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

    We need a smiley of somone stirring a big *** pot.

    As far as the opinions of locking it being "unjust," I would venture to say it's more like taking a proactive approach. This thread was a place to sling mud from every direction before, why would that change now?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Originally posted by ajbry View Post
      anti-Jack trolls


      That is priceless. It is like calling all of the people who post on this forum "pro Pacers trolls"

      We know who the trolls are, and it makes little difference when they point the finger at others. You can always tell when they stir up the stinky pot and bump a stupid thread, one that should have died long ago, for no good reason other than to annoy the vast majority of posters who will read it.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by ajbry View Post
        It ain't like it'll be the first unjust decision regarding myself here.
        You're right. Even if it gets locked, there has never been a single unjust decision regarding you here.

        You may not like the decision, and that's your perrogative.

        These decisions are based on "what's best for the entire Pacers Digest community."

        Nobody is stopping you from posting at Warriors Digest or creating Stephen Jackson Digest.

        I think our friend/ immature troll Sassan created Ron Artest Digest at one point, didn't he? Wasn't exactly a success, but that's not the point.

        A large number of Pacers fans look at the Stephen Jackson era as an embarassment for the franchise, on and off the court. He's gone; its a new season. No reason to keep bringing up such a sore spot in Pacers' history. That's the essense of trolling.

        Originally posted by Wikipedia
        An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

        Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The key element under attack by a troll is known only to the troll.

        A person who retaliates (using whatever means) as a result of a misunderstanding (or as a way of rebelling against the overzealous application of rules) is not a troll. A troll is a person who approaches a board with the specific intention of stirring things up, either as a goal in and of itself or as a means of attacking the board perhaps motivated by opposition to the ethos of the board. For example, a neo-Nazi approaching a Jewish forum with the intention of attacking the members, purely because the neo-Nazi knows the forum to contain Jewish members, will be considered a troll.

        The general element, that determines whether a malicious user is a troll or not, is the level of indignant emotions present in the person, coupled with the person's history with the forum or group. An indignant user who has had a previous normal relationship with the group is not a troll, even if the user uses methods of attack that are characteristic of a troll attack.

        A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration among the message board's other participants, and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end. One popular trolling strategy is the practice of Winning by Losing. While the victim is trying to put forward solid and convincing facts to prove his position, the troll's only goal is to infuriate its prey. The troll takes (what it knows to be) a badly flawed, wholly illogical argument, and then vigorously defends it while mocking and insulting its prey. The troll looks like a complete fool, but this is all part of the plan. The victim becomes noticeably angry by trying to repeatedly explain the flaws of the troll's argument. Provoking this anger was the troll's one and only goal from the very beginning.
        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 able View Post
          perhaps we should consider locking this thread.
          Naw, don't do that. Everyone who doesn't care to participate can just put the thread on ignore. That's whay I'm gonna do.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            We need a smiley of somone stirring a big *** pot.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • Re: We should trade for this guy

              Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
              Stephen Jackson. Good SG, plays good in a offense that shoots him, lots of heart, good defense, great teammate. Would be perfect because he we need a 2 in the worst way.

              LMAO I hope you guys are happy with Michele Dunleavy, if he ever plays a playoff game like Stephen Jackson just did, I will change my government name to Dunleavys Son.

              If we kept Al and Jack we would have something to look forward to this year in the playoffs and next year with a new coach maybe. But Mike Dunleavy has a high IQ though, cant over look that. And we are in cap hell till 2 thousand neverteen. Hope you are happy with your top 10 picks and community service awards.

              GO WARRIORS AND GO JACK, SHOCK THE WORLD BAY AREA BOYZ.
              Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
              What this also proves is that Rick Carlisle was the problem all along, look at Jack and Al play with a coach who knows wtf the word offense means. Just imagine if he had a real basketball coach all this time instead of some Larry Bird goon coaching the team.
              I tried to stay away from this thread because all it seemed to do was spread discontentment. Thus, keeping that sour taste in the mouth's of most Pacers fans who still wonder where the blame really lay with this player's erratic performance, as well as that of the team's. A small part of me does put some of the blame on RC's shoulders, but rational side of me places blame squarely where it belongs - w/the person/player himself!

              Look, let's be real and fair about everything "Stephen Jackson" for a sec if we can. He does know how to play the game, and when allowed to work within a free-flowing system where he's not confined to play in any one particular mode, SJax does perform very well. In fact, his playoff performance last season only goes to show just how good he can be if he puts his mind to it. That said, Jermaniac makes a valid points which seems to be supported by JO himself (per his pre-training camp media day statement - article and video brief can be found on IndyStar.com). The players began to tune RC out. It's obvious now that they didn't (all) agree w/either their roles or the overall game plan or perhaps both. So, I can clearly see where Jermaniac is coming from (even though it does appear to be more of a "rant" than someone trying to make a true point of substance ). Regardless, let's keep it real and tell it like it is; SJax' performance "appeared" to improved not because he is a player that got away, but rather because he choose to finally play to his potential in a new environment.

