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

  • #91
    Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

    Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
    It is important not to forget the timing of the Jackson incident. The Pacers brass swore up and down that the P's were changing their attitude. The new slogan reflected this. We went out and got a crap-ton of new players. We decided to try a new offensive philosophy. Al Harrington and Darrell Armstrong played with smiles on their faces. There was a lot of energy and optimism from everybody: players, coaches, owners, fans. Finally, we bury the brawl.

    And right before the Fan Jam was to officially kick this whole thing off, Jackson gets into trouble. Suddenly, no one wanted to drink the Kool-Aid. Not players, not coaches, and especially not fans.

    Now, we can look back and say "Getting into a scuffle at a strip club isn't that bad." But we forget about the context. Clearly, every Pacers player was asked to set up in every aspect of their lives. Four players did not. And because of his role in the brawl, his on court demeanor, and his primary role at Club Rio, he took the fall. And he took the wind out of the Pacers before the opening tip.

    Have you ever loved someone who betrayed you, only to watch him/her get married and live a wonderful life afterwards? You get pissed, right? Why weren't you like that with me? Maybe s/he would have turned it around if they got the chance?

    But you know the truth. A change in your environment is necessary to change in a person.

    Yeah, SJax has turned his career around (for the moment). But the trade isn't a mistake because of it. In fact, he never would have changed if he remained a Pacer.
    I have to admit this is a big part of it. Very bad timing. Had Rio happened before the slogan, if the attitude and slogan seemed to be in response to that incident then I think things would have gone much better.

    However, given the fact that this happened when it did, what does that say about the 8 Seconds situation and the people involved there? Two of them were involved in both cases in fact.

    So let's hear it, RUN QUIS OUT OF TOWN!!! HE'S ALWAYS HURT AND HE'S A HUGE THUG!

    Hmm, what's that silence? How come he wasn't getting boo'd on a regular basis like Jackson, esp after 8 Seconds?


    Seems to me that if you wanted to avoid an issue when Rio happened you would REALLY want to be avoiding situations when 8 Seconds happened. Maybe Rio came about more due to Tins and Quis.

    Ron away from Jack is still Ron, Tins and Quis without Jack are still at clubs mixing it up (allegedly), but Jack hasn't been in another bar fight. He doesn't even talk about quitting basketball for boxing and then fighting Ben Wallace.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

      This thread is just pathetic.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
        11/19

        And please don't say him running into the stands fists flying was all on Ron.
        Please don't say with fists flying. Again, he punched one person and that person first threw a full beer into Ron's face point-blank while Ron was being held back.

        Not sure what you think "beer in the face" is supposed to mean, but in most places I know of it means "F you, let's fight". Jack shouldn't have taken the guy up on it, he should have pulled Ron out only and let cameras show the Piston fans for what they were, but he also didn't go in like this raging windmill that people claim either.

        For that matter neither did Ron. He grabbed and shoved who he thought was the right guy (when Green galantly did an ole, wasn't me move).


        None of this was a good idea, but don't you go ESPN 180 on us.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

          Jackson has the power to single handedly lose a game for his team. He also has the power to win a few in the clutch.

          But even bigger than losing the games was that he reduced the support of an entire city. He didn't just lose the city's support of him, he lost the city's support for the entire franchise. People were turning the channel and tuning out and a BIG part of that was how abrasive and confrontational Jackson is as a person.

          He runs into the stands fists flying, he recklessly fires a weapon into the air. He only runs back on D when he doesn't have words of wisdom for the officials, he breaks plays, and he's not all that great of a shooter, he's confrontational with his coach, he's confrontational with his own teammates.

          There's a phrase that defines every part of what I know about Stephen Jackson, on the court and off: He's too fast to pull the Trigger, and that gets him in trouble.

          I could care less how good of a game he had.

          Good riddance, Jack.
          “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


          • #95
            Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            Please don't say with fists flying. Again, he punched one person and that person first threw a full beer into Ron's face point-blank while Ron was being held back.

