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 pacertom View Post
    And Jackson could not make up for his behavior, because he didn't want to, and because he never thought he did anything wrong, just like Ron Artest.
    And you wonder why I argue so much on this issue. Because I'M the unreasonable jerk?
    Originally posted by Jack after Rio
    I understand, I take responsibility for my actions and everything I've done. And for that, I'm sorry and I do apologize for it.
    This is why this issue remains a hot button for me. Not because of pro-Jack stuff on my part but just the totally wrong and/or unreasonable anti-Jack view.

    If you guys wouldn't say things like the above in direct contradiction to the facts I wouldn't be upset.

    But this and things like "sure in GS he's better" when statistically and NBA fines-wise he is not in the least bit different or better are why I get so worked up.

    We might as well debate why Reggie sucked because he couldn't shoot the 3. If you start out with the wrong facts then of course you are going to have a different opinion. To me it seems like the facts are being driven (and created at times) based on the opinion instead of the other way around.


    You won't see me ever argue something like "I wanted him gone because I wanted more stability from the SG spot, or a guy who could drop it closer to 38-40% instead".

    And if they'd traded him for that (cough, Pietrus) then I would have loved the deal. But that would have been a smart BIZ CHOICE rather than a reaction to fans choice (we'll take anything you got).

    Comment


    • Re: IndyStar} Happy Jack

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I realize Moms are supposed to defend their sons and yes mothers day is tomorrow, but I was taken aback by this comment.

      The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. So, I'm sorry, but people are judged by their past - everyone is, everyday, all the time and in every walk of life. (I won't get into a discussion about God here)

      OK, I'm going to make a huge assumption here, but if Stephen's mother raised him with the motto, "how can you judge someone because of their past", then I'm starting to understand Stephen a little better - his mom obviously didn't raise Jax to understand that past behavior has consequences.
      What you just said means no second chances and that apologies are worthless.

      She's way off base? Come on. Her point is clearly that people make mistakes, not that there is no accountability.

      Dude got suspended, lost money and went to court over the Brawl. Dude is going to court over Rio. No accountability? She isn't ripping on the legal system here.

      I notice that you clearly avoided quoting Donnie and his disappointment that fans convicted Jackson before the court did, which basically addresses the same issue.


      I keep bringing it up for a reason, Al Unser Jr has a FAR worse record right now. Unser will NOT BE BOO'D this month at Indy. He won't be. Period. So don't give me the accountability with Indy residents crap. With him it's "everyone makes mistakes, give him another chance, he's sorry he did it, he needs help maybe"...despite people trying to help him for years.

      What is the freaking difference? The guy crashed into another person while driving drunk after plenty of other drinking issues including nasty domestic disputes.

      And I'm not even trying to rally everyone against Al Unser. But it pisses me off that he could (theoretically) walk out at Pacers pre-game and get cheered 10 minutes before Jack would be boo'd during intros as a Pacers player.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        If I fired shots in public I'd expect to be fired from my job. If I cussed out my boss, fueded with teammates, whined when things didn't go my way I'd expect to be fired.

        However, because Stephen is very good at bouncing a ball he doesn't have to worry about the consequences I would have to worry about. He still makes millions and has his dream job. I would say he's gotten his fair share of chances and in the grand scheme of things having some Pacer fans not like him isn't that big of a deal.

        Please, please, please, everybody stop making it sound like Stephen got a raw deal. I won't ever feel sorry for a guy making millions because they act like a jerk.
        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Arcadian - Jackson isn't very good at bouncing a ball either. Just look at his turnover stats.
          “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 expect that from Jay. But coming from you I'm a little disappointed. If you did a statistical analysis--traveling infractions over law infractions--Dunleavy is actually worse.
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
              Arcadian - Jackson isn't very good at bouncing a ball either. Just look at his turnover stats.
              Considering he's 6'8 and Nellie has still found it necessary to put Jack as PG (to go along with SG, SF, and PF), his handles aren't as bad as advertised. He can definitely be a walking turnover at times (especially when he tries a crossover between two people), but otherwise Jack can get to the rim with his dribble most of time.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                I expect that from Jay. But coming from you I'm a little disappointed. If you did a statistical analysis--traveling infractions over law infractions--Dunleavy is actually worse.
                What does Dunleavy have to do with Jackson's turnovers?
                “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

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Yeah, but the problem is they made this move and it was a disaster with attendence.

