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 Sh4d3 View Post
    It's so easy to look at things in hindsight and pass judgment.

    If we hadn't done a trade, we'd have already flamed out of the playoffs by now, and people would be *****ing that Donnie-Do-Nothing should have made a trade.

    People are so fickle and narrow-minded at times it's scary.
    I'm not *****ing about us making the trade I ***** about what we got back. If we made the trade and traded Stephen for Dunleavy one on one, or just flat out cut Stephen I wouldnt be mad right now.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Originally posted by TripleThreat View Post
      great post.

      the more I read "the fans wanted this", the more i want to throw up.

      When it became apparent that there was nothing of value that they were going to get for Jackson, they should have spent whatever money they needed to to get him a personal assistant, who kept him busy as anything with public appearances, and out doing positive things in the community, to find a way to change his image, and the image of the team.
      I also agree with this. I am mad at Donnie Walsh. I will never boo a Pacer but if another paying fan wants to do so...he's more than welcome to but that can't be the reason for making a basketball decision.

      Additionally, Jack's image is not a hard one to clean up. He's a fan favorite in Oakland. Why? He is huge in the community. He takes care of his neighborhood in Port Arthur. Overall, he is a really cool guy and I have only heard good things about him teammate-wise. Al Harrington and to some extent, Saras, caused more problems to the team.

      Even worse, Donnie showed that he had no long-term plan because he traded away two of the guys that had been playing SG minutes. Nice move. Like a lot of people said around the trade, if they would have followed it up with a trade for ANY shooting guard or shooter in general, then the trade might not have been so horrible.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
        I'm not *****ing about us making the trade I ***** about what we got back. If we made the trade and traded Stephen for Dunleavy one on one, or just flat out cut Stephen I wouldnt be mad right now.
        This is a great point. Not only did we get less talent, but we are screwed financially...

        That being said, I'm still hopeful in that I think Ike can become a solid player and I really like our three player core of Ike, Shawne, and Danny.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
          I also agree with this. I am mad at Donnie Walsh. I will never boo a Pacer but if another paying fan wants to do so...he's more than welcome to but that can't be the reason for making a basketball decision.

          Additionally, Jack's image is not a hard one to clean up. He's a fan favorite in Oakland. Why? He is huge in the community. He takes care of his neighborhood in Port Arthur. Overall, he is a really cool guy and I have only heard good things about him teammate-wise. Al Harrington and to some extent, Saras, caused more problems to the team.

          Even worse, Donnie showed that he had no long-term plan because he traded away two of the guys that had been playing SG minutes. Nice move. Like a lot of people said around the trade, if they would have followed it up with a trade for ANY shooting guard or shooter in general, then the trade might not have been so horrible.
          Very well said. I ain't got anything to add but agreement.

          Game 4 starts in a few minutes, Dubs got to get this one tonight and send this thing back to Utah tied.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
            I'm not *****ing about us making the trade I ***** about what we got back. If we made the trade and traded Stephen for Dunleavy one on one, or just flat out cut Stephen I wouldnt be mad right now.
            I completely agree with you on that one. I find it hard to believe that we couldn't have gotten a better deal than that, but if you think about it:

            - A lot of teams didn't want Jack because of his off-court issues. Oakland is one of the few places that doesn't care about that kind of stuff that much.
            - Nobody seriously wanted Al when he was a FA (except GS).
            - Nobody wanted Runi or Powell, either.

            So, maybe that really was the best we could do. In which case, as much as I wanted Jack gone, we probably should have just kept him and tried again in the offseason to make some deals. But I think part of the reason we did a mid-season deal like that is because they really didn't want to can Rick and were hoping that acquiring a new set of players for him would help. It was a high risk gamble, and Donnie lost.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
              It's so easy to look at things in hindsight and pass judgment.

              If we hadn't done a trade, we'd have already flamed out of the playoffs by now, and people would be *****ing that Donnie-Do-Nothing should have made a trade.

              People are so fickle and narrow-minded at times it's scary.
              It was a horrible trade the day it was made - no need for hindsight. It wasn't horrible because of losing Jax or the team not coming together, it was horrible because of the salaries and players they took back. I don't believe anybody, including those that like the trade, ever believed Murphy or Dun would ever live up to the contracts they have. That is the reason it was a horrible deal. In reading most of this thread it seems that the arguing about attendance, character, fan support, etc. is simply those that dislike the deal trying to counter the explanations (or excuses depending on your viewpoint)given by those that support the trade. The real issue is simply that the team took back long term horrible contracts - a real problem for a rebuilding team. There is no need for hindsight, that was obvious the day the trade was made.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                It was a horrible trade the day it was made - no need for hindsight. It wasn't horrible because of losing Jax or the team not coming together, it was horrible because of the salaries and players they took back. I don't believe anybody, including those that like the trade, ever believed Murphy or Dun would ever live up to the contracts they have. That is the reason it was a horrible deal. In reading most of this thread it seems that the arguing about attendance, character, fan support, etc. is simply those that dislike the deal trying to counter the explanations (or excuses depending on your viewpoint)given by those that support the trade. The real issue is simply that the team took back long term horrible contracts - a real problem for a rebuilding team. There is no need for hindsight, that was obvious the day the trade was made.
                Again, I agree.

