Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

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

  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    At this point...SJax should literally do or say nothing once a play is over.....the Refs won't give him an inch on anything. He could breathe the wrong way and he could get a techincal...
    Yep - It's called "benefit of the doubt".

    Jackson used up his up years ago. It's his fault that people won't give him a break from here on out.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

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

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Praise the lord, Jack ain't suspended for Game 6.

      Originally posted by Yahoo! Sports
      NBA won't punish Warriors F Jackson for 2nd ejection
      May 2, 2007

      DALLAS (AP) -- Stephen Jackson's reputation might have been a factor in his two ejections this postseason. It won't get him suspended from Game 6 of the Golden State Warriors' first-round series against the Dallas Mavericks.

      NBA spokesman Tim Frank said Wednesday that the league will take no action against Jackson for what happened in the closing moments of Game 5, when he was tossed with 8.9 seconds left in a 118-112 loss, or for his mounting ejections.
      http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by Jay View Post
        Assume you're asking about the three-point shooting rate?

        Yes.

        I think the three pointer is a weapon that should be used selectively, and carefully. Like a missle. Not like a machine gun, unless the player is one of the all-time best shooters on a % basis. And even those guys (Kerr, etc.) were much more judicious.

        SJax takes more threes (and hits substantially fewer) than somebody like Dell Curry, Dale Ellis, Chuck Person, or Dan Majarle took back when the game was faster than it is today.
        Errr...more selective than The Rifleman. I think we need to go to the stats on that one.

        3.5 per for a 36% rate...however his rate is markedly improved due to the shorter line era. He even went over 40% in one of those years.

        Majerle was a 4 a night player at just under 36%, but again he flourished in the short line years. He also was at 5 per night during his core 3pt weapon years (ie, PHX).

        Jack isn't that different than those players. A little bit of course, but not as much as you might think. For example in 04-05 he was 4 a night at 34.5, following a year where he'd been 36% at about 5.5 a night. He lacks the shorter line era and a season or 2 of 37-38 type of shooting, but otherwise it's not a stark contrast.

        I don't think Jack necessarily is quicker on the 3pt trigger, and certainly he rarely takes the insanely deep bombs that Chuck would sometimes launch. Jack just isn't quite as good a shooter, more prone to miss a pretty solid look. That doesn't excuse him, it just addresses the good shot vs. good ability issue.

        Add in the fact that neither Thunder Dan nor the Rifleman played a lick of defense and the comparison really isn't that awful at all.




        Jack in the 4th of game 5 was a prime example of everything you love and hate about his game. Misses a good look, forces his dribble into a turnover, comes back and gets a huge steal, picks up a nice assist for a crucial bucket, closed out Dirk and totally denied him the low post possession (seriously, his post defense was a thing of beauty in game 5)...then when the game is out of hand he blows a fuse and shows up the refs after Baron just got nailed for doing the same thing (clapping sarcastically) a few games before.


        Let's be clear here, I've NEVER denied those problems with his game. My complaint is people that didn't see him getting up under Dirk to keep them from feeding the post, that didn't see him poke away a steal that looked certain to be a Dallas break and layup, that didn't see him making tough passes or asked to run the show after Baron foolishly got himself sent packing from yet another game (remember that Jack had to run point in game 2 when Baron got himself booted at the end of the freaking 3rd quarter).


        Jack hurts you then he helps you, back and forth. His tough defense is on a lot more than it's off which puts the sum total into the black for him even if his offense often runs 50/50. He does nothing consistantly well, there is no aspect you can count on from him, but at the end of the day he's given you more than he's cost you.

        To hear some fans discuss it you'd think it was 20% good, 80% bad. If that was the case the team would have gotten better once they moved him out, simply because you eliminated huge minutes going to some apparent disaster.

        Logic says "remove this huge problem and it gets better, even if the replacement is just neutral". It didn't, and that says that he wasn't costing the team overall. Maybe he wasn't helping either, but he wasn't holding them back.

        He frustrates you because you can see him as a great player, and then suddenly he falls apart and blows it (usually on emotion or by forcing a play).

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by Jay View Post
          As it is, he's equally likely to change the game for his team's favor with an outstanding play or against his team with a boneheaded decision. Now in the right system (that plays more to his instincts), he might have less of a tendency to make boneheaded decisions. Under Rick's system, he was even more likely to hurt the team with his boneheaded decisions. At least SJax's positive attributes are aligned with Nellie's small-ball philosophies better than Carlisle's slow-down game.

          That's why I call him 50-50. Fifty percent of the time he makes incredible plays and fifty percent of the time he'll kill you on the offense end of the floor. He's an exciting player to watch because you never know what's going to happen when he has the ball in his hand.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
            That's why I call him 50-50. Fifty percent of the time he makes incredible plays and fifty percent of the time he'll kill you on the offense end of the floor. He's an exciting player to watch because you never know what's going to happen when he has the ball in his hand.
            I pretty much have a minor heart attack every time he touches the ball. You're right, there's just never really an indication of what is going to happen.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to Nellie gambling on taking on a player like SJax in general...as part of the trade....not in reference to this specific instance.

              There were plenty of mistakes that SJax has made throughout the series....but he has been able to step up and make up for some of those mistakes.

              One more thing....did anyone see what SJax did to get the ejection? All I saw was that he was clapping....I don't know what...if anything he did...to warrant the technical/ejection.

