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: Team Must Change; Player Can't

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

    Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

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

    Bob Kravitz
    Team must change; player can't


    By now, it's a bit late for the Indiana Pacers to have finally grown a backbone. They are right, of course, to accommodate Ron Artest's trade request, and I hope he enjoys scoring 27 points a night and losing 55 games a year in Toronto or Oklahoma City. But this should have been done long ago, long before Artest ever had a chance to destroy Reggie Miller's final year or undermine this year's team.
    Even Monday, when team CEO Donnie Walsh stepped forward and said he would trade his team's perpetual headache, the Pacers gave Artest a break, giving him the Keyshawn Johnson treatment instead of suspending him without pay.

    What else are they going to do when he's dealt? Pay his moving expenses? Send him a going-away present?
    "I guess a leopard never changes his spots,'' Reggie Miller told me Monday in a telephone interview. "Look, I thought for sure, after a 73-game suspension, if you love the game that much -- which he says he does -- how can he not change?"
    Then Miller paraphrased Malcolm X by saying he had been "bamboozled," "hoodwinked" and "led astray."
    "Just like everybody else," Miller added.
    Well, almost everybody.
    That's what's still so hard to figure. How did so many good basketball people get so completely bamboozled and hoodwinked? It's not like there weren't a couple dozen hints that maybe Artest wasn't a beacon of righteousness and temperance. A guy murders a TV camera, commits a record number of flagrant fouls and heads into the stands to fight a fan, there's likely to be something amiss.
    Maybe Walsh stuck with Artest because Walsh is a man with a huge heart, because he wanted to believe in the power of personal reform. Don't we all want to believe we're the ones who can help a misguided soul change for the better? That's noble and admirable in the field of social work, but in the NBA, it's rarely worth the heartache.
    "I don't apologize for that,'' Walsh said. " . . . If anything, I'll feel we failed with Ronnie.''
    Maybe team president Larry Bird stuck with Artest -- and posed with him on the cover of Sports Illustrated -- because he saw Artest as a kindred spirit, which, clearly, he is not.
    Maybe, and I hate to be cynical about this, both Walsh and Bird saw they had a top-15 player who was making a relatively minuscule salary. Talent has always forgiven sin. Does anybody think the rarely used Eddie Gill would get a second chance, or an eighth chance, after wreaking that kind of havoc?
    "It's sad because Indiana really has embraced Ron,'' Miller said. "He's never going to be embraced anywhere the way he was with the Pacers. If Indiana hadn't been so forgiving through the whole ordeal, I don't think the league as a whole would have accepted what was going on. And this year, everybody did.
    "And now, it's like, 'You got us, Ron. You got us.' "
    Fooled again.
    Incredible.
    So what's Artest really thinking here? That's increasingly hard to say. He talks about money, about being the primary scorer, about being haunted by his past -- like he wouldn't be haunted by his past if he took his game to the Yukon. Then, he gets mysterious, talks about how things were happening here that made him feel like the future was elsewhere.
    If you try to make sense of Artest, you enter a maze without an exit.
    "It can't be about money,'' Miller said. "Because if you can't be happy being on one of the four best teams in the league, being the second-leading scorer, getting the second-most shot attempts every night, and sometimes the most shots, if you can't be happy in a system like that, you will never be happy. Never."
    He continued, "There has to be some underlying theme here. Maybe'' -- Miller laughed -- "he's getting bad advice from (agent) Drew Rosenhaus. Because he's not crazy. He's a smart guy who knows what he's doing and how to go about it. But in this instance, he's gone about it all the wrong way.
    "There's no way you can do that to a team, from management to, especially, the players, the way they've backed you through all of this. This is no way to show your quote-unquote 'love for the team' and appreciation."
    If there's something positive about this -- and we're stretching for this one -- it's that at least it's happened relatively early in the season. The Pacers can't hope to be a better team short term, not with Artest leaving and Jonathan Bender on the verge of retirement. But we've seen how they've played the past two games without Artest, wiping out Washington and Memphis. Given a chance to acquire and assimilate new talent, a more harmonious team may give the Pacers a better shot at a title than any involving Artest.
    That, though, is up to the remaining players in that locker room, who no longer have Artest around as a handy excuse for distracted play. Say what you will, but Artest was among the most consistent players for a maddeningly inconsistent team. There are still in-house issues to be confronted, even without Artest.
    At least, though, the Pacers have finally, smartly confronted the issue head on.
    Too late, yes.
    But better late than never.


