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

Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

    Originally posted by Mal View Post
    Are any of you seriously going to credit Jackson for San Antonio's 2003 success? Sorry, but that is nonsense. I'm not saying he tried to wreck it, but he was just along for the ride (and had his moments, but nonetheless).

    Look, I'm not some big Jackson fan but why are you going out of your way to discredit a player who played 34 minutes a game in that playoff run? I'd say he was pretty important to their success that season and especially in the playoffs.
    I'm in these bands
    The Humans
    Dr. Goldfoot
    The Bar Brawlers
    ME

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
      Look, I'm not some big Jackson fan but why are you going out of your way to discredit a player who played 34 minutes a game in that playoff run? I'd say he was pretty important to their success that season and especially in the playoffs.

      . I'm not some big Jackson fan

      Really, you could have fooled me.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

        He was a factor, but I'm going to give him a ton of credit when there's Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, and Manu Ginobili on that roster. That's your core right there, not Stephen Jackson.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

          Right, their third leading scorer, and a dominant wing defender playing 34 MPG, not a part of the "core" ... get real.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

            I didn't realize he played that much, or that he scored that much, so point conceded, but nonetheless I look at those names for why they won the title before I look at Jack. He wasn't THAT good to credit their success to him like he caused them to win and that they would not or could not win without him. Clearly they could and did.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

              Originally posted by Mal View Post
              He was a factor, but I'm going to give him a ton of credit when there's Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, and Manu Ginobili on that roster. That's your core right there, not Stephen Jackson.
              Jackson is the sixth best player in that list. He was a no-name left completely open at the time...I guess everyone ignores that fact.

              Not saying he's a bad player, but waaaay to much is made of his time as a Spur. Last time I checked, they have not slowed down much....

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                Jackson is better than Bowen, at any point of Bowen's career. Jackson was also better than David Robinson, in 2003. I mean, he was real old, getting ready to retire by then. He was only a 8 point 8 rebound guy then, not that he wasn't still an effective shot blocker at 2 a game. Similarly, Manu hadn't really arrived in 2003, only putting up 8/2/2 in 20 minutes.

                So, to be blunt, you are wrong, Jackson is the third best player on that list, in the year listed.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                  While this is still about Jack, he's moved up a spot and is now the 10th most clutch player in the league (http://82games.com/CSORT11.HTM). Takes more threes than anyone else during crunch time and converts at an absurd 46%, a good 10% higher than his season average. Additionally, him and BD make up the most clutch duo aside from LeBron and whatever scrub is piggybacking their way towards statistical glory.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                    Enough with the SJax man crushes!

                    He's on the warriors, he was traded for Dunleavy.

                    Everytime someone brings up Jack you don't have to defend him, there's going to be bias... this is a PACERS board for the most part, so the fans are going to back their players, whether it's warranted or not!

                    MOVE ON PLEASE!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                      The only point I wish to make is that it appears some want to credit San Antonio's 2003 success to Stephen Jackson in a manner which suggests as Jackson goes, so goes San Antonio in 2003. I believe this to be untrue.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        Jackson is better than Bowen, at any point of Bowen's career. Jackson was also better than David Robinson, in 2003. I mean, he was real old, getting ready to retire by then. He was only a 8 point 8 rebound guy then, not that he wasn't still an effective shot blocker at 2 a game. Similarly, Manu hadn't really arrived in 2003, only putting up 8/2/2 in 20 minutes.

                        So, to be blunt, you are wrong, Jackson is the third best player on that list, in the year listed.
                        You do make a good point. I wound back the clock and will concede you are correct to some extent. However, you clearly underrate Bowen, particularly for THAT year.

                        Whether you are ignoring his suffocating defense or his much better 3pt%, IDK. You also ignore the fact Bowen was in his prime while Jack was an inexperienced no-name getting wide open looks. Maybe the fact Bowen hit 44% from 3 and Jack hit in the low 30's...in BOTH the regular season AND playoffs THAT year doesn't phase you. IOW, I tend to rank defense and converting shots above attempting shots...that is, defense and efficiency...a concept that some fans tend to discount...a concept that usually leads to a championship...something Bowen has some experience with.