              At this point...SJax should literally do or say nothing once a play is over.....the Refs won't give him an inch on anything. He could breathe the wrong way and he could get a techincal...
              Yes, as I said above, he hurts then he helps then he hurts...that's Jack, Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. Hyde for sure.


              The ejection - yes, clapping was it. Barkley ripped on the refs for T'ing him up. The same Barkley that called Jack a knucklehead after game 2 (ie, it's not like he always defends him).

              Really Jack wasn't over the top in game 2 either...until he got booted, then he let it rip. Pointless and dumb, but not totally out of left field either.


              Nellie's post game comments on the tech were confusing. In one way he was slamming Jack for not learning, not getting it...but then he came back and said something like "I don't know why Jack doesn't understand that clapping without saying anything is a technical" which sounded really sarcastic, suggesting that Nellie thought the tech was stupid (maybe Baron's as well).


              Without a doubt, Jack has earned it just like Sheed has. You've got to save it for those special moments when you really get badly screwed over.


              Back on topic. I'm not pinning this loss on Stephen, but the last 4 minutes for him were a disaster.
              Less than that even because Jack was a key part of them getting that final burst of lead. Honestly I think Baron picking up a silly foul when he knew the risk to him while carrying 5 was the worst aspect. That and the fact that Nellie freaks out and has the team change it's style in order to hold the lead.

              In those final minutes Nellie kept having them hold the ball to milk the clock. This played right into Dallas' hands because it allowed them to run a more effective double at Baron and force the ball away from him. This didn't just result in Jack pushing the issue but also guys like Barnes taking a very difficult 3pt shot.

              GS has to move the ball early, even if they work the whole clock before they find a shot they want. Nellie has gotten away from this several times in the series late in the game and it's not looked good any of those times.



              BTW, I know everyone just thinks it's some Jack thing, but it's not when I say that the Warriors are outside of PHX the most entertaining team in the NBA right now. You want to see GREAT defense, watch GS. These guys attack every try at the rim from help defense (and get there way more than you'd expect) and close out every guy catching a ball. Jack and even Richardson have totally blown up what Dallas wants to do with Dirk most of the time.

              During one of the games an announcer (maybe Reggie) said it was almost like GS has 6 guys out there, and you couldn't help but agree. There is NEVER a space left empty by GS on either end. Never. You see a hole but it quickly gets filled. It's Barnes, Jack, Pietrus, Rich, Baron, back to Barnes...always a guy coming at you.

              It's beautiful basketball. It almost looks like what you might imagine Isiah had in mind when he talked about "the Quick". Maybe Al explained it to Nellie when he got there and Nellie liked it and made it work.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                I disagree that Jack fits this system better though Jay. He's the MAIN post guy that team has, on both offense and defense. When GS tries to mix it up and attack the post vs DAL (like to slow the game a bit), they usually put Jack in the post, or Biedrens obviously...and when they PnR Biedrens it's Jack working it with him much of the time. And as I said above, it's Jack doing the great job holding Dirk off the post (or denying the entry pass at least).

                He's the least "small ball" guy they have. Barnes and Rich are far more effective as small ball types, faster, better hands, quicker shot.

                Sadly Jack looks better in the post that freaking Al, who just looks like a disaster right now. I can't figure him out, this should be his chance to help out as one of the bigger guys but Nellie can't even bother with him most of the time.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Sadly Jack looks better in the post that freaking Al, who just looks like a disaster right now. I can't figure him out, this should be his chance to help out as one of the bigger guys but Nellie can't even bother with him most of the time.
                  '

                  That's the point that people sometimes forget about the GS trade, the fact that Al has always been and always will be anti-clutch.

                  I think the Paul Pierce damaged his playoff psyche back in 2003 with that all-to-hard-to-forget taunting 3-pointer at the end of the 3rd quarter. He wasn't that good before then either but I think that shattered him for life.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by Stephen Jackarse, i.e 'Mr. Conduct Detrimental'

                    Do I have 'moron' written on my forehead when I walk out on the court or something? ... I'm smarter than a lot of people think.

                    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ory?id=2858133


                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Even if he did, we wouldn't be able to see it through his headband.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        The NBA will be taking ZERO action against Jack, not even a fine, I believe. That's absurd.

                        The NBA has no rules structure whatsoever. They just make up **** on the fly. That must be why the refs make up calls so often.

                        Stern is a joke as an authority figure. "His reputation will be taken into account the next time." Yeah, sure it will, you liar.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          No, he will be fined as he automatically gets a fine for a tech. Everyone does.

                          There will be no ADDITIONAL punishment this time.

                          I've posted a question in a new thread about how many techs are allowed before automatic suspensions in the playoffs. I hope someone knows the answer.
                          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

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

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            I have ALWAYS loved that excuse by people when they do something stupid, you know...

                            "I'd have to be an absolute moron to do that, so that can't be the case..."


                            Well, uhhhh, yes it can!
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              He may be very intelligent, but everyone makes stupid mistakes.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                                No, he will be fined as he automatically gets a fine for a tech. Everyone does.

                                There will be no ADDITIONAL punishment this time.

                                I've posted a question in a new thread about how many techs are allowed before automatic suspensions in the playoffs. I hope someone knows the answer.
                                7, I believe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X