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

Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

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

  • Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question.html

    Rarely will I venture out of format to express my opinion on anything other than a response to a reader's question. But The Indianapolis Star published a column by Bob Kravitz in today's editions soundly criticizing Larry Bird for his performance as the Pacers' President of Basketball Operations. Because of the importance of the questions raised by his column, I felt compelled to examine them on a point-by-point basis.

    The columnist criticized Bird for standing behind Ron Artest, then posing with him for the preseason cover of Sports Illustrated. Bird had two choices in the aftermath of 11/19. He could've done what Golden State did with Latrell Sprewell in 1998 and simply rid the franchise of Artest. Though the Warriors took a noble moral stance, they also gave away a valuable asset with nothing in return. They haven't been to the playoffs since. Bird showed franchise loyalty by standing behind him, in the process helping to rebuild Artest's image and therefore value. The S.I. article was extremely valuable in that regard. When Artest ultimately asked to be traded, Bird was able to acquire an extremely talented player, Peja Stojakovic, in return. Even if Stojakovic doesn't re-sign, the Pacers will have gained needed salary cap flexibility, or they could put together a sign-and-trade deal.

    He criticized the decision to trade for Stojakovic, offering Corey Maggette and Bonzi Wells as more desirable alternatives. Maggette has a foot injury that not only cost him more than half of this season, but could very well cause problems in the future. Wells has talent but plenty of baggage. The last thing the franchise needed under the circumstances was to obtain a player that offered the potential for either health or behavior problems.

    He criticized the trade of Al Harrington for Stephen Jackson. The fact of the matter was Harrington wanted out and the Pacers needed a shooting guard because of Reggie Miller's impending retirement. You can argue the merits of Jackson's time with the Pacers, but Harrington was, and still would be, an unhappy backup here because he plays the same position as Jermaine O'Neal.
    The bottom line: the more you examine the facts, the better they reflect upon Bird's record.
    He criticized the signing of Sarunas Jasikevicius. While Jasikevicius admittedly struggled his first season, it's normal for a European transplant, even a veteran, to struggle with his introduction to the NBA. Manu Ginobili averaged 7.6 points in his first season with the Spurs. Toni Kukoc averaged 10.4 his first season in Chicago. Drafted stars like Dirk Nowitzki and Stojakovic needed time to make the adjustment. It's far too early to judge the decision to sign Jasikevicius.


    He singled out the firing of Isiah Thomas and the hiring of Rick Carlisle as Bird's only positive contributions. Don't underestimate the importance of that exchange. It had a profoundly positive effect on the franchise. But it was hardly Bird's only coup. What about the drafting of Danny Granger and David Harrison? Granger already looks like a future star, something you don't often get with the 17th pick. Harrison isn't there yet, but his future is bright and he was snagged with the last pick of the first round. Erazem Lorbek, last year's second-round pick, has been described as "the best European player of his age" by FIBA's website. The 21-year-old power forward is a year away, but his time is coming.

    The bottom line: the more you examine the facts, the better they reflect upon Bird's record.

  • #2
    Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

    I swear to God, I am NOT Conrad.

    That's scary.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

      harrington is a natural small forward not a power forward. artest was our small forward. conrad spins things to make him look correct. if harrington is playing the 4 in atlanta thats because they are small. sure he can play the 4 just like artest but he is a 3 just like artest and he could EASILY start w/ jo. of course we have danny now.
      1 - 2, Tinsley's coming for you.
      3 - 4, You're not a team no more.
      5 - 6, He's gonna plead the 5th.
      7 - 8, He's gonna stay out late.



