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 Jay View Post
    I've got a hard time believing a guy that recently fired off his gun into the air in a crowd of people and does a "getting frisked" dance as he's introduced before games even understands the message he is sending. At the very least, his actions indicate he's mocking us all.
    As I stated before, it will be interesting to see how humorous the prosecutor and the judge find his "frisk". Just another example of his inability to take the high road and THINK of possible ramifications.
    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      All of y'all should try and watch the entire TNT broadcast tonight, apparently they're airing a John Thompson interview with Jack, I don't know the exact time though.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by ABADays View Post
        As I stated before, it will be interesting to see how humorous the prosecutor and the judge find his "frisk". Just another example of his inability to take the high road and THINK of possible ramifications.
        Damn right.

        If I were working that trial, that clip would be on heavy rotation, especially during sentencing.

        "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant has shown no remorse. Just look at him..."

        *pauses tape with freeze frame of the frisk move*

        "He to this day doesn't think he did anything wrong. He's laughing and playing games. He thinks that raining bullets onto the rooftops of our city is all ONE BIG JOKE."

        *dramatic pause with look of disgust on face*

        "He doesn't get the message. Not one bit. Well, guess what? It is time for YOU to send a message to HIM. A message that he CANNOT IGNORE. I recommend the maximum sentence allowable by law. We cannot let this remorseless man endanger our community, ridicule our way of life and mock the same laws that you and I are here to protect and enforce. Do the right thing. Send that message. Send it to protect us all. Thank you."




        Goodness, I should get paid for this. Oh, wait. I do.
        “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 ajbry View Post
          All of y'all should try and watch the entire TNT broadcast tonight, apparently they're airing a John Thompson interview with Jack, I don't know the exact time though.
          10 bucks says he tries to back paddle and dismiss the frisk move. Another ten says that he tries to paint himself as a victim.

          If there ever was a "damage control" interview set up by lawyers and agents, this is it.
          “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 ajbry View Post
            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.
            You wouldn't use the same argument for someone who grew up in the south and always carried a Stars and Bars rag with them.

            Part of maturity is putting things behind him. I'm glad that Jackson still cares for his community but showing that pride by wearing the colors of a gang which destroys lives and is a blight on the community is not the way to do it.

            The dude needs to grow up.
            "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
              You wouldn't use the same argument for someone who grew up in the south and always carried a Stars and Bars rag with them.

              Part of maturity is putting things behind him. I'm glad that Jackson still cares for his community but showing that pride by wearing the colors of a gang which destroys lives and is a blight on the community is not the way to do it.

              The dude needs to grow up.


              Is it too late to add you to the "post more often" ballot?

              I wish I'd thought of the confederate flag reference. Very true.
              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

                Originally posted by Jay View Post


                Is it too late to add you to the "post more often" ballot?

                I wish I'd thought of the confederate flag reference. Very true.
                I'll second that.
                .

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                  I think that most reasonable people see the trade as a positive for the Pacers, in the long run, sometimes emotions cloud the positives of the trade and poster's views become distorted because of their emotions.
                  I could just as easily swing that phrasing around the other way and say that sometimes emotions cloud the negatives of the trade. I've seen enough conversations about the trade between "reasonable" Pacer fans to know it's clear as mud what the "reasonable" fan favors, unless you are basing the term "reasonable" on whether people people agree with your own opinion or not.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    why do people hate on jackson? he's made some mistakes but so has everyone! we all can't say our whole lives we have lived squeaky clean...do people hate jackson for the same reason they hate tinsley? or the same reason they hated ron? these guys come from a place that IS HARD to escape...ask anyone in law enforcement and you don't just "Get out" of the ghetto or a gang or what not.
                    I hope jackson wins tonight...this series and not just this series but wins over the public. He's not a bad guy...bad decisions yes...bad guy? not even close
                    "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Originally posted by Mal View Post
                      I guess my question is, if you are someone who is mad at the "fact" that Jackson was traded because of the booing fans, who are you really made at: Those fans, or Donnie Walsh? Or both?
                      Be mad at the Golden State fans who booed Dunleavy...

                      Day before the trade
                      Nelson called Dunleavy a "disaster" on opening night and hasn't let up much since. But even Nelson was positive Monday, saying Dunleavy played a "great game for us."
                      "I wish he had tried to impress me that much the first 40 games," Nelson joked.






                      From Janny Hu of the Sporting Green/Chronicle staff.

                      For the record, I heard two things Saturday night I never thought possible:
                      The home crowd booing one of its own players with a 22-point lead in hand.
                      (Trust me -- it won't help Mike Dunleavy make that second free throw).

