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

I agree with Bob Kravitz

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

  • I agree with Bob Kravitz

    Well for the most part I do. Seems he finally has a good handle on the pacers team.

    Another good article.
    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04


    Possibilities are endless, scary


    Here's how I look at next season's Indiana Pacers.

    They could win the NBA title.

    Or they could fall completely to pieces, reveal themselves as the most combustible, immature team in the league and end up embarrassing themselves and their city.

    Let me explain:

    Even without Uncle Reggie gracing the roster, there's a ton of talent here, enough to make a serious run at a championship. So why does the prospect of an essentially unchanged roster scare me worse than a flop shot over a bunker?

    Because without some strategic changes, the group that's returning has a chance to make an ugly mess of things.

    First, there's the Ron Artest situation. By now, my feelings are well-known, and every time I publicly suggest he's a time bomb waiting to detonate, he makes me look prescient. The Pacers, though, seem to think he's a changed man, that they can count on him to be what he was before the suspension -- one of the top 10 players in the league.

    To which I say: Good luck, fellas. Hope you're right.

    Then there's Stephen Jackson, who generally played hard and nobly in the playoffs, although he lost his shooting touch in Game 6.

    At times, there's a lot to like about Jackson -- his ruthlessness, his edge, the way he continued to exhort his teammates as they were being blown off the court in Games 4 and 5. He's not going to be Reggie Miller, but he has undeniable talent and will be able to return to the shooting guard spot next season after playing the small forward.

    But then there are times when that manic edge takes him into dangerous territory. While we all like a guy who will support his teammates, Jackson has been too quick to join the fray fists first. How many times did he get yanked from the lineup, then return to the bench staring down coach Rick Carlisle? Too many.

    He will be the first to admit it: His temper gets the best of him and he spends too much time verbally assaulting officials.

    Self-realization is wonderful.

    Just do something about it now.

    And then there's Jamaal Tinsley, the player the Pacers should work hardest to trade.

    Tinsley's got a few strikes against him.

    First, there's his health, which is never good and has reduced him to a limping mess nearly every year in the playoffs. It's hard to say if it's conditioning or bad luck or both, but a team can't win consistently with its point guard soaking in the hot tub.

    Second, his attitude. He loses his composure. He gets angry and decides to turn a team game into a battle of playground one-on-one. Or he engages in the time-honored NBA practice of sulking. A point guard has to be an extension of the coach, a leader. I see a player with some rare skills with Tinsley, but I don't see a leader.

    Look at the NBA's remaining four. Steve Nash. Tony Parker. Chauncey Billups. Dwyane Wade. All of them can shoot. All of them can penetrate and make space for teammates. All of them are still healthy.

    Somehow, some way, the Pacers need to upgrade there. And the only way that can happen is a trade.

    Free agency? Forget it. The Pacers are already over the salary cap, in part because of some dubious signings by team chief executive Donnie Walsh. Believe it or not, Jonathan Bender and Austin Croshere are the second- and third-highest paid players on the roster.

    Finally, there's Jermaine O'Neal, whom Miller keeps saying is the new face of the franchise.

    Well, if he's going to lead, he's got to return to the form that earned him third place in the MVP voting last season. How badly was he hurt this season? And how much did Artest's absence force him to change his game? It's really impossible to say. But O'Neal must return next season as a better leader and, yes, as a better player, preferably one with more low-post moves at his disposal.

    (Check out an old Kevin McHale video and take notes.)

    Beyond the Big Four, the roster figures to remain essentially unchanged.

    Bender, who they pray will be healthy someday, has two years left on his deal and no trade value.

    Croshere, another guy with two years remaining, is virtually untradable.

    Anthony Johnson is a keeper, a perfect backup point guard.

    Fred Jones' option will be picked up, and there's reason to wonder if he might have the goods to eventually replace Miller instead of Jackson.

    James Jones and Dale Davis, the team's only two free agents, should return.

    Jeff Foster, who showed what a factor he could be when he stays healthy, is going nowhere.

