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 Arcadian View Post
    Are we saying he's changed because he has gotten any felony charges since the Fall? That's like the captain of the Exxon Valdez saying, "I'm a much safer driver I haven't had an oil spill in 20 years."
    He never got a felony charge in the 28 and a half years before the Rio incident either.

    I understand he now carries the reputation of a criminal and all that to some of the more sensitive and melodramatic NBA fans, but come on. His criminal involvement in the brawl (his first crime in his entire life) was equal to Artest's and O'Neal's. Rio was not acceptable by any means but it was his first felony and hopefully his last. It's just misleading to say that he's a career criminal.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Just because he wasn't charged, doesn't mean he shouldn't have either.

      This is a man that admittingly hangs a red bandana in his locker, to "keep it real" with the Bloods. It's one of the most feared gangs in the US, so it's not like it's a country club.

      JO is no where near the level that Jax is, and I have a hard time to even putting Ron on that level even considering his recent arrest.

      EDIT: Although there isn't any evidence, it's not a stretch of the imagination that he's gotten away/not charged with other criminal activities.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        I'm not calling him a career criminal or a thug. I just don't see him owning up to the gravity of what he has done in that instance, in his part of the brawl, or in his demeanor on the court.
        "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

          He admitting to selling guns and drugs in that ESPN article, didn't he?

          That may be the first time he's been charged, but can someone run with the Bloods in Port Arthur and not commit felonies?

          Its a shame he never actually did what Arcadian suggested. A number of us would be squarely in his corner if we saw a concerted effort to admit his mistakes, learn from them, and especially STOP REPEATING THEM.

          He doesn't ever need to commit (and be charged with) another felony to prove he isn't changing - you can tell he's unwilling to change in the way he relates to the referrees. There is a way to disagree with a call that doesn't earn you two technicals and a huge fine from both your coach and the League. Hothead.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            I would like to know how many posts it takes before everyone agrees that nothing new is being said and that Jax is no longer our problem.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              I would like to know how many posts it takes before everyone agrees that nothing new is being said and that Jax is no longer our problem.
              About 852 (all the posts in this thread excluding my own, which are fresh, smart, and entertaining - I encourage you to check them out)

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by Jay View Post

                That may be the first time he's been charged, but can someone run with the Bloods in Port Arthur and not commit felonies?
                The last time I was in Port Arthur I saw something that made no sense at the time. I saw 2 kids wearing Pacer jerseys...both with #1 and Jackson across the back.

                The thing that struck me as odd was that they weren't blue and gold...they were RED and gold.

                A few months later, Sassan posted a quote on RATS about how Jack was keeping it real, and apparently, at the time of that article, he still toted around a red bandana with him everywhere he went, and told the writer that he still repped the "three-two-double-oh".

                He was "keeping it real".
                Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
                - Margaret Mead

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  According to the 911 calls from witnesses, he was wearing red at Club Rio.
                  “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'll just quote Michael Smith's article on Jack a couple years ago to give both sides of the story, although it seems like we talk about Jack's involvement with the Bloods like every month:

                    He keeps a red bandanna hanging outside his locker.

                    "You know what that is," he says.

                    Bloods. When he wasn't running hoops, Jackson used to run with the local street gang. He says he represented the "3200 Block, Three-two-double-oh." On the inside of his left forearm, he has a tattoo of a man firing an automatic weapon. He makes it clear he doesn't "bang" anymore (he is, after all, a father of five), but he still represents his roots, only in a different fashion, emphasis on fashion. A shirt with a red collar, a red Pacers cap.

                    "I was just raised like that," he says. "All my friends. I don't trip on nobody with no blue rag, but at the same time, it's what I represent. It's what I've represented since I was 9 years old. All my friends in my neighborhood. It was just inherited. I ain't banging, though.

                    "I got in a couple of scruffs over it," he recalls. "It's nothing I'm embarrassed about. It just happened growing up. Walking outside, everybody got on red, I can't walk outside in blue."

                    Others recognized his athletic talent – and the opportunity it presented – even when he couldn't. Older cats would give him two or three bills and send him home, he says. "Everybody knew I played basketball," Jackson says. "Sometimes I got pulled over with [drugs], and they let me go because of who I was. If I was in Houston or L.A., that would have been the end of me.

                    "That's why I always go back to I'm blessed. A lot of people get in that and don't have nobody to tell them, 'This ain't right.' There's a lot of people in my neighborhood that's probably 10 times better than me, but they didn't have people telling them, 'Yo, you need to stop that [stuff]. You can do it. But it's on you.'

                    "I had my grandmother, my aunts, my mom, telling me, 'What are you doing? That's not you.' And it wasn't me."
                    It's just part of his upbringing. It ain't like he actively contributes to the gang scene anyway, instead he went the other route and built a school in Port Arthur.

                    He wears red because he grew up wearing it. That's basically all.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Our worst fears have been confirmed: Stephen Jackson is a Sith Lord.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        Our worst fears have been confirmed: Stephen Jackson is a Sith Lord.
                        That's cool and all I guess, but you're going to have to supply me a definition of what that means.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                          For all of you people who think that we got ripped off in the trade, her are some numbers that Jack has put up in last nites game.

                          5- 15 shooting

                          6 turnovers


                          For the playoffs his numbers are a whopping:

                          16-51 for a whopping 31%

                          Combine that with his 16 turnovers and I ask myself why would we want him on the team?

                          I would still think we got ripped off if we got Dunleavy/Murphy/Ike/McLeod for just Sarunas. The trade sucks because of the crap we took on, not because of the crap we gave up.
                          Read my Pacers blog:
                          8points9seconds.com

                          Follow my twitter:

                          @8pts9secs

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                            That's cool and all I guess, but you're going to have to supply me a definition of what that means.
                            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                            RSS Feed
                            Subscribe via iTunes

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                              I would like to know how many posts it takes before everyone agrees that nothing new is being said and that Jax is no longer our problem.

                              I made a post weeks ago saying this same thing, and here we are hearing the same old s%^^^t about how the Pacers screwed up in getting rid of Jackson. I hope the new season will put and end to the love affair for Jack, but I sincerely doubt that and have accepted the fact that the beat will go on and on and on.

                              Hell, Dun could be an allstar next year and lead the Pacers to a title, and we would still hear how bad he is and it was a mistake to get rid of Jackson. You see for some it is a one sided arguement and logic and reasoning are not allowed.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by TripleThreat View Post
                                not to stir up any stuff, but that's better than Dunleavy's 0-0 and 0 turnovers, or overall playoff numbers of 0-0 0%.

                                I was all for getting rid of Jack...IMO, it was just time for all of us to move on, and I think he would agree with that.

                                Considering that we won't have a pick in the first round this year...it didn't make sense to pull the trigger on a trade that didn't make the Pacers any better. Missing the playoffs wasn't worth getting rid of him.

                                The trade didn't look good on paper that day, and it doesn't look any better now that we have seen it in action.

                                Do I think he'll start to wear thin on the Warriors fans? I do, but at least they are in the playoffs. (and I wanted Jack out of here just as bad as anyone else...but not for scraps. We already did that with Peja/Ron Ron, and it made me mad then, too.)


                                not to stir up any stuff, but that's better than Dunleavy's 0-0 and 0 turnovers, or overall playoff numbers of 0-0 0%.

                                Your attempt at humor has alluded me, and really has no bearing on how bad Jackson has been in the playoffs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X