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

A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

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

  • A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...TS15/904070370 Even though I was hoping for the playoffs, I guess Kravitz makes a good point. Tanking aside, maybe it would've done more harm than good this year for the PLAYERS to go into the playoffs and get spanked. (If that's what would've happened, who knows?)

    Bob Kravitz
    Indystar

    The record isn't close to anything Larry Bird and Jim O'Brien desired. The playoffs? They're not going to happen for these Indiana Pacers. They may be mathematically alive -- barely -- but coach O'Brien has been conceding for weeks now that the playoffs are a pipe dream beyond rational consideration.

    And yet . . .


    It has been a good season. A productive season. A season of significant growth. Seriously. What? You were expecting a snide comment?

    For the first time in a long time, there is the sense the Pacers are building toward something, that next year's playoffs are easily within their grasp if only they add bodies, stay healthy and learn how to play a lick of defense.

    At the risk of sounding like a Pacers apologist -- hey, there's a first time for everything -- let me enumerate the ways this franchise has taken a step forward after years of missteps.

    Their best player, Danny Granger, developed into an All-Star performer this season. It was argued by no less an expert than Reggie Miller that Granger was one of those guys getting big numbers on a bad team. The league's coaches, though, disagreed and put him on the All-Star team, a move a lot of us fully endorsed.

    This has been a breakout season, not just an All-Star season but a season that should earn him serious consideration as the league's Most Improved Player.

    Next year, he must come back recommitted to being the team's best defender. And, as team president Bird mentioned recently, he has to learn to finish with his left hand.

    The rookies, Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush, have gotten a lot of minutes and have shown signs they can be starters for years to come.

    Hibbert progressed more quickly, which is unusual for a big man in his rookie season. He's still a step slow and a trifle awkward; in the post, he looks like a giraffe practicing yoga. But he has the desire and he has the work ethic. And size. Did we mention size?

    Rush took longer, and for a while there, it was fair to wonder if he was another Shawne Williams -- minus the friendships with alleged murderers. I'd watch the game, then look at the box score the next day and see that Rush had played 14 minutes, and I couldn't even recall seeing him on the court. He was tentative. He floated. He was lost, seemingly overwhelmed.

    And then a switch was flipped. These past few weeks, he has come out of his shell and played like the sweet-shooting two guard the Pacers drafted him to be. Give him another summer and more experience, he's going to be a central part of the Pacers' rebuilding.

    Two years, and not a single mention on the police blotter.

    I don't bring that up to be flippant. I say it because it's important, really important to a franchise that turned off its fans in the same way the Portland Trail Blazers chased fans from the Rose Garden.

    The current crop of Pacers aren't great players or even very good ones. Only one of them, Granger, would be among the top third in the league at their position. (Troy Murphy, who has had a career season, would be in the top half.) But they are professionals. They are likable. They root for one another. They play exceedingly hard and have continued to play hard as the playoff goal has faded.

    The crowds at Conseco Fieldhouse have improved in recent weeks, and they're going to continue growing as this team adds players and learns the fine art of stopping somebody.

    All season, I've gotten grief for insisting the Pacers were better off missing the playoffs, and I believe that more strongly now than I did at midseason. This team doesn't need the experience of a 4-0 sweep at the hands of the Cleveland Cavaliers. This team needs bodies, specifically a low-post presence, who will help them take that next step.

    Chances are, they won't make lottery magic, won't get the No. 1 and pick Oklahoma's Blake Griffin, but being in the NBA lottery is better than being just outside the lottery.

    It's one thing if you're a young, up-and-coming team like the Atlanta Hawks, who benefited greatly from taking the Boston Celtics to seven games.

    It's another thing if you're the Pacers, a team that will finish with around 35 victories.

    They have a little bit of salary cap flexibility.

    Not a lot, mind you. Not with Jamaal Tinsley's $7 million still on the books and the cap dipping by an expected $6 million. But at least they're moving in the right direction. The Murphy and Mike Dunleavy deals will be obstacles, but at least Jermaine O'Neal's contract is gone. And maybe you've noticed, none of the players Bird jettisoned this past offseason have done squat for their new teams.

    No playoffs. No big deal. This is the best that a lot of us have felt about the Indiana Pacers in many years. And that's a terrific place to start.
    Last edited by able; 04-07-2009, 07:01 AM. Reason: one time warning, pls comply with our rules

  • #2
    Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

    I don't think that the players tanked, and I don't think anyone should root for them to tank.

    Good article by Kravitz. He hits all the things that people have to see in the situation. They're not "moral victories". They're concrete things that will be built upon for the future.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

      OK, who here wrote Bob's column for him - we need to know because that certainly isn't Bob's work.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

        he looks like a giraffe practicing yoga


        Seriously Granger top third SF is the only props? I would think that someone would say top 5 without batting an eye.

