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

"Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

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

  • #46
    Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

    Originally posted by pacers31tc View Post
    Could we get anything at all for Jack?
    I think that he has NEGATIVE trade value. We will have to give up MORE to have sombody else take him.

    Billy King: Hey, Donnie, you can have AI and a pickfor Jermaine!

    Donnie Walsh: Fine Billy, but can we throw in Jackson?

    Billy King: Uhmmm... No... make that HELL NO!!!!!
    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


    • #47
      Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Last time I heard something like that happening in our locker room, a certain #15, 23, 91 was still here. Now Jackson is causing problems (for anyone that missed it, Jackson said or did something at half-time for Carlisle to keep him away from the team during the entire second half of tonight's game in Cleveland). Is anyone going to defend him on this, or can we all admit that he probably needs to go to another team?
      BTW, where is Seth?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        I didn't realize this....but his courtcase could easily be a reason why we wouldn't be able to trade him.

        Why would a team take him on ( before the courtcase is settled ) if there is a chance that he will be found guilty?

        Even if it looks like he won't be found guilty......he would likely have very little trade value.

        Like it or not....we will likely be stuck with SJax for the near future.

        BTW...when is his court date?

        Is it before or after the trade deadline?
        The trade deadline is the 16th Thursday of the season, which by my count is Feb. 22. Jackson's courtdate is Feb. 12th.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

          Man, right when he was winning me over to. The field goal percentage is atrocious, but he'd been playing well besides that. See ya in Philly Jax!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

            Rick has finally heard the criticism, and uncomfortably, managed to discipline Jack. I am surprised he found his backbone.

            Now, can management find some way to rid us of this cancer. It's "up to them". I would think they could at least trade him for some garbage that has a shorter contract.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

              Originally posted by tdubb03 View Post
              Man, right when he was winning me over to. The field goal percentage is atrocious, but he'd been playing well besides that. See ya in Philly Jax!
              He has had some good games lately. He was doing the same to me as well. Big disappointment. He is nothing but a....

              I would rather watch the Pacers lose more games if they played hard and showed some maturity.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                Originally posted by aceace View Post
                Iversons looking better all the time!
                We have yet to get rid of our second distraction, bad attitude player in 2 years and you want to PICK UP another????????????????????????????????????????

                NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  "Don't forget his profile Ed."


                  "Turn to the right!!"
                  One of my favorite movies of all time.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                    Okay, I'm the Jack defender, so here's my skewed view...

                    Rick ripped him in CLE. Rick benched him in the 4th a few weeks ago too. Rick also already moved him from starting to the bench.

                    Until CLE Jack has put up with this without a tirade, without complaints to the press and certainly without telling Mike Wells about how he can't figure out Rick's system and needs more touches.

                    Jack within the last few weeks even said he needs less touches because he's shooting like crap (something roughly along those lines). He's been pretty accepting and honest about his poor shooting, and definitely has improved his effort in every other area.

                    We were all certain that the tougher tech rules would put Jack into deep trouble, but instead he's been a near saint. 1 tech and even that was not a blow-up. Last year Jack ran out something like 6 techs in the first 2 months for comparison, and that was without the harsh tech rules they had in place to start this season.


                    Okay, so the point is this - the dude got torn up by James (according to the recap, still haven't seen it) and got frustrated. Guess what, MANNING got frustrated today in Jacksonville. Heck, I think every Colt defender committed a personal foul in the 4th quarter out of frustration.

                    So Jack got pulled (deserved probably), threw a frustration fit (inappropriate) and got sent packing for the game by Rick (100% deserved). One thing I like about Rick and that I thought worked great with Ron that first season was that he would scold him but then let him prove himself the next night out. I forget which pair of games it was in the 61 win season, but one bad loss featured a VERY RARE public call out by Rick in the press regarding Ron's poor play.

                    The key is that the very next game Ron was back in his same role, played very well and was then appropriately credited in the press by Rick for his play. I expect the exact same process with Jack.

