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

Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

    And he also questions the timing of the interview.

    "If only Ron Artest were here . . . Could you imagine this Detroit series with Ron Artest? . . . It sure would be different if Ron were playing."

    Enough.

    There are a number of reasons we need to shut up about Ron Artest, who is having as much influence on this Pistons-Pacers series as the Mohawks of John Edwards and David Harrison.

    First, this is a series, even without Artest. The matchups page says it shouldn't be a series and common sense says it shouldn't be a series. But after Wednesday's victory in Auburn Hills, Mich., the Pacers can put the defending champs on the ropes tonight in Game 3 at Conseco Fieldhouse. Pistons coach Larry Brown is said to be so upset, he's ready to blame the Olympic selection committee. (Just kidding.)

    Second, I'm not convinced Artest would have survived this season long enough to be a factor in the playoffs. If the meltdown hadn't happened Nov. 19, it was going to happen Dec. 22, or Jan. 18, or (pick your date). Remember, this season began with Artest's bizarre I-want-some-time-off request and the resulting suspension. Later came the Throwdown in Motown.

    What was next?

    With Artest, you never knew.

    But you knew there would be a next time.

    Third, I'm not convinced the Pacers would be making this run even if Artest were in the lineup. On paper, yes, Artest makes the Pacers a title contender. But his suspension changed the emotional dynamics of that locker room, leaving a team that became mentally stronger and more united than ever before. With Artest gone, Reggie Miller was allowed to reprise his 1994 role on a nightly basis, and a bunch of kids, most of them named Jones, got serious playing time and produced.

    I bring up the Artest issue now because Artest is back in the news.

    He recently was profiled by Gentlemen's Quarterly. Then, two days ago, ESPN ran its two-part interview with Artest. And that was just the beginning. Artest's new Nashville, Tenn.-based management team has him doing this Ron Across America Tour, in which Artest dresses nicely, smiles broadly and says mea culpas until he turns blue in the face.

    As we've long known, Artest is an absolute master at expressing contrition.

    Now, I don't take issue with Artest's desire to repair his image, although he'd help himself most by staying out of trouble for an entire year.

    I take issue with the timing.

    It's the playoffs. It's time to be concentrating on basketball. Specifically, it's time to be concentrating on Pacers basketball, and the best story in this year's NBA. The whole idea was to leave the brawl behind. But heeeeeere's Ronnie, smiling for those cameras, reshaping his image, doing everything but shilling for the Whizzinator.

    Why?

    And why now?

    Why would his new management folks deem it to be in Artest's best interest to get him out there doing damage control? Is he suddenly going to grace the front of a Wheaties box? Will it help CD sales? What's the point?

    As for the timing, well, if I were a member of the Pacers' organization, I would be appalled and angry.

    Here's the guy who put his team's season in jeopardy and now, as his Pacers make this playoff run, he's out there selfishly trying to convince corporate America he's really a nice guy who's misunderstood.

    All of this tells me something else: The idea of trading him, even if it means coming away with less than equal value, makes more sense than ever. We are seeing for ourselves that he is not indispensable. The Pacers won 44 regular-season games and have reached the second round of the playoffs. And they have done it despite losing 435 games worth of suspensions and injuries.

    They may have lost scoring, rebounding and defense, but they gained something intangible and powerful, something that is helping them to achieve beyond all expectations.

    Publicly, the players and management types all say they're supporting Artest and believe the year out of basketball will result in a transformation. Maybe it's all a ploy to convince potential trade suitors that he's centered and better than ever. More likely, though, they say it because they truly believe it.

    Which makes me wonder which side is guilty of failing to think straight.

    Think the 10th guy on the bench would be enjoying such patience and compassion? Do they really think he's going to go from hellion to St. Francis of Assisi?

    I hope he found a certain sense of peace during these long days away from competitive basketball.

    I hope he can come back, here or somewhere else, and show people he's a great basketball player and not a damaged soul who happens to be a great talent when he's right.

    I honestly, fervently hope I'm wrong about his capacity for change, and that his fans are justified in their loud and often angry support.

    Right now, though, I just don't need to see Artest on my TV, telling me he's going to return a changed man. Don't tell me. Show me. Show everybody.

    In the meantime, there's one heck of a playoff series we need to be covering.

    Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or e-mail bob.kravitz@indystar.com.
    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...505130521/1088
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

    I question the timing of Bob's column, too.