                However, there are some who wanted Jack gone who have now completely flip-flopped for no good reason, other than the classic "the grass is always greener" scenario.

                Like Seth said, Jack's game isn't much different in GS than it is now. His game is better suited to the style that GS plays, and Jack typically plays good defense when he's motivated. But, as the rest of us who remember Jack's warts as well have been trying to point out, he's still a turnover machine and poor ball-handler, and when he starts missing shots he tries to force things, starts *****ing at the refs, and it just snowballs into a mess.

                I GUARANTEE that a lot of GS fans will be Jack-bashing once the honeymoon ends.

                Btw, Al and Runi have shown no more than Murphy and Diogu since the swap.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                  I'm not *****ing about us making the trade I ***** about what we got back. If we made the trade and traded Stephen for Dunleavy one on one, or just flat out cut Stephen I wouldnt be mad right now.
                  OK.

                  Now, with that established: Is trading Al, Sarunas, and Powell for Murphy, Diogu, and McLeod really upsetting to you? Really? Al's the best player there, but I don't buy it when people say he was working out here. JO was in his way, or vice versa. He can't be a true C, and he's no longer a SF. Especially not in our offense. He wasn't that great of a fit. So with that in mind, getting what we got, I don't see why it's so horrible.

                  Isn't the truth most people are upset because of the following?

                  1) We didn't win nearly enough
                  2) They just aren't your favorite type of players

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by Mal View Post
                    OK.

                    Now, with that established: Is trading Al, Sarunas, and Powell for Murphy, Diogu, and McLeod really upsetting to you? Really? Al's the best player there, but I don't buy it when people say he was working out here. JO was in his way, or vice versa. He can't be a true C, and he's no longer a SF. Especially not in our offense. He wasn't that great of a fit. So with that in mind, getting what we got, I don't see why it's so horrible.

                    Isn't the truth most people are upset because of the following?

                    1) We didn't win nearly enough
                    2) They just aren't your favorite type of players
                    I'd rather have Sarunas, Powell, Mike Conley, and the roughly 10 mil in cap space/whatever other player we could have gotten for the TE...it's all about the decisions TPTB have made over the past year...just not so sound.

                    They got Al back because that's what people wanted...they traded Jack because that's what people wanted...neither was a good basketball decision.

                    I'm fine with getting Al as a bargaining chip...but in that case, let's not get a player that's probably worse than someone we can get the 11 pick in this draft while taking on a bad contract. (And this from a Diogu fan).

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Originally posted by Mal View Post
                      OK.

                      Now, with that established: Is trading Al, Sarunas, and Powell for Murphy, Diogu, and McLeod really upsetting to you? Really? Al's the best player there, but I don't buy it when people say he was working out here. JO was in his way, or vice versa. He can't be a true C, and he's no longer a SF. Especially not in our offense. He wasn't that great of a fit. So with that in mind, getting what we got, I don't see why it's so horrible.

                      Isn't the truth most people are upset because of the following?

                      1) We didn't win nearly enough
                      2) They just aren't your favorite type of players
                      Yes it is upseting to me, Troy Murphy is HORRIBLE. Just HORRIBLE. If there is something worse then horrible he is that. If Al didnt fit in our offense Troy Murphy sure as hell doesnt fit in it. And his contract is bigger then Al's. We got robbed for talent and we got robbed with the contracts. I still cant come to grips with the fact that Bird took BOTH of those contracts, I really think he had never really checked out how Murphy and Dunleavy played and looked at what they make.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        OK.

                        Now, with that established: Is trading Al, Sarunas, and Powell for Murphy, Diogu, and McLeod really upsetting to you? Really? Al's the best player there, but I don't buy it when people say he was working out here. JO was in his way, or vice versa. He can't be a true C, and he's no longer a SF. Especially not in our offense. He wasn't that great of a fit. So with that in mind, getting what we got, I don't see why it's so horrible.

                        Isn't the truth most people are upset because of the following?

