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

2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

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

  • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    I think that it was a little of everything that occured over a period of time.

    It's possible that Jackson was the one that helped Curry get out of his shell to become one of the best Players in the NBA.....but I feel that it was more of a "Top Down" type of change. I was listening to a blurb on the radio with an interview with Jerry West ( whose in the FO for the Warriors ). He said that it was the Change in ownership that made the biggest difference to the overall culture of the Team.
    I got that info from Steph Curry himself who said he wouldn't be the player that he is without coach Jackson.

    Comment


    • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      I was listening to a blurb on the radio with an interview with Jerry West ( whose in the FO for the Warriors ). He said that it was the Change in ownership that made the biggest difference to the overall culture of the Team.
      The change in ownership goes without saying. If Chris Cohan took over any winning franchise in sports today, he'd likely run it into the ground as he did when he took over the Warriors in 1994.

      So whoever bought the team from Cohan was likely to be an improvement.

      That being said, Joe Lacob didn't exactly get off to a great start. And he didn't show he was serious about winning until he made the Monta/Bogut trade. That showed he was serious about changing the ways of the organization.

      Comment


      • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        You know what changed the culture of the Warriors?

        Trading Monta Ellis for Andrew Bogut. That's what changed the culture.

        Mark Jackson is a fraud of a coach and human being. He was good at getting (most) players to like him and play hard for him. Other than that, he should get little to no credit for the Warriors turnaround.

        And that is pretty much reflected in the amount of interest he's garnered for all the available coaching opportunities.

        The coach responsible for making the Warriors good defensively? That would be Darren Erman, who was just hired by the Pelicans to be their defensive assistant.

        I could write an entire laundry list of reasons Mark Jackson is a fraud and deserved to be drop kicked out of the organization, but my fingers would literally be sore from typing the post.
        Because Andrew Bogut was a big time winner in Milwaukee? Before he got to GS, Bogut was thought to be a disappointment as the first overall pick in the Chris Paul draft. And Monta isn't exactly an "addition by subtraction", losing player himself. He made the playoffs with Milwaukee and with Dallas the last two years.

        Comment


        • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          I got that info from Steph Curry himself who said he wouldn't be the player that he is without coach Jackson.
          I'm not saying that Curry wasn't what he is now because of Jackson....I'm saying that this overall change in culture for the Team was more of a result of the change in Ownership.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            I got that info from Steph Curry himself who said he wouldn't be the player that he is without coach Jackson.
            The same Steph Curry who, during his MVP speech, thanked the security guards, Larry Riley (GM who drafted him), Don Nelson, his high school coach, his college coach and Steve Kerr but didn't mention Mark Jackson's name a single time.

            Comment


            • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              The same Steph Curry who, during his MVP speech, thanked the security guards, Larry Riley (GM who drafted him), Don Nelson, his high school coach, his college coach and Steve Kerr but didn't mention Mark Jackson's name a single time.
              The same Curry that publically pleaded for ownership to it fire Jackson in the first place

              Comment


              • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                Because Andrew Bogut was a big time winner in Milwaukee? Before he got to GS, Bogut was thought to be a disappointment as the first overall pick in the Chris Paul draft. And Monta isn't exactly an "addition by subtraction", losing player himself. He made the playoffs with Milwaukee and with Dallas the last two years.
                Because it was a change in culture that GS had previously had. It was about building a legit team.

                The previous culture: Come to our games and watch Monta score 35 in a losing cause against a top level team. We won't win or play defense, but we'll entertain you when Lebron and Kobe come to town.

                New culture: Build something that relies less on gimmicks (e.g. midget backcourt) and actually looks like a legitimate team. Have a real backcourt and a bigman who defends.

                Monta by himself isn't terrible, but he's really fool's gold. He's basically a Jason Terry (in his prime) level player who was glorified as being some all-star by a bad organization that was just looking to sell tickets to fans who were all too easily entertained.

                The Mavs, as currently built with Monta as their #1 option, are a go nowhere 1st round and out team. Bucks showed how much they valued him when they let him walk, but now they are better off with what they have now with a better built core.

                Comment


                • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  The same Curry that publically pleaded for ownership to it fire Jackson in the first place
                  Curry did plead to keep Jackson. That was before he realized what a real coach looks like and what a fraud Jackson actually is.

                  It's no coincidence that, in his MVP speech, Curry mentioned all of his previous (and current) coaches, as well as others in the organization, but didn't mention Mark Jackson's name even once.

                  It's even more telling when you actually read what he says:

                  I've had a lot of coaches that have helped me along the way. Obviously, Coach Kerr, you're very humble the way that you've approached this season. We obviously had a great, talented roster, but there is definitely something to say about what you and your staff have been able to accomplish in leading our group. This is a special year. The way you've challenged us from day one to take advantage of the opportunity that was in front of us. We're still obviously in the middle of this path and this fight, but I speak for my team, but I've enjoyed this year more than any other. And, obviously winning has a lot to do with that, but the preparation that you guys have brought every single day, not letting us get complacent, but not letting us get too big of a head about who we are as a team goes a long way. And I think you're a huge reason why we are here today, so thank you very much for being you and putting together this great staff that's sitting over here right here.
                  I could go through every single guy. There is a huge reason why we are successful. So thank you very much to everybody that we see day‑in and day‑out.

                  Coach Brown, who is my high school coach back in Charlotte, I know he's watching. Thank you for your encouragement every single day. You got me started, and I appreciate you.

                  Coach McKillop, from Davidson, man, he's a big reason why I have the confidence that I do. I have the spirit about basketball and life. And it's special to know that I could represent the Davidson basketball program up here today on this podium. It's a great day to be a Wildcat.
                  The key sentence: "I've had a lot of coaches that have helped me along the way." And of course Mark Jackson isn't even mentioned once among them.
                  Last edited by d_c; 06-04-2015, 07:14 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Because Andrew Bogut was a big time winner in Milwaukee? Before he got to GS, Bogut was thought to be a disappointment as the first overall pick in the Chris Paul draft. And Monta isn't exactly an "addition by subtraction", losing player himself. He made the playoffs with Milwaukee and with Dallas the last two years.
                    The difference was because Monta didn't want to share the ball with Curry. The "Addition" part was that eliminating Monta from the equation meant that Curry was the guy to run the show.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                      The Bogut trade was undoubtedly a trade that made Curry the guy. But it was also a highly questionable trade at the time due to the fact that Bogut was coming off that gruesome injury.

                      Hindsight shows that it was a great trade. Combined with the addition of Iguodala and a few more vets (Landry and Jack) gave them some guys that had been there/done that.

                      They've done a great job putting this team together. I just don't buy that Jackson was a fraud of a coach and Kerr 's coaching is the biggest Reason for this team taking the next step.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        I just don't buy that Jackson was a fraud of a coach
                        He's both a fraud of a coach and of a human being. If he were really so responsible for the Warriors turnaround, he'd have been taken far more seriously for another coaching job, but he hasn't.

                        Woj has a pretty simple take on it.

                        https://soundcloud.com/siriusxmnba/w...e-calls-on-him

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                          I can't wait. Think Im rooting for the Cavs.
                          There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                            All the experts picking Golden State. They going to look stupid as hell!

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                              Sticking with Golden State in 5, just like Jalen. Think it goes like the 1991 finals, where the Cavs win Game 1 and Golden State sweeps from there.

                              And Steph Curry will do something that puts him on the opening montage next season.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2015 NBA Finals: Golden State vs. Cleveland

                                National Anthem was bad. 2/10. Why can't these people just sing the song normally without the unnecessary notes
                                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X