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

After long review, stadium's a mistake

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    After long review, stadium's a mistake

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...74/1004/SPORTS

    BOB KRAVITZ

    I am standing in the middle of the South Lot, pelted by a cool, steady, cleansing rain. I am gazing a couple of hundred yards north toward the RCA Dome, thinking how this whole area is going to start changing in the next few months when the digging begins.

    And yet, I don't find myself dreaming of a future Super Bowl, or luxury suites or even the new sightlines we'll have in the press box.

    Instead, I find myself feeling a little bit queasy, a little bit guilty, like a man in a limousine, driving through the poorest part of town with a bottle of champagne at my side.

    I find myself realizing that to this very day, the only argument I've heard in favor of building the new stadium is this:

    We've got to expand the Convention Center, and the only place we can expand is onto the current Dome site, so we will have to move a new stadium south.

    That sounds like, "We need to put a three-car garage on the house because I just bought a new Corvette, Escalade and BMW."

    Even the usual argument in favor of stadium construction -- "If we don't build it, the Colts will leave" -- cannot be used in good conscience. The Colts never threatened to leave, even if there were some implied threats to that effect. In fact, at one point in this process, team owner Jim Irsay said a new stadium wasn't the answer, and wondered if the city could support an expanded stadium with far more expensive seats.

    I've heard reasons Indy should want this new stadium, but I've yet to hear why Indy needs this new stadium.

    I'm feeling this way because, yes, I actually read the news part of this newspaper. (The section that keeps the sports pages dry.) And here's what I'm reading:

    The city opened pools later and will close them earlier in the season because there's no money.

    The city is going to cut dozens of police and firefighters out of the payroll by attrition, with the threat of layoffs in the future.

    There are dwindling resources to fund pensions for those same police and firefighters.

    Meanwhile, we've just come through a recent 32-day stretch in which four young people have been shot to death in Indy.

    More police, or more club seats?

    Understand, I'm fully in favor of the Convention Center expansion. There is more-than-abundant evidence that it will enrich the city.

    With a new stadium, though, history tells us the economic benefits are insignificant -- even with a one-time pop from a Super Bowl. Most of the benefits that accrue from a new stadium and the continued existence of an NFL franchise are purely intangible.

    And I would be fine with those intangible benefits.

    Except I've never heard the issue reduced to a build-it-or-we-will-leave proposition.

    In fact, the tables were turned; instead of Irsay holding the city for ransom, the city told Irsay, "We're going to build it, and you're coming along." The whole thing has been turned upside down. The city reached agreements with the NCAA and the Colts (sort of) before financing was approved.

    Isn't that like paying a landscaper to work on a new house before you've agreed on a purchasing price?

    It's a question of civic priorities. We can find the will to raise taxes for a Convention Center/stadium project, but we can't find the money to fund essential city services.

    So where have you been all this time? Why the rhetoric now? What purpose is there when the deed is essentially done?

    Fair questions.

    And I have no good answers.

    This should have been written far earlier. The harder questions should have been asked earlier, if only to elicit more persuasive answers. But I fell in line. I let my personal desire to keep the Colts -- for obvious reasons -- cloud my judgment on the issue. And in a city whose landscape has changed for the better with major civic projects, I didn't have the fortitude to challenge a time-tested formula.

    So, I'm guilty as charged.

    That said, I don't know if a widespread chorus of dissent would have made any difference. In this city, if the political and business interests want it done, it gets done.

    So a few years from now, the blimp will be overlooking the spanking new stadium, the "Monday Night Football" crew will be extolling our civic can-do attitude, and everyone will get the warm fuzzies.

    What the blimp won't show is where the politicians have failed the people. People who live in places where the schools are in disrepair, where the infrastructure is crumbling, where violent crime is still a daily part of life, like brushing your teeth.

    If nothing else, think about it.

    I am thinking about it on this rainy afternoon, and it angers and repulses me that this column took so long to be written. It wouldn't have altered the course of events -- I'm not that egotistical -- but maybe it could have made the debate a little less one-sided.

    Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or e-mail bob.kravitz@indystar.com.
    :thepacers
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

    Trust me on this, Kravitz is SO wrong he has no clue.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

      Being a Colts season ticket holder that lives two hours north of Indy, in a town with very little crime, good schools, and few problems with paying policemen and firefighters, I may be unaware of the problems being left behind in building a new stadium. I also don't believe my county is in the area that taxes are being raised. I guess I'm only going to see the positive aspect of the new stadium and I won't be affected by any of the negatives (except for higher ticket prices, but it's my choice to keep buying them). So in a way I do feel kind of selfish wanting this new stadium so badly.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

        For the first time I'll say Kravitz is just plain ignorant on this issue.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

          Well it kinda made me think.The part about we are having to lay off police and firefighters .I'm not saying that we shouldn't build a new stadium b/c believe me I think that our stadium is out of date but we probably could have put less money into it.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            For the first time I'll say Kravitz is just plain ignorant on this issue.
            First time? Really???
            “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

            • #7
              Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

              I am a huge Colts fan, I don't miss a game, I am glad they are building the Colts a new stadium. The trouble isn't really with the Colts per se. It is more just the level of attention that the new stadium revealed. City services are in dissaray, we have politicians fighting each other on the most petty trivial pieces of lesgislation, but some how we are quickly able to come up with an almost Billion dollar, several county wide finance package to cover the expense. My biggest frustration is that if we can do that to pay for the Colts stadium, there should be no problem taking care of vital, city services. Like repairing a Judicial System, expanding not laying off police and fire service, and upgrading Public Bus serivce so that it is not more than doubled in operation money than several smaller cities in other areas.

              The Mayor in my opinon is an absolute moron. His consolidation plan makes no sense whatsoever, and equally frustrating is the liberal slanted media which takes everything he says an regurgetates it back to the public. Almost every township in Marion County with the exception of Center is fiscally responsible and has a balanced budget. In comes the city with which is grossly over budgeted and has robbed pension plans of city Fireman and Police officers to pay for things. The Mayors plans to not cut police officers is to expand his tax base and pay for a "combined" police force. Do you think he cares one iota about the townships police coverage? Absolutely not. His whole plan is to rob the township tax base to pay off his own bills and leave the coverages right where they are.

              The other thing that bothers me is this 9 million dollar savings to the County by merging MCSD and IPD. Sure you will only need to have one SWAT commander instead of two, and there maybe only one senior officer in charge of a combined HR department, but that alone will not save you millions of dollars. The cost of changing uniforms and equipment will be in the millions, the cost of 3 police commissioners to oversee the elected Sheriff, is not only a slap in the voters face, but an added expense.

              The Mayor must think we are a bunch of dullards. His concession to the townships is that the elected Sheriff, in his plan will run the law enforcement county wide, however, he wants to add 3 appointed commisioners (in which he appoints 2 and the CC Council appoints 1) to supervise the Sheriff? Mine as well throw in the puppet strings to go with the Sheriff's election.

              Sorry to hijack this thread, but our city leaders and citizens need to wake up, there is a reason this plan did not pass state legislation.
              "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

              --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

                Maybe Bob can join John Kerry in the flip-flopper club.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

                  I never have liked Kravitz much.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake


                    Why Not Us ?

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

                      can we trade Kravitz??? please! even in his plights to be the hero of the masses he's still annoying.
                      http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: After long review, stadium's a mistake

                        I'd trade Kravitz to Atlanta to get Sekou Smith back right now.

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next
                        Working...
                        X