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

Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1034/SPORTS15

    If nothing else, it's a housecleaning

    The Indiana Pacers didn't do much on draft night. Except . . .
    Get much quicker, adding T.J. Ford, a speedy, explosive point guard, in the soon-to-be-consummated trade with the Toronto Raptors.

    The Pacers haven't had this much quickness at the point since Travis Best -- and even mentioning Best here is a bit of a stretch to make the point.

    Add lots of future salary cap flexibility, ridding themselves of Jermaine O'Neal's contract. Then, by acquiring useful center Rasho Nesterovic, they got the all-important expiring contract, one more year at $8.4 million.
    Make Jamaal Tinsley, the Guard Who No Longer Exists, completely expendable. If the Pacers have to buy him out and eat the salary, they'll do it. Suddenly, there's a logjam at point guard. Forty-eight hours ago, could you have imagined?

    Get deeper and more durable at the point, adding fourth-year player Jarrett Jack in a trade with Portland. At 6-3, Jack is much bigger than the 5-11 Ford and gives Indiana a stronger defensive presence on the perimeter. In three years, he has averaged 27 minutes, 9.5 points and 4.0 assists per game. Plus, he's cheap, making $2 million this year before becoming a restricted free agent.

    Get bigger, much bigger, getting a true center by drafting Roy Hibbert out of Georgetown with the 17th pick.

    Yeah, he's slow, real slow, and you wonder how he'll fit offensively into coach Jim O'Brien's system. But he's 7-2, and with O'Neal gone, the Pacers desperately needed size.

    And finally, add Brandon Rush, the scoring guard/small forward whose development will be closely monitored next to Portland's Jerryd Bayless, the player originally chosen by the Pacers and then dealt to Portland. (Unofficially, of course.)

    Other than that, it was a quiet night.

    The craziest thing, though, was that team president Larry Bird couldn't even talk about his moves because both the Toronto and Portland trades involved "base year compensation'' players, which means the deals can't be completed until July 9. The Pacers lobbied the league to tell its fans about the new players, but the NBA shot them down, threatening any mention of players in proposed deals with a fine.
    Dumb, really dumb.

    After telling the local media he couldn't talk about the moves, Bird shrugged and said, "I don't know what the hell you're gonna ask me.''
    Bird would start to talk about how he felt the Pacers improved, then catch himself, laugh and say, "Well, I know Toronto got themselves a lot more size tonight."

    I don't know if Rush and Hibbert are going to be the right choices -- Bayless still holds more initial appeal for me -- but at the very least, the Pacers have answered the call for change.

    As things stand now, Indiana should have at least seven new faces in camp -- Jack, Rush, Ford, Nesterovic, Hibbert, Maceo Baston (for the second time) and Josh McRoberts. And there's every reason to believe that Bird, who is on his own for the first time as an executive, is not done dealing. (Did he say Shawne Williams?)

    The cleansing is virtually complete. By now, almost every Pacer who has been in trouble either on the court or off has been dispatched. Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson and O'Neal are gone. David Harrison almost certainly is. Tinsley is as good as gone. Williams is close to extinction as a Pacer. That leaves only Marquis Daniels, and the ultimate resolution there was he accepted a diversion agreement for his alleged role in a bar fight. Seems pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

    It should be noted that in college, Rush had issues with traffic violations and a failure to make timely child support payments, but nothing that sent up a huge red flag for a franchise that has promised to clean up its act.

    Earlier in the night, a huge crowd at the fieldhouse saw their first pipedream go up in smoke: Homeboy Eric Gordon got chosen seventh by the Los Angeles Clippers. No falling to No. 11.

    Later, the Charlotte Bobcats, selecting ninth, took D.J. Augustin, the guard everybody had going to the Pacers. That sent a shudder through the stands. What would they do now? Who might fall all the way to 11, the way Danny Granger fell to No. 17 in the 2005 draft?

    In the Pacers' draft room, though, this was no surprise. A few weeks ago, Bird told me that neither Westbrook nor Augustin would be available when the Pacers chose 11th. So he went out and got himself a point guard from Toronto. Actually, two point guards. And two centers. And cap flexibility.

    And the offseason has just begun.
    You wanted new Pacers. You got new Pacers. Lots of them.


    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

    A couple things struck me, but maybe the most interesting one was his comment that Bird knew Westbrook and Augustin wouldn't be there at 11 a couple of weeks ago.
    Also, interesting that we petitioned the NBA to talk about the players.


    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

      So we like it when the columnist REPORTS like a news reporter (very few at the Star who dig up anything) as opposed to when he expresses his opinion - which like it or not, is a columnists job.

      Whether you have ever agreed with him or not, that is his job.

      I prefer my local media to put pressure on the local teams instead of being a PR extension of them.

      Call me crazy.
      Heywoode says... work hard man.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

        It's so lame that we couldn't talk about the new players. Stern is a tool. I'm sure it was another "1-0" vote. Does he WANT us to shore up fan support via PR or does he like watching us suffer?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

          Originally posted by Doug in OH View Post
          So we like it when the columnist REPORTS like a news reporter (very few at the Star who dig up anything) as opposed to when he expresses his opinion - which like it or not, is a columnists job.

          Whether you have ever agreed with him or not, that is his job.