            Not sure what you think "beer in the face" is supposed to mean, but in most places I know of it means "F you, let's fight". Jack shouldn't have taken the guy up on it, he should have pulled Ron out only and let cameras show the Piston fans for what they were, but he also didn't go in like this raging windmill that people claim either.

            For that matter neither did Ron. He grabbed and shoved who he thought was the right guy (when Green galantly did an ole, wasn't me move).

            None of this was a good idea, but don't you go ESPN 180 on us.
            Yes, Jackson DID go in like a raging windmill.

            Look how he was on the court, pulling his jersey out, dancing around with his fists cocked. The man was seeing red and wanted to fight anybody that was willing to take him on. And going into the stands was not an attempt to save anyone, it was an act of gang-like "us against them" rage, just like the rage we saw him display as he went down the tunnel.

            Beginning to end, Jack was completely out of control.

            He deserved a ticket on the bus immediately.
            “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


            • #96
              Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

              Some fans become comfortable with hating the Pacers, even looking forward to it. It was their new identity with the team. They're thugs and I hate them for it, that's our relationship.

              If you bring that to the game with you it's not hard to see how it's going to go.
              I should have said that.

              They're gone. Using their off-court actions to define a craptacular season is a cop out by anyone associated with the Pacers (maybe not the actual games missed due to suspensions after the brawl). To even imply that Jamaal Tinsley, Keith McLeod & Marquis Daniel's bar scuffle months ago, or Ronnie, Jack and JO's suspensions years ago affected how you play basketball in Early 2007 is more than ridiculous, more than assinine it's ridassinine. A great number of players on this team, weren't even associated with those incidents.

              The Indiana Pacers have become the team to hate. People who don't even care like to hate this team. In the end, they still have to put good players on the court and good players will deliver. I'm just waiting for them to go out and get some good players instead of trading them away for bad ones.

              I still follow all former Pacers. After awhile, you form a connection with these guys and will always be interested in what they are doing.
              I'm in these bands
              The Humans
              Dr. Goldfoot
              The Bar Brawlers
              ME

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                I have to admit this is a big part of it. Very bad timing. Had Rio happened before the slogan, if the attitude and slogan seemed to be in response to that incident then I think things would have gone much better.

                However, given the fact that this happened when it did, what does that say about the 8 Seconds situation and the people involved there? Two of them were involved in both cases in fact.

                So let's hear it, RUN QUIS OUT OF TOWN!!! HE'S ALWAYS HURT AND HE'S A HUGE THUG!

                Hmm, what's that silence? How come he wasn't getting boo'd on a regular basis like Jackson, esp after 8 Seconds?


                Seems to me that if you wanted to avoid an issue when Rio happened you would REALLY want to be avoiding situations when 8 Seconds happened. Maybe Rio came about more due to Tins and Quis.

                Ron away from Jack is still Ron, Tins and Quis without Jack are still at clubs mixing it up (allegedly), but Jack hasn't been in another bar fight. He doesn't even talk about quitting basketball for boxing and then fighting Ben Wallace.

                I think Marquis Daniels was perceived to have a secondary role in both incidents. He was only mentioned because he was a Pacer and he was there, not because of anything specifically he did.

                But many don't like Jackson or Tinsley as players, and I think their primary role in these incidents plus their annoying style of play caused the fan revolt.

                Also, the initial details of 8 Seconds were immediately discredited. I read about 20 different versions of that story within two days of it happening. It smelled like a minor incident that would have been swept under the rug had Rio and the Brawl never happened.

                Why would the manager exaggerate or even lie about this? How many people had never heard of or were barely aware of the 8 Second Saloon before this?

                I'm not saying all of this is even rational, but that's my view on why people reacted the way they did to all this.
                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                RSS Feed
                Subscribe via iTunes

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

                  Ron Artests actions and Stephen Jacksons are so different. Ron was the opposite of what Jack did here. Stephen came to play every night, even injured. Stephen never asked for time off or for a trade.

