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

Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

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

  • Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

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

    bob kravitz

    Meeting of the minds seems to give Pacers a life over past 2 games

    After the Detroit debacle -- the most recent Detroit debacle, the one Sunday on national TV -- the Indiana Pacers who still care deeply about this franchise had seen enough. It was bad enough getting blown out by the Pistons on national TV, but during garbage time, there was Dale Davis, merrily hoisting up 3-point shots while his teammates laughed the day away on the sideline.

    So Monday before the team's home game against the New York Knicks, Austin Croshere called a fairly rare players-only meeting. It lasted only 10 minutes, but a handful of veterans, notably Croshere, threw down the gauntlet.

    Then Wednesday, before a 117-112 victory over the Boston Celtics, Jermaine O'Neal met with team president Larry Bird and CEO Donnie Walsh, "to clear the air about some things related to the team. This was something we'd planned to do a week ago and just didn't have the time. But it was good for all of us to have our say.''

    Whatever was said, and however it was said, it appeared Monday and Wednesday night that it lit a very small fire under some players' body parts. It was obvious in their game, their body language, their willingness to chase down loose balls and challenge shots.

    "We were playing for each other,'' said Anthony Johnson, whose late-game drive held off a manic Boston run in the final minutes. "That's something we haven't done in a while.''

    The impact of team meetings, especially players-only meetings like this one, can be easily overstated. This team has been so inconsistent all season, so fragile, it wouldn't surprise anybody if it laid an egg at home Friday against Minnesota. Or got tripped up on the road against Charlotte and Toronto before finishing up at home against Orlando. But the simple fact somebody cared enough to call a meeting, to stand up and challenge his teammates, is a good sign in and of itself.

    "After that Detroit game, I wasn't sleeping good, and I thought, 'I've got to get something off my chest,' " Croshere said after a second straight productive game. "Maybe nobody will agree with me, maybe they won't listen and they'll walk away, but I've got to say something. I may not be the best player on the team or the captain, but being here nine years, I thought it gave me a platform from which to speak.

    "A couple of us got up and talked, and basically we said, 'If we're going to go down, let's go down the right way, the way we're capable of.' And everybody agreed with everybody else. We've had players meeting with coaches before, but I thought it was necessary for it to be players only this time. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you even think to have that conversation.''

    Now, nobody is going to do cartwheels over the Pacers' first consecutive victories in six weeks -- they came, after all, against two wretched teams, the New York Knicks and Boston Celtics.

    Finally, though, we saw some signs of life. Finally, we saw the team they should have been long before things reached this desperate stage. There was ball movement. There was rebounding. There was passion.
    Where's this been all year?

    "The last two games, we're playing better, happier for each other, more assists and less turnovers,'' Croshere said. "It's fun to be out there. It's fun to be on the bench for the first time in a while. I certainly think things are headed in the right direction. But it doesn't take away from the problems we've had. I don't think anybody is pretending the last eight games didn't exist.''

    As for O'Neal, he said his meeting had absolutely nothing to do with Bird's published comments in Tuesday's newspaper.

    It did, however, look like O'Neal had been challenged. His energy was apparent from the start. Even as Boston's Kendrick Perkins kept blocking his shots -- or fouling him, depending on your perspective -- O'Neal continued to take it strong to the basket. More, though, he had 15 rebounds and seven assists, as strong an all-around game as he's had in a while.

    "Me and the front office had a long talk about everything,'' O'Neal said. "The air needed to be cleared, and it was very constructive. We laid it all on the line. We have a better understanding about each other, and my future with the team.''

    Then he smiled. "I have a long future with this team,'' he said.


    Certainly, he played Wednesday night like a man who desperately wants to stay in Indianapolis. Even in Monday's game, when his numbers were less than inspiring, his willingness to stay on the bench late in the game while his teammates were on a run made a good impression.

    "The thing he did (Monday), the things he did in this game, that rubs off on everybody,'' Croshere said.

    It's probably way too little, way too late. But, well, it's something.
    ---------------------

    Another good Kavitz article. As others have said he's pretty good when he doesn't go overboard on opinion. I've started reading him again.

    It's interesting that the Pacers are clearing the air. We've also learned in the last few days that Carlisle and JO aren't going anywhere. Personally I never thought they were but the chin music on here that wanted them gone got pretty deafening.

  • #2
    Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

    Well, the problem I have with these last two crumbs of info thrown to the Pacer masses is that they are taking things off the table. (The timing is a little odd too... on the heels of yesterday's column)

    It's hard to believe that we can keep Carlisle and JO and expect things to get back to where they once were.

    If in the end, we kept JO and/or Carlisle, it is one thing. To already declare we're keeping them is another. IMHO this team needs to be rethought with very little thought about the existing pieces. We need to see what is available and how we could make that work.

    OTOH, maybe I need to re-read this because I only recall JO saying he had a long future here. Possibly management challenged him to meet some certain goals if he wants a future here and he feels he will meet the goals and so he declared he had a long future.

    -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: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

      Maybe the brass just challenged him to try and motivate his play back up to a level where he's a valuable trade commodity in the offseason. Honestly, if JO can play more like last night consistently, it's easy to rationalize what he's paid. Problem is that he's been nowhere near that the last two years on any regular basis.