                    You handled your frustration like a teenager and got sent to your room for it. Will you show some maturity and straighten up, or will you continue to be a jerk about it? If he gets back in line then why wouldn't you want him playing for the Pacers?

                    The whole point of punishment and rules enforcement is to get players to FOLLOW THE RULES. If this gets him to do that then you've solved the problem. Move on. It doesn't require trades and drastic measures. Frankly I think you lose the respect of other players if you knee-jerk react in the same manner that the player you're scolding just did.

                    Rick continues to show a guiding message of maturity and respect with how he publically handles players. He almost always softens the reality for the press. He avoids getting hard core with anyone or being disrespectful.

                    What that buys him in the locker room IMO is the ability to say to Jack or anyone "I just behaved like an adult after you went off on me, so I have every right to expect you to handle things the same way."

                    If THAT is too much for Jack or any player, THEN you bench, trade, or cut them.



                    BTW, I in no way think Jack sees himself as a superstar. I think Jack takes the game very personally, like he appears to do everything, and gets serious attitude about it. He doesn't like being beat on the court and he get PO'd. He doesn't like getting pulled because it says to him "you are stinking up the place" and he doesn't want to hear that. He sees Ron in the stands and thinks "us vs them, its war" instead of "hmm, I need to get Ron out of there for everyone's safety".

                    Personal. Battles. That's how he filters life. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying it's not the same as "I'm the greatest, you can't question me."

                    I think the dude needs to learn how to deal with this stuff. It would make him a better player. Already this year I think his effort to not argue calls has made him a better teammate, along with his effort to reduce some of his FGAs.

                    I'd rather have Rick keep improving him (he's much better than he was 2 years ago IMO), than to give up and take a talent hit trying to move a known problem player. This assumes that he will continue to respond well to Rick's efforts of course.

                    Like I said after the road trip, if they are tired then they can prove it with the ORL and POR games. So to Jack I say that if he F'd up and realizes it and respects his coach, then he has a great opportunity to prove it in the next couple of games. Go play some great team ball, do what RC asks you to do, and consider his POV if he asks you to hit the bench.

                    Fail that simple test and you won't have a single fan left in your camp.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                      I've missed 5 of the last 7 games. Didn't even record them or anything. And when I read threads like this, it does nothing but confirm that I don't really give a **** anymore.

                      That thought would be depressing if it weren't so liberating.

                      Oh well.
                      Orlando game was extremely impressive, Portland game was pretty solid despite a dip that seemed to hit when starter Baston went out and Harrison came in (JO out with injury).

                      It's certainly not all doom and gloom. A win vs CHI and DET would turn the CLE game into less than a speed bump, more so if Jack is a good part of those wins.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Okay, I'm the Jack defender, so here's my skewed view...

                        Rick ripped him in CLE. Rick benched him in the 4th a few weeks ago too. Rick also already moved him from starting to the bench.

                        Until CLE Jack has put up with this without a tirade, without complaints to the press and certainly without telling Mike Wells about how he can't figure out Rick's system and needs more touches.

                        Jack within the last few weeks even said he needs less touches because he's shooting like crap (something roughly along those lines). He's been pretty accepting and honest about his poor shooting, and definitely has improved his effort in every other area.

                        We were all certain that the tougher tech rules would put Jack into deep trouble, but instead he's been a near saint. 1 tech and even that was not a blow-up. Last year Jack ran out something like 6 techs in the first 2 months for comparison, and that was without the harsh tech rules they had in place to start this season.


                        Okay, so the point is this - the dude got torn up by James (according to the recap, still haven't seen it) and got frustrated. Guess what, MANNING got frustrated today in Jacksonville. Heck, I think every Colt defender committed a personal foul in the 4th quarter out of frustration.

