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

Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
    Jermaine played his ****ing heart out, and I don't want anyone telling me otherwise.

    Oh MY GOODNESS. I Was so happy to see Jermaine playing like Jermaine. That's The Jermaine everyone wants to see, that's the Jermaine that's been lost for the last 3 years.

    People forget that's he's a 6 time all-star. He can play just as good as Garnett and Duncan. I really like the small ball, cause it really helps Jermaine's game. I think when the Pacers come back east, teams are going to be scared to play them.

    I mean, putting Rush in the starting line up was a smart move. I think you might start seeing similar scores like in the pre-season lol!!! We're gonna be dropping 140 on teams now
    R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

      Originally posted by Phildog View Post
      Anybody see Jack kiss Stacy and say "Thank you baby" after the game during his postgame interview?
      That's my boy. Wish I had gotten the FSN Indiana broadcast to laugh at that.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        This little blurp from the star today might explain things about roster spots. Ike wasn't on the
        active rooster



        The Pacers have to keep Harrison on the active roster, meaning they'll only have 11 players available each game.


        .
        I get that he wasn't on the active roster, but he wasn't even out on the bench. Stephen Graham was our only guy in a suit.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

          Originally posted by d_c View Post
          Our then best player (after Arenas ditched us), Antawn Jamison, was traded specifically so Dunleavy could get into the starting lineup and assume his natural SF spot. Eric Musselman was then canned a year later, and a big reason for that was because he didn't get along with Dunleavy.
          Jamison wasn't traded "specifically so Dunleavy could get into the starting lineup and assume his natural SF spot", the primary motivation in the Warriors seeking to trade Jamison to the Mavericks was because they wanted to move the MAX contract that they had given him in the 2001 offseason.

          The end result in moving Jamison was to get more minutes for the Dunleavy....but the move was also done to get more minutes to the rest of the Warriors "youth movement" which was made up of Dunleavy, Pietrus and Murphy....all of which played minutes at the Forward rotation that Jamison started and played minutes at. In addition, the Warriors also needed to add a Starting quality PG ( Nick Van Exel ) so that they can add depth to the PG rotation after losing Arenas to the Wizards.

          To say that Jamison was traded to make minutes for Dunleavy is IMHO partially ( and techincally ) correct, but not entirley accurate.

          The main reason for moving Jamison was because the Warriors wanted to rectify the $86 million "mistake" that they made when they gave Jamison a Max contract.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

            Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
            Diener: I want to know what little Travis Diener could have possibly siad that could warrant a T. As for his play, a pretty predictable dud tonight following his breakout game. Warriors' guards are way too talented for him to have an impact especially when his shot isn't falling (the airball was disgusting)
            The only thing that I could say was that he had made 2 FGA that were called off due to some mistake ( a 3-second violation and some other foul that I missed ) that another teammate made.

            I still think that he did a decent job....but he did make a few mistakes ( attempting to shoot over Harrington and losing the ball when he dribbled it too much ) that still makes me think that he is a good "situational" backup PG.

            Against teams that had solid Guard rotations like Monte, Baron and ( even ) Azubuike that can light it up and run circles around him and way stronger, he won't be very effective.

            He would be good to fill in some backup PG minutes if we are playing a really bad defensive team that did not have a very good PG/SG on the floor ( like the Kings had the other night ).
            Last edited by CableKC; 01-14-2008, 02:05 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

              Originally posted by granger33 View Post
              O'Brien seems very happy with Mike

              (On Mike Dunleavy) “He was three assists away from a triple double that speaks for itself. He played a very good game and he’s been a wonderful, wonderful addition to our basketball team and I wouldn’t trade him for anybody.”

              Any coach would love to have Dunleavy on his team. You might say well any coach besides Nelson. My guess is that even Nelson injoyed coaching Dun. Nellie just thought he was better as a 7th or 8th man.

              Mike's been our most valuable player this season to this point.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs



                Jamaal doing his best TO impression: "Dude, how can they dis you like that? "

                Mike: No . It's not like I went to Cabo with Jessica Simpson.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs



                  "29%. 43%. Now Jamaal, who do you think should be shooting the game-winner again?"

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    Jamison wasn't traded "specifically so Dunleavy could get into the starting lineup and assume his natural SF spot", the primary motivation in the Warriors seeking to trade Jamison to the Mavericks was because they wanted to move the MAX contract that they had given him in the 2001 offseason.

                    The end result in moving Jamison was to get more minutes for the Dunleavy....but the move was also done to get more minutes to the rest of the Warriors "youth movement" which was made up of Dunleavy, Pietrus and Murphy....all of which played minutes at the Forward rotation that Jamison started and played minutes at. In addition, the Warriors also needed to add a Starting quality PG ( Nick Van Exel ) so that they can add depth to the PG rotation after losing Arenas to the Wizards.

                    To say that Jamison was traded to make minutes for Dunleavy is IMHO partially ( and techincally ) correct, but not entirley accurate.

                    The main reason for moving Jamison was because the Warriors wanted to rectify the $86 million "mistake" that they made when they gave Jamison a Max contract.
                    However you want to put it, the Warriors went out of their way to replace building around Jamison (a pretty good player) with building around Dunleavy. They gave him the starting spot when after not proving much his rookie year.