                        As for "old man" Robinson, I consider him about equal to Jackson that year. Ignoring the fact he is one of the 50 greatest basketball players of all time, he was hitting shots at 55% while defending the paint and getting far, far more defensive pressure than Mr. no-name Jackson was that year. To be sure, Robinson could have hogged the ball and put up more shot attempts and scored about the same amount as Jack, but that's not Robinson's style. Robinson is a TEAM player along the lines of Reggie Miller. Jackson is a chest thumper.

                        As for Manu in his rookie year, I will concede that particular year, so at worst Jackson would be #5 that year. I was incorrect placing Mr. Jackson at #6 for that year. However, even baby Manu was hitting over 38% from 3 in the series. That's significantly more efficient than Jack has ever been from long range in ANY season, including 02-03...and their production was not that different. By the end of the year, Manu was probably showing signs and considered more valuable than Jack. Within months, the rest was history.

                        In any event, Jack was not #3 on that team. So, to put it bluntly, you are wrong too. The Spurs knew they didn't need Jackson because they knew what they had with Ginobili and Bowen. However you want to slice it, they would have secured Jackson if he was really that good. The truth is, they knew Jackson was expendable. That's why he went to the lowly Hawks and jacked up even more low percentage shots...and why the Spurs never missed a beat...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                          Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                          Dude who wrote the "article" is a freshman in college...

                          There have been thousands of posts here that eclipse that piece in many ways.
                          Well, I wrote the article, and I post here so I'm not sure if that's an insult or a compliment.

                          I also wrote it for people who don't realize that Dunleavy has turned in to the player that he has become, not die-hards like us who have seen every game.

                          Seems like you only post here when Dunleavy is brought up to talk about how much better Stephen Jackson is. Why don't you find a Golden State message board.
                          Last edited by Isaac; 03-07-2008, 10:51 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                            Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                            I'm gonna have to say Stephen Jackson is the better basketball player. I don't give a squirt about what they do off the court. Mike Dunleavy has never been on a NBA team with a winning record. His stats are inflated accordingly. Dunleavy has been a starter since his second season while Jack became a partial starter in his third season. Dunleavy has never been to the playoffs Jackson has missed the playoffs twice ( his rookie season in NJ & the year with ATL).


                            Guess who's who
                            FG%
                            .443 VS .420
                            3PT%
                            .351 VS .340
                            FT%
                            .787 VS .793
                            REB
                            4.9 VS 3.7
                            AST
                            2.6 VS 2.7
                            STL
                            0.9 VS 1.3
                            BLK
                            0.3 VS 0.4
                            PPG
                            11.9 VS 14.7
                            Playoff games
                            0 VS 54
                            Championships
                            0 VS 1
                            Cost
                            $8.2 Mil VS $6.6 Mil

                            Mike is playing well this year. Good players on bad teams......Mike wouldn't even be in the starting lineup on most of the "good" teams let alone a top scoring option.
                            Mike D is a complete "basketball" player. He has a great court awareness and a high basketball IQ. When I have seen him play he works a complete game by contributing in ways that help the team succeed.
                            I recomend watching the game of basketball in addition to your pouring over stat sheets, analyzing data is only one angle on a players involvement and contribution on the court. Sorry if I am curt, but I don't see your posted numbers as being a accurate or true reflection of Mike's value to this franchise in absence of SJax.
                            Dallas Clark>Tony Gonzalez

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                              Originally posted by andreialta View Post
                              its amazing how much a player gets praised for 2 back to back 36 games.

                              all of a sudden he's getting all this write ups and when he plays consistently all throughout the year, these writers are nowhere to be found.

                              i guess he has to average 36 just to get positive media
                              It seemed like a good time to write the article. I tried to stress that this isn't about Dunleavy having 2 good games, but the fact that he's had an excellent season and has completely changed his image.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Indiana Pacers: Mike Dunleavy, Jr. Arrives

                                I'm not sure why such a big deal is being made out of Jackson's role on a team from 5 years ago. That seems to be the only point on his resume that everyones wants to debate.

                                Jackson is a different player in a different situation now than he was then (and the same can be said of Dunleavy).

                                Jackson's contributions to his current team are what matter now and none of them need to be debated or defended (and the same can be said of Dunleavy). He's still got his flaws, but he's been more than a net positive for the team, and that's all you can ask out of any player. His current team is much better off with him than without him. He needs nobody to defend him on that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X