      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

        Originally posted by larry
        harrington is a natural small forward not a power forward. artest was our small forward. conrad spins things to make him look correct. if harrington is playing the 4 in atlanta thats because they are small. sure he can play the 4 just like artest but he is a 3 just like artest and he could EASILY start w/ jo. of course we have danny now.
        I think hindsight is 20/20. At the time we were getting a SG who could slash and shoot as well as defend (and was only expected to be a sixth man or third option) and unclogging the SF position. We told Al he wouldn't start. It seemed great at the time and for those first few games in 2004, we saw something that was really working.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

          On harrington/Jax both writers miss the real point. We gave Al away as we could have signed Jax for practically the same amount using the MLE exemption. Of course we didn't have the salary room to do that and avoid the luxury tax but that should have been the other criticism of Bird - his inability to create salary flexability to at least sign MLE guys.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

            Teflon Don...
            He couldn't stop Bird from doing all this stuff. He must've tried and tried yet Bird wouldn't listen and so Teflon was relegated to watching his empire crumble around him.

            -Bball

            One of these days I'll understand how Bird gets all the blame from some quarters yet it's questionable just how much control he's really had.
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

              I think Bob struck a nerve.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

                Another thing to remember about Jasikevicius is that as the season went on Carlise used him as a shooting guard...not good.

                I agree with Conrad though.

                Although I will say that the blame will start being pointed at Bird if he doesn't turn this thing around soon...he has to do something this summer trade wise.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

                  I agree with Conrad more than I do with Kravitz on this.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

                    Originally posted by Hicks
                    I agree with Conrad more than I do with Kravitz on this.
                    And I will agree with you...

                    Kravitz' position might prove to be right...eventually... but he jumped the gun in putting Bird in the crosshairs alone.

                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

                      Originally posted by Peck
                      I think Bob struck a nerve.
                      Yes he did - and Mr. Shade - that is his fracking job... maybe not to strike a nerve this deep, but to take a position, make a case, and be compelling.

                      Now I probably agree with Conrad as much as I do Kravitz - I am torn.

                      But let's remember this folks - Conrad is an employee of the Pacers - Bob is not. Take what he says with a huge grain of salt.
                      Heywoode says... work hard man.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

                        Originally posted by Hicks
                        I agree with Conrad more than I do with Kravitz on this.
                        It has a lot to do with the tone of the pieces. Bruner laid out his thoughts in a very pragmatic way. Whereas Kravitz is more provocative.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

                          Originally posted by bulletproof
                          Whereas Kravitz is more provocative.
                          That - my friends - be his job.
                          Heywoode says... work hard man.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

                            You can almost always criticize someones job performance, especially when the winner's and loser's are so clear cut like in the NBA. People even criticize their own job performance. For instance, Bird's already said he could/should have did a better job.

                            With there being 30 franchises after the same holy grail each year in the NBA there can only be one winner each year. Thus most are going to fail. Logic isn't good enough for some people though, some people are always going to criticize management. Especially sports columnists.

                            Now I believe people have a right to criticize, even when they criticize without knowledge. That some of their criticism's make them look . . . dumb by those more knowledgeable is beside the point. The fact is the people being criticized will dismiss some criticisms and take others to heart. Which is good.

                            For me I'm satisfied if management knows their basketball, and tries hard to do a good job. What more can you ask for? For them to get lucky? The fact is in the NBA, one move, pick, or trade, can make you good or bad for years, and sometimes it's just good fortune.

                            The truth is management of the Pacers has been excellent. Now there are posters on here that disagree, but the fact remains that the Pacers are recognized nationally as having good management.

                            As for Larry Bird, all I've really determined about him is that he is an excellent judge of basketball talent. However, other than picking players he seems to have hid behind Donny Walsh, so I have no real idea how good he will be once he takes over for Donny.

                            It's enough for me right now that Bird has admitted faults and already determined what he has to do to make the Pacers better.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Does Bird Deserve Criticism For His Performance?: Conrad speaks out

                              Originally posted by Doug in OH
                              Yes he did - and Mr. Shade - that is his fracking job... maybe not to strike a nerve this deep, but to take a position, make a case, and be compelling.

                              Now I probably agree with Conrad as much as I do Kravitz - I am torn.

                              But let's remember this folks - Conrad is an employee of the Pacers - Bob is not. Take what he says with a huge grain of salt.
                              Can I have a job? I can be stubborn and uncompromising while only providing one side of a story as well.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X