    Dollar to a doughnut this is his response to Artest's media relations people not catering to the locals.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

      Originally posted by Kravitz
      Right now, though, I just don't need to see Artest on my TV, telling me he's going to return a changed man. Don't tell me. Show me. Show everybody.

      In the meantime, there's one heck of a playoff series we need to be covering.
      The above is the only point I can take away from that article and to be honest... I agree with him.

      Talk is cheap. I want Artest show us rather than tell us.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

        Originally posted by sixthman
        I question the timing of Bob's column, too.

        Dollar to a doughnut this is his response to Artest's media relations people not catering to the locals.
        That's what I was thinking. RATS doesn't like when they don't get what they want.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

          Originally posted by naptownmenace
          The above is the only point I can take away from that article and to be honest... I agree with him.

          Talk is cheap. I want Artest show us rather than tell us.

          Yes and that is the exact same comment that Ron made in the interview.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

            Artest is in a no-win situation. If he had stayed silent all through the season and playoffs, I have no doubt Kravitz would be writing a column chastising Ron for not making any public remarks and blah blah blah blah blah.

            He's just looking to stir **** up, per the usual.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

              I thought it was funny that he's writing this long article about Artest while the Pacers are playing Detroit complaining about too much media attention on Artest while the Pacers are playing Detroit. Dope. Did he think there wouldn't be more media interest in Ron if/when this series happened?


              Obviously he is mad because Ron's new management team won't let him talk to Ron. I personally don't understand them not letting the local media talk to Ron either. OTOH, since he has yet to utter a single good word about Ron I can understand if they don't let Kravitz talk to him. Ron might go "Palace" on his a$$!!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

                  If Kravitz really felt that Artest needs to be ignored, he could have written his column about those playoffs he so snidely implies aren't being covered.

                  Rather than being angry at Ron, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacers PR folks are helping to push some of this. The better Ron looks, the more likely either he is accepted while playing for the Pacers or he is easier to trade this summer. Given that second point, you'd think Bobby would be jumping with glee at the activity.

                  If we weren't playing Detroit, no one would be concerned about Ron at this point. Since the attention started with the continual re-hash of the brawl, it is only right that the PR machine use this to repair and rehabilitate.
                  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

                  • #10
                    Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

                    Originally posted by sixthman
                    I question the timing of Bob's column, too.

                    Dollar to a doughnut this is his response to Artest's media relations people not catering to the locals.
                    "Hmm, what am I going to write my article on today? That Artest interview on ESPN? Nah. Not juicy enough. I know! I'll write about little fluffy clouds."

                    Kravitz gets paid to comment on all things Pacers. This certainly falls in that category. What do you expect him to write about? Same goes for ESPN. Networks have always done human interest stories around teams that are in the playoffs.



                    Okay people, there's nothing to see here, let's move along now.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

                      Originally posted by naptownmenace
                      The above is the only point I can take away from that article and to be honest... I agree with him.

                      Talk is cheap. I want Artest show us rather than tell us.
                      You might tell that to Stern since he is the one that will not let Ron play basketball. How else can he show he is better ?

                      I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

                        Originally posted by Spicoli
                        Artest is in a no-win situation. If he had stayed silent all through the season and playoffs, I have no doubt Kravitz would be writing a column chastising Ron for not making any public remarks and blah blah blah blah blah.
                        He already did - remember the article where he called on Ron to apologize to Reggie?

                        I don't really disagree with anything Kravitz wrote - I just don't get the timing. Plus when he basically says, "let's talk about the series instead of Artest" my response is, "Take your own advice, dummy."

                        Looks like something he wrote just to publish the number of words he needs to justify his salary.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

                          In all reality after seeing the interview do you feel confident with Artest on the team.

                          To me it made it him look more like a maniac.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

                            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                            Looks like something he wrote just to publish the number of words he needs to justify his salary.
                            I believe they call it a job.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Krapitz: Trading Artest makes sense

                              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                              He already did - remember the article where he called on Ron to apologize to Reggie?

                              I don't really disagree with anything Kravitz wrote - I just don't get the timing. Plus when he basically says, "let's talk about the series instead of Artest" my response is, "Take your own advice, dummy."

                              Looks like something he wrote just to publish the number of words he needs to justify his salary.

                              You're right, he already did.

                              The funny thing about Kravitz is that he gets paid to be opinionated . . . but the majority of the time I don't think HE even believes the side he is defending. He just picks the view that is most likely to stir it up and runs with it.

                              Kravitz is a good writer. I would just enjoy his writing more if I felt he actually believed his opinions instead of flip flopping all the time.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X