                    Regardless, the point is that for the better part of 4.5 years, Dunleavy was given every chance to succeed. When one role didn't work, they tried him in a different role. He was tried in different roles at different positions both starting and off the bench. None of them worked out.

                    4.5 years is plenty long enough to decide whether a player is working out for you or not. That should go for anyone.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Any coach would love to have Dunleavy on his team. You might say well any coach besides Nelson. My guess is that even Nelson injoyed coaching Dun. Nellie just thought he was better as a 7th or 8th man.

                      Mike's been our most valuable player this season to this point.
                      Dunleavy didn't jive well with Eric Musselman, who preferred playing Brian Cardinal over Dunleavy, but only because Cardinal was actually outplaying Dunleavy that particular year. Musselman, tho, has had clashes with several players so it's not a really good example.

                      Nellie has said many times that he likes Dunleavy and liked coaching him, just that he didn't make enough shots for him. In fact that's what he said last night after the game. Chris Mullin was also very reluctant to trade him.

                      You can't imagine how many articles were written when Nellie was re-hired last year talking about how he was the perfect coach to get something out of Dunleavy and Murphy.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                        Originally posted by d_c View Post
                        However you want to put it, the Warriors went out of their way to replace building around Jamison (a pretty good player) with building around Dunleavy. They gave him the starting spot when after not proving much his rookie year.

                        Regardless, the point is that for the better part of 4.5 years, Dunleavy was given every chance to succeed. When one role didn't work, they tried him in a different role. He was tried in different roles at different positions both starting and off the bench. None of them worked out.

                        4.5 years is plenty long enough to decide whether a player is working out for you or not. That should go for anyone.
                        I completely agree that Dunleavy HAS NEVER played up to being a 3rd round pick player. I also agree that he isn't playing at a level that is expected of a $8-9 mil a player.

                        But don't make it seem like Dunleavy is the only one to blame for how that situation turned out. The Warriors FO could have decided to cut ties with him at anytime if they thought that he wasn't able to live up to their expectations. Unforutnately, it just took them 4.5 seasons to figure out that he wasn't a good fit. What's made it worse was that they didn't have to overpay him.......just like they did for Jamison, just like what they did for Murphy, Fisher and Foyle.

                        But that's fine......we can agree to disagree. As a Pacer fan that likes what Dunleavy brings to the court, my opinion of him is "colored" just like your opinion is "colored" by your opinion of him as a Warriors fan.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          I also agree that he isn't playing at a level that is expected of a $8-9 mil a player.

                          What? Have you seen what he's been doing this year? He's been paid very appropriately.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                            I have to agree with Mal here that Dun is being paid appropriately. He has been our most consistent player this year. IS it his fault someone offered him that kind of doe?



                            (sorry for all of the icons but they are my 4 year olds participation)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                              Originally posted by Mal View Post
                              What? Have you seen what he's been doing this year? He's been paid very appropriately.
                              I agree. I feel fine with his deal and Jeff's.

                              How much do you think JOB is even extra PO'd that Hulk is costing them a roster spot for his stupid mistake?

                              I sure didn't like hearing BND's report on Tinsley from live action. I can't help but feel that 100% identical to last season this magical chemistry is falling apart with each loss. Meet the new PG, same as the old PG perhaps.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pacers/Warriors Post Game 39: Can't stick it to the Dubs

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                But don't make it seem like Dunleavy is the only one to blame for how that situation turned out. The Warriors FO could have decided to cut ties with him at anytime if they thought that he wasn't able to live up to their expectations. Unforutnately, it just took them 4.5 seasons to figure out that he wasn't a good fit. What's made it worse was that they didn't have to overpay him.......just like they did for Jamison, just like what they did for Murphy, Fisher and Foyle.

                                But that's fine......we can agree to disagree. As a Pacer fan that likes what Dunleavy brings to the court, my opinion of him is "colored" just like your opinion is "colored" by your opinion of him as a Warriors fan.
                                What do you mean? I already said I lay about 95% (and probably more) of the blame on the Warriors' inept management back in the day. That's where it starts and ends, just like I would blame the Pacers' PG problems on management's inability to get a better PG a lot more than Jamal Tinsley himself.

                                I'm just saying that there is no possible way anyone can make the argument that (on an individual level) Dunleavy didn't get his fair chance to succeed with the Warriors. He got his chance. He got multiple ones at that.

                                I (along with many other Warrior fans) would have ended the Dunleavy experiment about 2 years earlier than Mullin eventually did. I would have never committed $250M to Dunleavy, Murphy, Foyle, Fisher and JRich to begin with.

                                With that being said, Dunleavy and Murphy got their chances to succeed over in GS. Got their chances to prove themselves It just didn't work out. I myself would have never given them that many chances, but they got them anyways. That's all I'm saying. At least now Dunleavy is proving himself to be a competent and productive player, as many people suspected he could have all along. Murphy likewise is proving that he's just not very good, which a lot of people suspected all allong as well.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X