                        So Jack got pulled (deserved probably), threw a frustration fit (inappropriate) and got sent packing for the game by Rick (100% deserved). One thing I like about Rick and that I thought worked great with Ron that first season was that he would scold him but then let him prove himself the next night out. I forget which pair of games it was in the 61 win season, but one bad loss featured a VERY RARE public call out by Rick in the press regarding Ron's poor play.
                        The key is that the very next game Ron was back in his same role, played very well and was then appropriately credited in the press by Rick for his play. I expect the exact same process with Jack.

                        You handled your frustration like a teenager and got sent to your room for it. Will you show some maturity and straighten up, or will you continue to be a jerk about it? If he gets back in line then why wouldn't you want him playing for the Pacers?

                        The whole point of punishment and rules enforcement is to get players to FOLLOW THE RULES. If this gets him to do that then you've solved the problem. Move on. It doesn't require trades and drastic measures. Frankly I think you lose the respect of other players if you knee-jerk react in the same manner that the player you're scolding just did.

                        Rick continues to show a guiding message of maturity and respect with how he publically handles players. He almost always softens the reality for the press. He avoids getting hard core with anyone or being disrespectful.

                        What that buys him in the locker room IMO is the ability to say to Jack or anyone "I just behaved like an adult after you went off on me, so I have every right to expect you to handle things the same way."

                        If THAT is too much for Jack or any player, THEN you bench, trade, or cut them.



                        BTW, I in no way think Jack sees himself as a superstar. I think Jack takes the game very personally, like he appears to do everything, and gets serious attitude about it. He doesn't like being beat on the court and he get PO'd. He doesn't like getting pulled because it says to him "you are stinking up the place" and he doesn't want to hear that. He sees Ron in the stands and thinks "us vs them, its war" instead of "hmm, I need to get Ron out of there for everyone's safety".

                        Personal. Battles. That's how he filters life. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying it's not the same as "I'm the greatest, you can't question me."

                        I think the dude needs to learn how to deal with this stuff. It would make him a better player. Already this year I think his effort to not argue calls has made him a better teammate, along with his effort to reduce some of his FGAs.

                        I'd rather have Rick keep improving him (he's much better than he was 2 years ago IMO), than to give up and take a talent hit trying to move a known problem player. This assumes that he will continue to respond well to Rick's efforts of course.

                        Like I said after the road trip, if they are tired then they can prove it with the ORL and POR games. So to Jack I say that if he F'd up and realizes it and respects his coach, then he has a great opportunity to prove it in the next couple of games. Go play some great team ball, do what RC asks you to do, and consider his POV if he asks you to hit the bench.

                        Fail that simple test and you won't have a single fan left in your camp.
                        I'm pretty sure it was vs. the Nets & it is when he got his "conduct detrimental to winning" benching.

                        Again you make a good point, but the Pacers do have to take the fans into consideration on this one. The guy was public enemy # 1 even before the shooting spree at the club. He's had some solid games but unless this is put to bed, and fast, this could cause some more of those home court boo's to return.

                        What's sad is that we have to keep talking about player discipline and our team. After everything we have been through for the past 4 years we still have to talk about this.

                        It's time to stop putting lipstick on a pig (as Bball says) & really look at whether or not the franchise wouldn't be better off without this entire core of players. Getting rid of all three is not likely, but two of the three probably should go & one of the three needs to go.

                        I know it would not be popular on here, but I can tell you the average Pacer fan would understand if the team just came out & said we are starting fresh & to do that we have to be rid of all distractions no matter how good that player is.

                        I think that we have the talent to be competative again in 2-3 years. Again this won't be popular on here but I'll say it anyway, we are 2-3 years now from being competative. By competative I mean we have a legitimate shot at being one of the 4-6 best teams in the NBA & able to compete for a title.

                        I'll just go ahead & say that I believe that with adaquate replacements, in other words either threw draft or trade our teams record without JermaIne, Jackson & Jamaal would be the same or close to the same with them.

                        So why not give the rest of the players who are not causing any problems a reward by getting rid of the trouble now.

                        Hmmmmm.... this all sounds oddly familiar.


