle.

                The 2003-04 Pacers were a lot like the Fleetwood Mac Rumors album - all the tension and angst produced something that was almost great *once*, but it also damn near killed them all.

                Its not that "the trade didn't work out". Its that it will take a while for the Pacers to purge themselves of all the various forms of cancer that plagued the team.

                Its totally unreasonable to judge this trade for the Pacers without the benefit of a training camp. The Pacers aquired "system" players without the luxury of taking the time to teach them the system.

                Ironically, the Pacers for the first time probably acquired players that Rick could coach as well, but it was too little too late.

                Originally posted by Low-IQ Jackson
                "But he wants to get out of there because all of the guys they brought in to build the team around him are gone now. Me, Ron (Artest) and Al (Harrington). I've heard rumors that (Jamaal) Tinsley wants to leave, too.
                Let's see: Ron always wanted to resolve the "who's the #1 scoring option" debate (even though it wasn't really a debate except in Ron's b!-p0l@r head) by a fist fight. I'd hardly say that's "building around JO". Al and JO needed to both play in the post, and there wasn't enough room for both of them. SJax would shoot a 3-pointer too early in the shotclock or stand still (no movement) when JO was double-teamed in the post and then shoot too inconsistently from the perimeter to be useful, so its not like SJax was a player that was very good at complimenting JO either.

                The only player they ever brought in that really did compliment JO on the court was Peja, but that didn't work out very well when Peja decided he couldn't stand Rick, didn't want to playin hte playoffs, and wanted to leave as soon as he contract expired.

                Remember when JO was asking for Jon Barry, or someone like him that could be a dead-eye perimeter shooter.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                  Seth, are you actually arguing that confirmation form a recent teammate and friend has absolutely no influence on the trade offers we're going to get now for JO? Sorry, but I completely disagree. That's nearly as bad as Ron going public with trade demands.

                  You're making this out to be much, much more than it is. This isn't a witch hunt. Jack has done nearly irreparable damage to this franchise, and now he's taking a shot at our fans to boot:

                  "Hopefully it works for him because you play so much better when you're somewhere you want to be, in a place where you are wanted. That's why I'm having so much success here, because they've embraced me like a newborn."
                  It's called a honeymoon, Jack. Keep playing the way you have the last two games and Warriors fans will get tired of your schtick really fast as well.

                  Jack has no sense of responsibility whatsoever. Nothing is ever his fault, if you listen to him.

                  Boo-hoo, the refs are out to get me. Boo-hoo, the fans don't like me.

                  Gee, Jack I can't imagine why that is. Could it be because your hot-headed "act-first-and-never-think" attitude helped escalate a riot that has ruined our last three seasons, including one in which we were legit title contenders? Could it be because you keep playing lax defense, let your man score while you constantly ***** at the refs, take ill-advised shot after shot, and cuss out the coach on national television? No, that couldn't be it, could it? You're just an innocent person "keeping it real" and "being discrimated against" because "you're Stephen Jackson."

                  Jack needs to grow up and take responsiblity for his actions, and people need to stop making excuses for his foolish, childish behavior.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                    Originally posted by Jay View Post

                    Bull****. It is impossible to judge that trade from the Pacers' perspective. The Pacers didn't make that trade for the '07 playoffs, they made that trade to get a head start on the '07 training camp. And they may not be done fixing the roster that at one point in time was broken with so many self-centered pricks like SJax, Artest, Saras, AJ and perhaps (according to many of you) JO, Tinsley, and Al, led by Mr. Personalit himself, Carlisle.

                    Its not that "the trade didn't work out". Its that it will take a while for the Pacers to purge themselves of all the various forms of cancer that plagued the team.

                    Its totally unreasonable to judge this trade for the Pacers without the benefit of a training camp. The Pacers aquired "system" players without the luxury of taking the time to teach them the system.

                    Ironically, the Pacers for the first time probably acquired players that Rick could coach as well, but it was too little too late.

                    That is the post of the year.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      I don't see it.

                      If anything, his words will drive the price up, not down. "It's going to have to be a perfect deal" = "People are going to have to pay through the nose to get JO", but "monster" = "JO will succeed wherever he goes."

                      That's the kind of thing I like to hear.
                      I must respectfully disagree, especially about driving the price for JO up.
                      Even if your theory were true, and teams feel like they need to up the ante in a bidding war, it doesn't change the fact that Jackson feels he has the right to play player spokesman or agent or whatever he's doing. And that's - well - wrong.
                      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                        LA, is it tampering?

                        How much did the Pacers get fined for Rick's tampering on the coaching search?

                        I'd laugh hysterically if SJax was fined a huge $$$ amount for tampering.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                          How the hell are you guys getting all offended by this?

                          Jack was asked a question about his friend and former teammate, and he answered with nothing but respect and praise.

                          Y'all are really starting to look embarrassingly bitter.

                          This is a complete non-issue, Jack did absolutely nothing wrong here, if anything he's trying to advocate for the best possible deal to help both sides.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                            Originally posted by Jay View Post
                            LA, is it tampering?

                            How much did the Pacers get fined for Rick's tampering on the coaching search?

                            I'd laugh hysterically if SJax was fined a huge $$$ amount for tampering.
                            I didn't think or know that there was any sort of tampering rule. ???

                            And what has Carlisle said? I missed that entirely.

                            Or am I too dense to get a joke?
                            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                              Originally posted by Jay View Post
                              LA, is it tampering?

                              How much did the Pacers get fined for Rick's tampering on the coaching search?

                              I'd laugh hysterically if SJax was fined a huge $$$ amount for tampering.
                              Stern loves to make an example of SJax......I think he can find a reason to fine him for this.....
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: SJax: JO wants out of Indy

                                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                                How the hell are you guys getting all offended by this?

                                Jack was asked a question about his friend and former teammate, and he answered with nothing but respect and praise.

                                Y'all are really starting to look embarrassingly bitter.

                                This is a complete non-issue, Jack did absolutely nothing wrong here, if anything he's trying to advocate for the best possible deal to help both sides.
                                So you admit that he's playing advocate?

                                The only person he was "respectful" to was JO, unless of course you consider the fact that JO has gone way out of his way to stay in the good graces of Indy fans recently and Jackson just sabotaged all of that work by saying that JO wants out.

                                If I were JO, I'd be pissed as hell.

                                I would feel the same way if Steve Nash said Dirk wanted out of Dallas. The professional and proper response is "I can't speak for him, so you'll have to ask him."

                                But you've put up your wall and I honestly think that Jackson can do no harm in your eyes.
                                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X