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


    Copyright 2005 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved
    New Zealand's Number 1 Pacer Fan!! Visited Conseco Fieldhouse Feb 10 2006
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

    Originally posted by NZPacer
    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04

    Bob Kravitz
    Team must change; player can't


    There are still in-house issues to be confronted, even without Artest.
    How maddenly incomplete that statement is... Who? What inhouse issues?

    OK... Somebody tell me it's Kravitz and he's full of somthing... Just like you told us Stephen A was... and....

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

    ------

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

    -John Wooden

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

      Originally posted by Bball
      How maddenly incomplete that statement is... Who? What inhouse issues?

      OK... Somebody tell me it's Kravitz and he's full of somthing... Just like you told us Stephen A was... and....

      -Bball
      Are you kidding? A TRADE IS COMING!

      Nobody knows if they'll still be here next week. This team is now entering a phase of proving itself without Artest, and then it will be shaken up by a trade. Anybody playing "the wrong way", or just having a bad game will automatically be shipped in trade rumors along with Mr. Nut.
      Will it be Tinsley? Jax? Freddie? AJ? Cro? Saras?

      God forbid we lose a few games - the whole team will be on the virge of a team-swap like the Hornets-Heat in the mid-90s.

      Who knows?! Nothing will be as it was. Only after "The Trade" will matters start to settle down.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

        it will not be saras that is traded. Larry is not going to trade him, end of story, so just remove Runi from all of your trade rumors right now.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

          I wonder, will TPTB "blow up" the team and rid ourselves of out other headcases or will they make the one and wait until summer to see how things go w/o Ron.


          I also wanted to say....two editorials by RK in two days seems a bit like piling on, IMO
          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

            Originally posted by indygeezer
            I wonder, will TPTB "blow up" the team and rid ourselves of out other headcases or will they make the one and wait until summer to see how things go w/o Ron.


            I also wanted to say....two editorials by RK in two days seems a bit like piling on, IMO


            He loves piling on, in fact he's rather good at it.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

              Is Drew Rosenhaus Artest's agent? It is mentioned almost on accident here. The Star is such a crappy paper because...

              a) either they let an untrue fact slide through OR
              b) they seem to have left out a major angle to this story - how could it not be mentioned until now?
              Heywoode says... work hard man.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

                Wonderful article. Says it all.
                And with Reg to back it up.
                perfect.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

                  I was thinking exactly the same thing Doug. Drew Rosenhaus. That could be part of the explanation and why his "agent" wasn't telling him to pipe down.

                  Look, I don't have a problem with the front office being loyal to a player - yes even to a fault. That has been one of the hallmarks of this franchise for a long time and it seems to have worked out for the most part. To be honest, I would be the same way. The sad part of Ron is there was not even a hint of a loyalty return. So a mistake was made. Big deal. I would have rather errored on the side of taking a chance than knee jerk response.

                  But what's done is done, it's time to move on.
                  The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

                    Could we get Bender to retire already? What is he waiting on? Or did he and they just did not cover it because of Ron.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

                      Then Miller paraphrased Malcolm X by saying he had been "bamboozled," "hoodwinked" and "led astray."
                      "Just like everybody else," Miller added.
                      Well, almost everybody.
                      How much of Kravitz's gloating and I-told-ya-so's are we going to have to put up with?
                      "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                      -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

                        Last I knew Ron doesn't have an agent anymore.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

                          Originally posted by blanket
                          How much of Kravitz's gloating and I-told-ya-so's are we going to have to put up with?
                          There isn't a finite number that large.

                          I would estimate we will have to listen to it PI times.



                          RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

                            Originally posted by btowncolt
                            And Brown, a staunch proponent of tough defense, gushed over the 26-year-old forward.

                            "I think the guy's a great player," Brown said. "You'll have to ask Isiah; it's not my point to be talking about players on other teams. [But] he's great on both ends of the court. He's tremendous. Every night he goes out and gives an unbelievable effort."



                            http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/58604.htm
                            To be honest, I'm hearing absolutely glowing remarks from people that I would have expected to condemn and hate Ron... Do we have a shot at a better player than we expect considering Larry Brown of all people said this about Artest?????

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz: Team Must Change; Player Can't

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck
                              He loves piling on, in fact he's rather good at it.
                              Yeah, but honestly, can you refute or disagree with anything he said?

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X