        All in all I would have to agree in the overall tone of the article. Which is weird.
        Last edited by Major Cold; 04-07-2009, 09:11 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

            I think the Pacers would have played the Cavs well in Indy. The playoffs would have been a huge rock off the shoulder of Troy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

              I really think we could have won against the Cavs....one game....one quarter?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

                Okay, who stole Bob Kravitz and replaced him with a ghost writer? What's up with this sweet mix of kind words from this guy about the Pacers no less? He doesn't write stuff like this - EVER!!! Who cloned the man and took out the bad Pacers DNA?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

                  Maybe it's just me, but I still find this to be a pretty weak article. I just don't like Kravitz as a writer. Whether he is proclaiming doom and gloom or spreading cotton candy. He never provides me with anything that I can't get from the average Pacer fan.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

                    Originally posted by Indy View Post
                    Maybe it's just me, but I still find this to be a pretty weak article. I just don't like Kravitz as a writer. Whether he is proclaiming doom and gloom or spreading cotton candy. He never provides me with anything that I can't get from the average Pacer fan.
                    I never get the feeling that Kravitz main audience is the average Pacer fan. In fact, I like this article because a good number of Pacer-haters and casual Pacers observers will read this article and for the first time in probably 4 years will read something really positive about the team.

                    That's gonna be a good thing moving towards next season.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

                      Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                      I never get the feeling that Kravitz main audience is the average Pacer fan. In fact, I like this article because a good number of Pacer-haters and casual Pacers observers will read this article and for the first time in probably 4 years will read something really positive about the team.

                      That's gonna be a good thing moving towards next season.
                      I completely agree, listen to callers on talk radio and it's often about them getting in trouble or regurgitating something written by Bob. I have to turn the channel often. These articles are more for the masses, I agree.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

                        The only thing that bothers me about this article is when Kravitz says "us" about thinking Danny is an all-star. If you guys remember Kravitz and Eddie were at the Bdubs for the Celtics game, and I had a very long conversation/debate with Bob about Danny being an all-star. He was very adamant that Danny didn't deserve to be there so that bothers me quite a bit.

                        I also asked him if he ripped his material off of PD and he said he didn't, but did know of the site. He did admit to not paying full attention while the game was going on.

                        All in all though, we sat and talked with Kravitz and Eddie for probably two or three hours and it was a really good time. I don't remember too many specifics b/c I drank quite a bit that night, but I know they were both pretty hard on the Pacers. I'm a bit more optimistic than most (not quite to Dukie level, but close) and we were having some pretty heated arguments.
                        Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

                          Bwahaha. Giraffe practicing yoga. Classic!

                          Better than a badger practicing ballet....

                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

                            Let's be honest. When's the last time we got some REAL info from the Indystar about the Pacers. Sure the article was written for the masses. I'm with speed and naprtownmenace...bring it on!!

                            If you think about it, it's been a loOOONg time since we've gotten insider/insightful pacer info from our paper. I quit looking for that a long time ago. Us FANatics tend to have the passion, numbers and drive to have the truly substantive discussions about the team and that's just fine by me.

                            I didn't see the article being sunshiney as much as being realitively realistic. No major spins just to be provocative. Great.

                            As for me, not only do i agree with the article, but I think this team is EXACTLY where it needs to be. I've long said we don't need, nor do i want, us to make the playoffs. I just don't think it serves any greater good.

                            That being said, the lottery could do us a LOT of good. I know this is considered a weak draft and I would agree. But by the same token, we have so many options that could make this team a LOT better with a key guy to plug a hole, I'd have to say I'm pretty excited.

                            They should call this the situational draft. I think the effectiveness of the draft picks will be determined by what team a prospective player lands on.

                            In the past, you had certain players you could plop onto any team and they would be a start. Now, with such an even level of talent, I think it's most key to get a player who fits your team, not the proverbial best player available. Based on that logic, we could get a GREAT guy fro this team and system.

                            I see a lot of guys who could be a solid fit here, even ignoring the hyped guys like Griffin, Jordan Hill, Monroe and Thabeet, projected mid round guys like Mullins, Patrick Patterson and Dejuan Blair look to be possible strong acquisitions for us, far as i'm concerned.

                            I think it's going to take talent to actually screw up making a good first pick this year.

                            But if we do......man, I just don't know. I have been the model of patience this year, but this team is at the proverbial crossroads. I see a lot riding on this draft and next year.
                            Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A Sunshiner article from Kravitz

                              Scot, I've been pretty uninformed on college hoops this year. I've just not had the time to watch, so I really don't know a lot of the players.

                              But are there any players at the 8-12 range that would really get you excited? That you'd expect to come in and carve out a place for themselves, either starting or off the bench? Are any of these players able to (after a year or two of seasonong) be better than our starters at any position?

                              You say there's plenty of holes to fill, but will any of these players be able to fill those holes?

                              I don't know. I'm just asking.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X