                  He got a bum rap for off the court issues, but its painfully obvious to me how important he was to this team. His attitude, drive to win and skill. As a Pacer fan I am really mad at the front office, and some of the fans who seemed to have pressured our front office into making horrible basketball personel decisions. Watching the Warriors smoke Dallas was hard to watch knowing that could have been my Pacers in the playoffs.

                  So I think you are off base with your assumptions Shade. We all don't agree that SJax was bad for this team. And I am not happy with our crappy team and wish we could have our warriors back and undo that trade.

                  And it's not like SJax is all of a sudden turning his career around playing better basketball. He was playing the best ball of his life here in Indy but some of you just had so much hate you couldnt/refused to appreciate what he brought to the team. And that is OK. Just don't expect everyone to see things as you do.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

                    I couldn't care less about what the Warriors and Kings do.

                    Am I upset about not making the playoffs - sure. Am I glad Artest and Jackson are gone - overwhelmingly so.
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

                      I'm not talking solely about the brawl here. Ron and Jack REPEATEDLY hurt the Pacers with their poor decisions. I'm glad they're both gone, even though I don't like what we got for them.

                      Comment


                      • Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

                        Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                        Maybe, its because some of us ask ourselves how we can still support the Pacers with Rick and Bird and what they have put us through.
                        What do you mean? TPTB coddled Ron until he forced their hand, and coddled Jack until the fans were practically screaming to send him out of town.

                        TPTB have made some poor decisions lately, but Ron and Jack stamped their own tickets out of town.

                        Comment


                        • Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

                          Originally posted by grace View Post
                          I can't remember-do you like Al Harrington? If so it's not his fault that Stephen went with him (or rather Al had to go with so someone would take Stephen off the Pacers hands).
                          I was indifferent about Al. I just hated that we gave up our 2007 pick for him. I would have been okay with keeping Al, though it was becoming quite apparent that he was still as selfish as ever.

                          Comment


                          • Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

                            Originally posted by Y2J View Post
                            Ron Artest is self-centered sociopath who basically stabbed the Pacers and their fans in the back.


                            Stephen Jackson isn't as bad as Artest, but he was still a trouble maker who brought negative vibes to the team. Not to mention, regardless of how people hype him up, he hurt the team on the court with his crappy shot selection and weak overall game.

                            Al Harrington is a me-first guy who'd rather get 30/10 in a loss than 20/7 in a win. He also flat out refused to play defense.

                            I'm glad all 3 are gone. Doesn't mean I love Dunleavy or Murphy, but I do like Ike and I do like knowing we can finally start the rebuilding process and hopefully build a team that's not full of criminals and team cancers.
                            This is part of what I'm getting at. Not only was Jack a problem off the court, but on the court, he:

                            - screamed at and undermined the coach, repeatedly
                            - screamed at referees time and again while his man ran down the floor and scored, repeatedly
                            - played defense selectively, at one point getting torched by Adam freakin' Morrison
                            - took ill-advised shots early in the shot clock, or with other players open, repeatedly
                            - couldn't hit the side of a barn far too often for a SG of his supposed caliber

                            Plus, he was apparently a problem in the locker room as well.

                            Comment


                            • Re: We should trade for this guy

                              I pretty much had a heart attack when I heard about the trade...

                              I mean we work hard for AL and trade him and Jack for Murphy and Dunleavy??

                              I was so happy when we got Jack.. because of his defense and his perimeter

                              shooting.
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&NR=1
                              press pause on the second slow-mo replay around 0:12 mark

                              Comment


                              • Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

                                Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                                I don't support Ron. I'm not a Jackson fan but that's not because of anything he's done. I'm just simply not a Jackson fan. But I don't think Jackson did a damn thing to this franchise. I don't understand why people are so sensitive when it comes to other peoples business off the court. You only have to watch the team. If they're crap on the court, they'll be traded in due time. In this case, Jackson was actually having a very good year on the court. But the Indiana fans that love their milk drinkers couldn't stand him because he carries a gun and fired in the sky in self defense [As far as we know]. So we trade for some milk drinkers [and I actually like Dunleavy], and low and behold the team turns to s---.
                                Like we were really going places before the trade.
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X