    The only player left with trade value is Scot Pollard, who's in the last year of his deal. At some point, he will want out -- who wants to play behind Foster and Davis? -- and somebody will want to grab him so that team can wipe his salary off the books for the following season. But you're not going to get an impact player for Pollard.

    So there's not a lot the Pacers can do, but there's enough they can do, and must do, if they're going to ensure there won't be a repeat of this season. They don't need an extreme makeover. But a nip here, a tuck there, nobody would argue.

    Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or e-mail bob.kravitz@indystar.com.

  • #2
    Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

    Dwayne is not a point guard.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

      All he has done now is pick a new whipping boy !!!


      I would rather be the hammer than the nail

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

        I agree with most of what he said.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

          Originally posted by vapacersfan
          No offense, but thats a pretty ignorant comment considering UB may be the 2nd biggest Artest fan on this board (first being a tie between myself and Jay@sectionXXX )
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

            Originally posted by vapacersfan
            No offense, but thats a pretty ignorant comment considering UB may be the 2nd biggest Artest fan on this board (first being a tie between myself and Jay@sectionXXX )
            Hey VA - nice logo
            :thepacers
            No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

              At least Kravitz article didn't have me seeing red this time. I totally disagree with Kravitz in his assertion on Jamaal Tinsley. I think Jamaal will mature, just like Gary Payton did a few years into the league. Jamaal is our future!
              ...Still "flying casual"
              @roaminggnome74

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

                Originally posted by Roaming Gnome
                At least Kravitz article didn't have me seeing red this time. I totally disagree with Kravitz in his assertion on Jamaal Tinsley. I think Jamaal will mature, just like Gary Payton did a few years into the league. Jamaal is our future!
                I have no doubt that he will mature. But maturing as a player doesn't mean that he still won't be injury prone.

                Like Kravitz said, we can't win a championship with a point guard who is always injured.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

                  Originally posted by Dr Huxtable
                  I have no doubt that he will mature. But maturing as a player doesn't mean that he still won't be injury prone.

                  Like Kravitz said, we can't win a championship with a point guard who is always injured.
                  True enough, but I think he will beat the injury bug. As mentioned before...if some have been willing to wait for Donnie's Follie to be worth something other then a pratice legend...I can wait for Tinsley, I feel that he will be that good.

                  Anyway, didn't Kravitz have it in for J.T. before he put his saddle onto Ron Artest?
                  ...Still "flying casual"
                  @roaminggnome74

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

                    Originally posted by Roaming Gnome
                    True enough, but I think he will beat the injury bug. As mentioned before...if some have been willing to wait for Donnie's Follie to be worth something other then a pratice legend...I can wait for Tinsley, I feel that he will be that good.

                    Anyway, didn't Kravitz have it in for J.T. before he put his saddle onto Ron Artest?
                    There's a difference between waiting for a player to 'bloom' and waiting for a player who has already proven he can play to stay healthy.

                    Myself, unless if we get a great PG in the draft or trade for one, I give Tinsley one more year and if he can't stay healthy the full season I say get rid of him.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

                      The question is, did you really learn anything new by reading that pap?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

                        Originally posted by Harmonica
                        The question is, did you really learn anything new by reading that pap?
                        We might not have, but we're the hardcore fans that live and breathe this stuff. The casual fans might have learned something.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

                          Originally posted by Hicks
                          We might not have, but we're the hardcore fans that live and breathe this stuff. The casual fans might have learned something.
                          I only hope the casual fan doesn't get their info from Him...........

                          They wouldn't be a fan of the Pacers for long.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

                            No kidding.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I agree with Bob Kravitz

                              I'm with UB in agreeing with what he wrote. If you don't, please let us know which part you disagree with and why. I have the same concerns about each player and think this coming season is a make or break one for most of them.

                              As for Tins, I am curious that he can be healthy for us when we really need it. He seems to be a November - January all-star thus far. How about this pattern for games played each of his first 4 seasons:

                              80
                              73
                              52
                              40

                              Not a good trend.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X