                        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                          Originally posted by Peck
                          I'll just go ahead & say that I believe that with adaquate replacements, in other words either threw draft or trade our teams record without JermaIne, Jackson & Jamaal would be the same or close to the same with them.
                          I just read these numbers and I haven't taken time to confirm them so feel free to correct them if they are wrong...

                          Indiana is only 89-88 (.503) in the 177 regular-season games since the brawl. (The Pacers have a) 120-57 record (.678) in the identical number of games before the brawl.
                          What is it again why we're worried about keeping this core together at all costs?

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

                          ------

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

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                            Originally posted by Peck
                            I'm pretty sure it was vs. the Nets & it is when he got his "conduct detrimental to winning" benching.

                            Again you make a good point, but the Pacers do have to take the fans into consideration on this one. The guy was public enemy # 1 even before the shooting spree at the club. He's had some solid games but unless this is put to bed, and fast, this could cause some more of those home court boo's to return.

                            What's sad is that we have to keep talking about player discipline and our team. After everything we have been through for the past 4 years we still have to talk about this.

                            It's time to stop putting lipstick on a pig (as Bball says) & really look at whether or not the franchise wouldn't be better off without this entire core of players. Getting rid of all three is not likely, but two of the three probably should go & one of the three needs to go.

                            I know it would not be popular on here, but I can tell you the average Pacer fan would understand if the team just came out & said we are starting fresh & to do that we have to be rid of all distractions no matter how good that player is.

                            I think that we have the talent to be competative again in 2-3 years. Again this won't be popular on here but I'll say it anyway, we are 2-3 years now from being competative. By competative I mean we have a legitimate shot at being one of the 4-6 best teams in the NBA & able to compete for a title.

                            I'll just go ahead & say that I believe that with adaquate replacements, in other words either threw draft or trade our teams record without JermaIne, Jackson & Jamaal would be the same or close to the same with them.

                            So why not give the rest of the players who are not causing any problems a reward by getting rid of the trouble now.

                            Hmmmmm.... this all sounds oddly familiar.
                            I agree with you, how many do overs does Jack get? I think that Jack and Tinman have to go in order for the fanbase to come back. Jack has poisoned the water and there is no way to purify it as long as he is here. I wonder what it will take for a certain poster to finally face the facts and agree that Jack has to go.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth
                              The whole point of punishment and rules enforcement is to get players to FOLLOW THE RULES. If this gets him to do that then you've solved the problem. Move on. It doesn't require trades and drastic measures. Frankly I think you lose the respect of other players if you knee-jerk react in the same manner that the player you're scolding just did.

                              Aw, c'mon. You can't use the term "knee-jerk" with respect to a player who's been trouble for more than two years.


                              Some people do not ever learn to follow the rules, and punishment / enforcement does not benefit them. They interpret punishment as hostility towards themselves, or else they shrug it off ("I'm cool!") as meaningless.

                              For all his capabilities on the basketball floor, Stephen Jackson has never been very honest. Club Rio happened three days after he publically pledged that he was all about the team. His fans may defend his right to do what he did, but no one can argue that spending the night as he did was consistent with the promise.

                              I contend that Jackson is never going to reform or change his ways. You might say, "Jackson is such a great 2-guard that he's worth a little drama." But you can't reasonably say, "This one-game suspension is going to set Jack straight, and from here on he'll be a model citizen."
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: "Conduct detrimental to the team." Remind you of anyone?

                                You don't put up with this much crap from a Superstar.... let alone a marginal player who is easily replaceable. I like his passion when he can focus it, i like his game when he can simplify it. Too bad he can do neither on a consistant basis.

                                Rick and the TPTB have given him plenty of slack... IMO....mainly because they saw his passion. They saw him as a vocal leader in the lockeroom and on the court that could get everyone to "buy in". The whole situation is just too polluted for there to be any long term success... between the fanbase, ownership, teammates, coaching staff, and front office, there are too many parameters and stipulations involved... for any real goals to be met.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X