                        1) We didn't win nearly enough
                        2) They just aren't your favorite type of players
                        Well....as someone who doesn't like a single player in the entire deal aside from Ike, I still think we got hosed. And it's not so much the talent as the bad contracts. Between the two milk drinkers and Tinsley, we now have three legitimately bad contracts in our 8-man rotation. That makes it rather difficult to significantly change up your roster without taking other peoples problems.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by rexnom
                          I'm fine with getting Al as a bargaining chip...but in that case, let's not get a player that's probably worse than someone we can get the 11 pick in this draft while taking on a bad contract. (And this from a Diogu fan).
                          In Bird and Donnie's defense, they weren't aware people were gonna start shooting off guns in the preseason when they got Al. This kind of forced their hand, and Al was our only real chip at the time, aside from Granger (who I don't think was available) and Foster.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                            In Bird and Donnie's defense, they weren't aware people were gonna start shooting off guns in the preseason when they got Al. This kind of forced their hand, and Al was our only real chip at the time, aside from Granger (who I don't think was available) and Foster.
                            Yeah, but Al being our only chip is supposedly not the reason we traded him...he wasn't fitting well. I bought into the trade after a lot of convincing but they should have known better.

                            Comment


                            • Re: IndyStar} Happy Jack

                              I wrote a blog somewhat like this here on another fansite. If you would like the link, let me know...

                              I was on my way back from a game, not sure which one it was, I had season tickets so I went to a lot. I think it was the Denver game back in February?

                              Anyway, I dealt with all the fans, or lack therof around me booing our players. I can't stand that! Why even show up to the arena if you aren't supporting your team.

                              Granted, things didn't work out as planned, people got in trouble, didn't make the playoffs, and we need a new coach. That doesn't mean you blast a team. Each franchise has their down years. Ours just involved a lot of court dates and off-floor drama.

                              I will stick by my team 100%. No matter what player is on our team, or who we are playing against. I'm there to enjoy my time, that's what I pay for. I don't shell out gobs of money to hear negative nancies ruin my experience.

                              I intend on renewing my tickets for next season, with as much or even more hope going into it than last.

                              Thanks!

                              Originally posted by TripleThreat View Post
                              I'll say this about Jack...

                              I would have FAR more respect for him than I do had he faced off with Ben Wallace that night. He was posing and posturing, and acting like he was going to mix it up with BW, but...he chose to head into the stands and blast on some dude 1/2 his size.

                              I have no problem when emotions boil over to the point where the players come to blows on the court. Jordan and Reggie, Shaq and Brad Miller to name a few.

                              Jackson is a far from a thug. Thugs would have handled their business right there. Thugs don't play...they go looking for trouble, and when they find it, they get busy. The Geto Boys wrote a song about people like Jack..."Talking Loud, and Sayin' Nothin'" Which is what he does. He's no thug...he's a punk.

                              He got a second chance after the brawl (at least from me). But I started to come to the realization that had he not been there, the brawl probably never would have gotten to the level that it did, even if Ron had gone into the stands. Artest was on his way to being a model member of this league, and had a legit shot at MVP the year he was traded. He had shed the image of the guy who applied for a job at Circuit City in Chicago, so that he could get the discount on electronics. He was a BEAST on D, and an integral part of this franchise. Under JO and Reggie's guidance, he was starting to realize what it meant to be an ambassador in the NBA. Enter Jackson, and all of that goes down the toilet. Honestly, in my eyes, Jackson was the "Eddie Haskell" of Pacerland.

                              After the Rio thing...it became quite apparent to me that his mentality was that he was above everything around him. That he didn't really care about anything but what he wanted to do at that moment in time.

                              I'm not a big OWRS fan, but Al Unser is just as big of an idiot, and IMO should be in jail.

                              I'm not a fan of ANYONE booing a player on the home team. If you are a fan, you are rooting for your team to win. Booing a player on your own team affects that player's game, and your team is worse off, so in effect, you are helping your team lose by voicing your frustration about one player, and it's deplorable.

                              The guy makes bad decisions. Living in Oakland, he's going to have PLENTY of opportunity to make even worse ones, but for his sake, I hope that he doesn't put himself into those situations.

                              I honestly hope for the best for everyone...and while I HATE the trade that brought him here, I did think it was time for him to go.

                              I know that there are opinions on both sides of this, and I'm not trying to stir up any ****, especially with my boy, Seth, but that's my feeling on Jack.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                GS is about to be ousted. The trade and its consequences will not be known fully for 2-3 years. What must happen however is TPTB start taking responsibilty for their decisions. If they truly are making decisions based on fans then it is time someone else took over. In their job you need to have
                                really thick skin. Ask Bill Polian. Have a plan and stick to it. Do the Pacers
                                have a plan?
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X