      I know injuries and suspensions, but then there's the leadership issue, as well. Also take into account that the Celts weren't runnning all-stars at him. My overall outlook on JO remains that he's an above average big man, although not to the lofty levels his salary would indicate, that is not capable of carrying or leading a team a la "the guy". He would make an excellent second option with D and rebounding as his first priority.

      What we need from JO, aside from play like yesterday more often, is to have that positive energy and attitude from last night come from HIM even in difficult times. Not needing a meeting with the management to motiviate it. That's what the leader or main man on the team generally offers.

      I wouldn't trade him unless there were reasonable value in return. Something that really improved the team. However, I think the option must remain open and at least be explored to see what's out there.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

        Lets say they tell him he's not going to be part of the future... does anyone honestly think that they'd do that at this time in the season? Lets say they DID tell him that he wasn't, do you think he'd admit it up front to the media?
        "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

          I think what happens in this age of the Internet is basketball forums like this one start talking about trading a player then the media pick up on it and the next thing you know the player is wanting to know where they stand. Probably what happened in JO's case.

          JO is our post presence so he isn't going anywhere unless it's a no brainer trade. Really his value would have to go way down before the Pacers would make some of the trades advocated on here.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

            Well the way he said it with a "smile", one would have to consider that they may have let JO in on a big move that's brewing. Maybe they have something going with a big name, or maybe they're just getting rid of some cancer(s).

            We need to figure out how to get a bug into that office.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

              I'll say the same thing I said the other day after the vote of confidence for Carlisle. I don't put too much stock into this. First I never thought the Pacers would just dump J.O, or have a a firesale for the guy. If they get a deal they think will better the team, they will trade him, no matter what they told J.O yesterday. What are we to expect Jax is going to have a meeting with LB and DW tomorrow and then he'll tell Kravitiz that his future is long too.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

                We're now back on track to win it all.




                << Have some Kool-Aid everybody
                << Pacers playoff Kool-Aid!


                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck
                  I'll say the same thing I said the other day after the vote of confidence for Carlisle. I don't put too much stock into this. First I never thought the Pacers would just dump J.O, or have a a firesale for the guy. If they get a deal they think will better the team, they will trade him, no matter what they told J.O yesterday. What are we to expect Jax is going to have a meeting with LB and DW tomorrow and then he'll tell Kravitiz that his future is long too.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

                    Originally posted by Will Galen
                    It's interesting that the Pacers are clearing the air. We've also learned in the last few days that Carlisle and JO aren't going anywhere. Personally I never thought they were but the chin music on here that wanted them gone got pretty deafening.
                    Will, I don't buy what's being put out there one bit.

                    Not. One. Bit.

                    Think back. Remember when we got Erick Dampier? He's our future at C. The brass told the media as much everytime they asked. He was here long term. Erick used to talk about looking forward to a long tenure here. He would mention how management told him he was part of their future plans.

                    Then we traded for Chris Mullin seemingly out of the blue.

                    This has happened time and again in the past with the Simon's. I wouldn't put too much stock in them saying JO is a keeper. If he does stick, it's because they couldn't find a comparable deal out there, not some long term investment, imho. If you look around the league, it's pretty touch to make a deal, right now, with so many potential free agents.

                    Simons have always been good about not showing their hand and reassuring players that they're home. Then when a trade IS made, they talk about how it was smart and they couldn't pass it up, or the team got younger, or whatever. I just know that I don't believe this little nugget of info about JO and if I was him, I wouldn't be too secure.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

                      Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                      This has happened time and again in the past with the Simon's. I wouldn't put too much stock in them saying JO is a keeper. If he does stick, it's because they couldn't find a comparable deal out there, not some long term investment, imho. If you look around the league, it's pretty touch to make a deal, right now, with so many potential free agents.

                      Simons have always been good about not showing their hand and reassuring players that they're home. Then when a trade IS made, they talk about how it was smart and they couldn't pass it up, or the team got younger, or whatever. I just know that I don't believe this little nugget of info about JO and if I was him, I wouldn't be too secure.
                      The Simons? It would ultimately be up to LB & DW.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

                        I should have said "Walsh".

                        *nitpicker*

                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

                          JO is gonna stay no doubt about it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

                            Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                            Will, I don't buy what's being put out there one bit.
                            I do. But I don't buy it that JO won't be traded. Everything depends on the circumstances. What if the Simons decided they wanted to start over? What if something happened and we got Bosh? Then JO would be expendable. Even JO would tell you that he still COULD be traded.

                            Right now I would say Bird and Walsh have no intentions of trading JO. But that's right now.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Star} According to Kravitz, JO going no where.

                              I mentioned in a thread the other day that I think Larry is a pretty brutally honest person and doesn't deceive the media much. However, this is one of those situations where no matter how much of a boy scout you are, you can't let all of your feelings be known publically. Asking a GM whether they are going to move a disgruntled player is equivalent to a lady saying "Does my butt look big in this?"

                              If the truthful answer is bad news, then it won't be said. "No honey, I could barely even see it!" is the right answer. And, "We love JO forever!" is the other correct answer.

                              If they admit they are looking to move him, it can bring nothing positive to the Pacers, only grief.
                              “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                              motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                              Reggie Miller

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X