          I prefer my local media to put pressure on the local teams instead of being a PR extension of them.

          Call me crazy.
          If you don't think Kravitz ever puts pressure on the Pacers, you haven't read much Kravitz.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

            Originally posted by Doug in OH View Post
            So we like it when the columnist REPORTS like a news reporter (very few at the Star who dig up anything) as opposed to when he expresses his opinion - which like it or not, is a columnists job.

            Whether you have ever agreed with him or not, that is his job.

            I prefer my local media to put pressure on the local teams instead of being a PR extension of them.

            Call me crazy.
            I still think he puts his opinion out there, but I like it when he is more even keeled. I was half expecting him to be leading the charge off a bridge even though he's probably seen Bayless play, maybe once.


            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

              Originally posted by Indy View Post
              I still think he puts his opinion out there, but I like it when he is more even keeled. I was half expecting him to be leading the charge off a bridge even though he's probably seen Bayless play, maybe once.
              I think everyone, including Kravitz, realizes that the easy thing for Bird to do was to keep Bayless. With him being projected as high as #4, everyone would've praised the selection and probably had unrealistic expectations for the new PG. He took the harder route of trading what looked to be a huge win because it would make the team better. Not all GMs would've done that.
              Turn out the lights, this party's over!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

                Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
                If you don't think Kravitz ever puts pressure on the Pacers, you haven't read much Kravitz.

                I think a local media that is not a buch of patsies that gets scooped on local matters by national media is, well... pathetic.

                Do I think Kravitz TRIES to put pressure on Pacers - yes.

                Do I think he is effective - no.

                Would I prefer a market where the ENTIRE media has some guts to call out and pressure the local teams... rallying the troops (fans)... yep.

                Indy is what it is - it should be better. The fans deserve better. And the fans should start acting like it is Indianapolis, not Atlanta.
                Heywoode says... work hard man.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

                  Originally posted by Doug in OH View Post
                  I think a local media that is not a buch of patsies that gets scooped on local matters by national media is, well... pathetic.

                  Do I think Kravitz TRIES to put pressure on Pacers - yes.

                  Do I think he is effective - no.

                  Would I prefer a market where the ENTIRE media has some guts to call out and pressure the local teams... rallying the troops (fans)... yep.

                  Indy is what it is - it should be better. The fans deserve better. And the fans should start acting like it is Indianapolis, not Atlanta.
                  Could the local media in Indianapolis be better? Yeah, from what I remember, but I've only been in Indy sporadically for the last five years. I don't think it's specifically an Indy problem. The coverage of the Wizards in DC, which is seen as a much larger market than Indy, is just as if not more pathetic. Their coverage sucks and they're a playoff team with a high profile player in Arenas. Their coverage pales in comparison to what local coverage the Pacers got in 2004 when they were still a relevant team. Now, I would say Wiz-Pacers coverage is almost equal. Indy fans are enamored with the Pacers when they are actually good. Once the team is good again and people actually start caring, more criticism will come actually because there will be more opinions out there.

                  And you're mad at Kravitz because he isn't influencing Pacers FO moves? Seriously? Name me one columnist who can do that. Everyone in the media is on the outside looking in.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

                    Even though I don't really enjoy reading Mike Wells or Bob Kravitz, I want to say that they both have done a fine job this week in regards to the Pacers. Mike Wells got the scoop on the trade! The Toronto media followed off of Wells lead. Seemed like it was a first time that we didn't have to read about something Pacers related off someone else before the Star got a hold of it and the Pacers could "filter" it.
                    Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 06-27-2008, 10:55 AM.
                    ...Still "flying casual"
                    @roaminggnome74

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

                      Originally posted by Doug in OH View Post
                      So we like it when the columnist REPORTS like a news reporter (very few at the Star who dig up anything) as opposed to when he expresses his opinion - which like it or not, is a columnists job.

                      Whether you have ever agreed with him or not, that is his job.

                      I prefer my local media to put pressure on the local teams instead of being a PR extension of them.

                      Call me crazy.
                      I don't disagree with you, but Bob's knowledge of the NBA is minimal at best

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

                        If you like what just happened, you don't write a negative column about it the next morning.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          If you like what just happened, you don't write a negative column about it the next morning.
                          That sums up my thought. You can put pressure on, but looking for negatives just so you have something "interesting" to talk about is worse than parroting the team line.

                          I don't want blinkered sunshine but I don't want head-in-a-sack gloom and doom, either. I want something that spends as much time on the positives as the negatives and doesn't beat the dead horse on either side.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

                            I want someone who knows what they are talking about - someone who knows the NBA - knows the players (I don't mean knows them personally) knows the coaches, knows what the NBA is all about. But Kravitz doesn't - heck, Eddie makes fun of him all the time and when Wells was on his show earlier this week he made a remark - all in good fun - but something like you need to cover more than 4 games a year.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz with maybe his best article ever

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I want someone who knows what they are talking about - someone who knows the NBA - knows the players (I don't mean knows them personally) knows the coaches, knows what the NBA is all about. But Kravitz doesn't - heck, Eddie makes fun of him all the time and when Wells was on his show earlier this week he made a remark - all in good fun - but something like you need to cover more than 4 games a year.
                              That's why I'm really gonna miss Montieth
                              Turn out the lights, this party's over!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X