              It remains to be seen if he'll pull a repeat performance next season and if he can stay out of trouble the entire season. If he does show himself to be a model citizen for GS the entire season, I applaud him and wish him well because I do believe he is a very talented player. But somehow, I don't think the Warrior fans will be as high on him come season's end as they are right now (or were when the trade went down). Regardless, I wish him well and the Warriors' fanbase w/him. His hoping that his change in a new coaching atmosphere brings him as much success as I'm hoping my Pacers' change in a new coaching staff brings them.
              Last edited by NuffSaid; 10-02-2007, 05:59 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                I thought one of the funnier moments last year for the Warriors was when they were incidently in town to play the Pacers after the big trade on the day of the Colts downtown victory parade. They had a police escort and a lot of fans thought the Warriors team bus was that of the Colts. Then they got in a minor fender bender and the police had to board the bus, at which point Nellie told Jackson to get down and keep quiet. LOL.

                One interesting nugget that was noted in Brandan Wright's AOL blog is that Jackson is living in the same high rise condo building as both Wright and our other rookie Stephane Lasme (Wright said another player or 2 was there was well).

                So yeah, he's now one of the 3 team captains and he's living in the same building as our prized 19 year old clean cut lottery pick. LOL. The Warriors evidently haven't expressed any concern.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  For the size of this thread, that smiley isn't anywhere near the size I was thinking.

                  Need one like the size of the pot and kettle.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Captain Jack

                    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04

                    Warriors name Jackson a captain
                    Ex-Pacer with a knack for finding trouble gets tattoo featuring praying hands, gun
                    By Mark Montieth
                    mark.montieth@indystar.com
                    October 4, 2007

                    As an Indiana Pacer, Stephen Jackson was regarded by fans as a troublemaking menace who had to go.

                    As a Golden State Warrior, he is considered a lovable free spirit who has been welcomed with open arms.

                    He has also been awarded the title of team captain by coach Don Nelson.

                    Imagine that, Pacers fans. Captain Jack.

                    Jackson, who fired a gun a year ago to break up a fight in the parking lot outside a Westside strip club, showed up at Golden State's training camp with a couple of interesting new tattoos to go with his new title.

                    Inked on his chest are two praying hands against the backdrop of a church window. They are holding a gun.

                    "I pray I never have to use it again," he explained to Bay Area reporters.

                    An unfinished jack of diamonds is in the works on his back, with his likeness as the jack.

                    "I can't believe that one," said teammate Al Harrington, who like Jackson was traded from the Pacers to Golden State as part of an eight-player deal in January. "I thought I was crazy."

                    Harrington could get support for that notion simply by showing off the new ink sketching that covers his entire back. It's an amazingly detailed self-portrait.

                    Jackson, however, figures to be the focal point of the Warriors' training camp, if not their entire season.

                    He'll open by serving a seven-game suspension as a result of his role in last year's strip club incident. He said he plans to watch each game on television while wearing a teammate's replica jersey.

                    Once he starts playing, Nelson hopes Jackson will live up to the honor of being a team captain. He is one of three, joining Baron Davis and Matt Barnes.

                    Nelson hasn't been afraid to discipline Jackson. He opened one playoff postgame news conference last season by announcing a fine because Jackson had complained about officials' calls too raucously. But he respects Jackson for his passion and energy.

                    "We have great confidence in him as a player and a leader, and I think you'd hear that from most people who have spent time to really get to know Jack," Nelson said.
                    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                    Comment


                    • Re: Captain Jack

                      Well, it could completely backfire. Or you have a coach in Nelson who's has the balls to deal with a player of Jackson's mentality. Give him some responsibility, recognize what he can offer, try to harness it, but be ready to come down quickly when needed. Revisit this in 20-25 games for further review.
                      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                      -Emiliano Zapata

                      Comment


                      • Re: Captain Jack

                        Rick Carlisle did often say on his radio show that Jax was one of the Pacers leaders while he was here. Just his personality makes him a leader whether you name him captain or not

                        Comment


                        • Re: Captain Jack

                          I respect the seven game suspension for sure.

                          Or was that NBA and not Nelson?
                          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                          Comment


                          • Re: Captain Jack

                            The only real reason I posted the article is that I couldn't believe that both Jack and Al are getting tattoos of themselves..........Cue Carly Simon..........
                            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                            Comment


                            • Re: Captain Jack

                              Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                              The only real reason I posted the article is that I couldn't believe that both Jack and Al are getting tattoos of themselves..........Cue Carly Simon..........
                              I think they should each get tattoos of themselves getting tattoos on their asses....on their asses.



                              RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                              Comment


                              • Re: Captain Jack

                                Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                                The only real reason I posted the article is that I couldn't believe that both Jack and Al are getting tattoos of themselves..........Cue Carly Simon..........
                                narcissism makes my tummy smile
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X