                      Nelson recently came out in support of Warriors fans who've relentlessly booed the player for some time. Nellie's exact words: "A lot of it is his own fault. (Dunleavy) needs to step up and do more, get tougher. I mean, I have the same problem the fans do. I'm not booing (laughter), but I'm thought about it."
                      Dunleavy was booed far more often that Jackson.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Jack's numbers in the Jazz series:

                        Game 1: 45 min, 16 pts on 5-14 (35.7%), 1 board, 4 assists, 3 steals, 5 turnovers
                        Game 2: 46 min, 18 pts on 4-18 (22.2%), 3 boards, 1 assist, 2 steals, 2 turnovers
                        Game 3: 28 min, 8 pts on 2-4 (50.0%) 1 board, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 3 turnovers
                        Game 4: 44 min, 24 pts on 5-15 (33.3%), 3 boards, 3 assists, 2 steals, 1 block, 6 turnovers
                        Game 5: 44 min, 16 pts on 3-17 (17.6%), 5 boards, 5 assists, 2 steals, 2 blocks, 3 turnovers

                        For an average of:

                        41.4 min, 16.4 pts on 27.9%, 2.6 boards, 3.6 assists, 2.0 steals, 0.8 blocks, 3.8 turnovers

                        Also, oddly enough, the game in which Jack played the least minutes and took the fewest shots was GS's sole win of the series.

                        Take it for what it's worth.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                          Jack's numbers in the Jazz series:

                          Game 1: 45 min, 16 pts on 5-14 (35.7%), 1 board, 4 assists, 3 steals, 5 turnovers
                          Game 2: 46 min, 18 pts on 4-18 (22.2%), 3 boards, 1 assist, 2 steals, 2 turnovers
                          Game 3: 28 min, 8 pts on 2-4 (50.0%) 1 board, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block, 3 turnovers
                          Game 4: 44 min, 24 pts on 5-15 (33.3%), 3 boards, 3 assists, 2 steals, 1 block, 6 turnovers
                          Game 5: 44 min, 16 pts on 3-17 (17.6%), 5 boards, 5 assists, 2 steals, 2 blocks, 3 turnovers

                          For an average of:

                          41.4 min, 16.4 pts on 27.9%, 2.6 boards, 3.6 assists, 2.0 steals, 0.8 blocks, 3.8 turnovers

                          Also, oddly enough, the game in which Jack played the least minutes and took the fewest shots was GS's sole win of the series.

                          Take it for what it's worth.
                          Just to round out his stats and paint a broader picture:

                          3.8 FGM - 13.6 FGA
                          7.2 FTM - 8.8 FTA

                          Although SJax hit one of his common streaky series of games....he did do the one thing that is able to redeem his typical FG shooting nights....he drove to the hoop and drew fouls and got to the FT line.

                          I think that Harpring was defending him most of the series....and from what I heard from the Doug Collins and the other guy...is that he's a pretty decent defender. They mentioned that although he isn't really quick...he's able to use his strength to his advantage when he defends a player. SJax clearly had some issues with whoever was defending him.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                            I could just as easily swing that phrasing around the other way and say that sometimes emotions cloud the negatives of the trade. I've seen enough conversations about the trade between "reasonable" Pacer fans to know it's clear as mud what the "reasonable" fan favors, unless you are basing the term "reasonable" on whether people people agree with your own opinion or not.

                            I've seen enough conversations about the trade between "reasonable" Pacer fans to know it's clear as mud what the "reasonable" fan favors,

                            What the hell does this mean? Please explain, and I hope it doesn't mean what I think it means.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              Man, what I wonderful day, woke up this morning to birds singing and with happiness in my heart, knowing that the Pacers made the right move in dealing Jack and that he is no longer our problem.

                              Yep life is good.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                                Damn right.

                                If I were working that trial, that clip would be on heavy rotation, especially during sentencing.

                                "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant has shown no remorse. Just look at him..."

                                *pauses tape with freeze frame of the frisk move*

                                "He to this day doesn't think he did anything wrong. He's laughing and playing games. He thinks that raining bullets onto the rooftops of our city is all ONE BIG JOKE."

                                *dramatic pause with look of disgust on face*

                                "He doesn't get the message. Not one bit. Well, guess what? It is time for YOU to send a message to HIM. A message that he CANNOT IGNORE. I recommend the maximum sentence allowable by law. We cannot let this remorseless man endanger our community, ridicule our way of life and mock the same laws that you and I are here to protect and enforce. Do the right thing. Send that message. Send it to protect us all. Thank you."




                                Goodness, I should get paid for this. Oh, wait. I do.



                                You are good. Although I would imagine the court would not allow video from games to be shown during trial

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X