                  Fans talk big about supporting good guys, but that's a lie. It never happens. More fans will go watch a guy like Vick play QB than a guy like Dun play SG.

                  This is why the trade was a total disaster. It didn't fix ANYTHING. They lost more AND had less fans showing up. Many people I talk to still think the team is a bunch of thugs even with Ron and Jack gone.

                  If at least the fans that said "I won't go as long as Jack is out there" came flooding back after the deal then that point would be strong and I would concede it. But the fact is they didn't. They found new excuses instead.

                  And that's why you don't listen to those people when you make biz decisions. Not a single casual Pacers fan think that next year is gonna be great with Jack gone (or Rick gone either). You have a thread like "should I renew my tix", not "I can't wait to get tix now that they got the cancer out".

                  I'm sorry people hate hearing that, but it's the cold truth. Don't for a minute think I like it either.

                  I just suspected that was the case all along which is why TPTB irritated me by acting on that pressure. If this was Green Bay and you had the fan base suddenly staying away because of one guy they were vocal about, then you'd know something was up. But MSA/Conseco ride the wave of the W-L column and always have. People have NEVER gone to watch good guys play 500 ball around this town. No, not even in the ABA years.
                  Through the first 14 home games, the Pacers averaged 16,684. The attendance took a noticeable nose-dive after the 14th game and for the next 10 games averaged 14,248. Jack's tenure overlapped this time period so the attendance was on a down turn before the trade. The attendance stayed relatively the same after the 14th game, so the trade is not an explanation as to the lack of attendance.

                  http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default...endance100.htm
                  .

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    GUYS - SERIOUSLY.

                    I was making a silly joke.

                    Although I DO subscribe to Jay's theory that a missed jumper at the beginning of the shot clock should be counted as a turnover.

                    By NBA standards, Jack is not considered a good ball handler and certainly not a good passer. He's got good basketball skills outside of ball handling, so this isn't bashing.

                    Frankly, Jack bounced the ball off his own foot more than any Pacer in recent memory.

                    But again, it was supposed to be funny. That's why I put the silly smiley on the post and everything.
                    “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

                      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                      What does Dunleavy have to do with Jackson's turnovers?
                      I was joking. Should have used a smilie.
                      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                        I was joking. Should have used a smilie.
                        OK - we're all good now.
                        “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

                          Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                          I expect that from Jay. But coming from you I'm a little disappointed. If you did a statistical analysis--traveling infractions over law infractions--Dunleavy is actually worse.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            If at least the fans that said "I won't go as long as Jack is out there" came flooding back after the deal then that point would be strong and I would concede it. But the fact is they didn't. They found new excuses instead.
                            Who are all these fans that you are talking about? Was there people holding signs saying this? I remember 2 or 3 posters here saying that but that was about it. I dont think those 2 or 3 would make that big of a hit in attendance. You need to get off your vendetta against all these fans that said that because they just dont exist.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                              By NBA standards, Jack is not considered a good ball handler and certainly not a good passer.
                              Yeah he is. I've seen him make some passes through traffic and on the fast break that most NBA players wouldn't dream of making. If there's one part of his game that has visibly shown to be different from his Pacers days, it's his court vision and distributing ability.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                                Yeah he is. I've seen him make some passes through traffic and on the fast break that most NBA players wouldn't dream of making. If there's one part of his game that has visibly shown to be different from his Pacers days, it's his court vision and distributing ability.
                                You know who's a really good distributor? Jamaal Lee Tinsley.

                                (Note: The picture has nothing to do with the text above)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X