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: No to JO for #1

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

    Kravitz: No to JO for #1

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart


    Bob Kravitz
    O'Neal for No. 1? Don't bite, Pacers
    June 14, 2006


    I love NBA rumors.

    Even the ones that aren't true, as I suspect is the case with the juiciest rumor making the rounds.

    The latest, according to multiple media sources who probably don't have real sources in the know, is the Indiana Pacers are considering sending Jermaine O'Neal and the No. 17 pick in the draft to the Toronto Raptors for the No. 1 pick and Charlie Villanueva. (There's also a Jamaal Tinsley to Minnesota for Ricky Davis rumor out there, but first things first.)

    Now, as far as the truth of this Big Rumor goes, let it be noted that I left a message for team president Larry Bird and he did not return my call. And, let's be honest, even if he did, do you really think he would have said, "Well, Bob, I sure hope we can make that deal, and then draft Adam Morrison"?

    Personally, I think this rumor falls somewhere between nonsense and baloney. While there shouldn't be any hesitation about making big news this summer -- trading the deadwood in the locker room and either extending or firing coach Rick Carlisle -- this rumor reminds me, in the weeks before the NBA draft, honesty is as rare as a Shaquille O'Neal made free throw.

    I don't think there's smoke or fire on this one. But that won't stop me from offering breathless commentary, will it?
    So . . . J.O. and No. 17 for No. 1 and Villanueva?

    My verdict: No way.

    Again, I'm all for dropping a large nuclear device into the middle of the Pacers' dressing room. I'm all for taking risks, even taking a couple of steps backward to move forward. The truth is, after so many years of reaching the playoffs but failing to win a championship, I don't see the point in continuing to win 45 or 46 games and getting whacked in the first round.

    This just isn't the right move.

    Not in a season when the draft isn't featuring someone on the level of a Shaq/Tim Duncan/Greg Oden.

    The problem with this rumored deal is, there's no consensus No. 1 -- unless there's a clear consensus No. 1 in Bird's mind, in which case, he'd better be right or this franchise will spend the next five years in the lottery. One minute, the national media proclaims the primacy of Morrison. Then it's LaMarcus Aldridge, and Tyrus Thomas, and Andrea Bargnani.

    I would agree, if the Pacers are serious about changing the face of their team, they're probably going to have to move O'Neal. I don't say that because O'Neal is a bum or is incapable of returning to his old form, but as you look at this roster, he's the only player with the kind of pedigree who can demand significant value in return.

    You trade Stephen Jackson, you're going to get somebody else's problem child in return.

    You trade Tinsley, you're going to get a Ricky Davis-type, if you're lucky. (And yes, I'd do it; Davis may be a bit of a knucklehead, but he's a knucklehead who stays healthy.)
    You trade anybody on this roster who isn't named O'Neal, it rates as tinkering, and the Pacers are not a couple of minor adjustments from being an NBA contender.
    This just isn't the right move.

    If you're going to trade a sure-fire double-double guy -- and O'Neal has remained one despite the injuries and the depletion of the roster around him -- you'd better get a sure thing in return. And a non-consensus No. 1 pick and Villanueva, a guy who floats more than Jacques Cousteau, are a long way from a sure thing.

    Am I blinded by my personal affinity for O'Neal, the fact that as a human being, he's my favorite pro athlete in this city? I've been accused of that. J.O. is smart and opinionated, and I've always held him in high esteem since he defended his friend Isiah Thomas at a time when it would have been far easier to abandon his convictions.

    As a player, yes, these past two years have been a nightmare. Some of that has been the result of circumstances beyond his control. But sometimes injuries are the result of sub-standard preparation and conditioning.
    To his credit, O'Neal knows, he spent the past two offseasons concentrating too much on developing strength for what he figured would be an added workload at center. The result, though, was he was too heavy, and when he needed his legs late in Game 6 against New Jersey, his pins weren't there.

    If he's going to be a Pacer next year, there needs to be a meeting of the minds -- between O'Neal and team CEO Donnie Walsh, it should be mentioned, because there isn't a lot of trust between O'Neal and Bird.

    On the one hand, O'Neal needs to make a commitment to lose weight and come to camp in the best shape of his professional life. On the other hand, the Pacers need to bring in a true big man who can allow O'Neal to be the kind of player he was when he was surrounded by Ron Artest and Brad Miller.

    Now, if there are some other juicy rumors out there, ones that involve players with proven track records, I'd be far more interested and willing to support a move involving O'Neal.

    Until then, I don't like this one.

    Whether it's true or not.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

    Originally posted by :kravitz:
    Not in a season when the draft isn't featuring someone on the level of a Shaq/Tim Duncan/Greg Oden.
    He didn't just...did he just?.... :shakehead

    and finally
    STARBURY

    08 and Beyond

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

      The reasons that Kravitz provides are the exact same reasons that many have stated on our forum. I'd say he does a very good job of reading and getting our message out in front of the masses.

      I would still say if Toronto wants JO, then it needs to pony up more than CV and #1. They should also have to provide a high 1st round pick for next year as well.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

        What kinda gets me is neither Bird nor Walsh have come out to squash this rumor. On the one hand, you'd expect they would considering Bird stated in his post-season conference he wasn't "shopping" JO.

        "There's not one time that we called anybody and said, 'Hey, are you interested in Jermaine O'Neal?' I can't sit here today and tell you we're going to pursue to trade Jermaine O'Neal."

        Bird's exact words. Doesn't mean he hasn't entertained phone calls inquiring of JO's availability nor listened to any deals that involve him. So, to be fair while Bird may have been true to his word the day of the conference, he very well could have changed his mind the day after. "Make me an offer I can't refuse..."

        On the other hand, it would be rather foolish for Bird/Walsh to tie their hands by stating that any player is completely off limits. Sure, they did it with Reggie, but who wouldn't have!? By the time they put the franchise tag on him, he had already a proven himself to be a very worthwhile asset well until his final game. The man still could have played the game and been very effective even after he retired. Even Walsh knew it; that's why he tried to talk him into staying just one more year.

        So, I can kinda see why Bird/Walsh haven't spoken out about such rumors just yet. Perhaps they feel they don't need to because they (Bird) have already said the rumors will fly all summer long concerning JO. But then again, he also said, "I can't sit here today and tell you we're going to pursue to trade Jermaine O'Neal."

        But what about tomorrow? And the day after that? And the day after that? And the day after that?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

          If he's going to be a Pacer next year, there needs to be a meeting of the minds -- between O'Neal and team CEO Donnie Walsh, it should be mentioned, because there isn't a lot of trust between O'Neal and Bird.
          Yet again... a snippet... a bone tossed to the masses... that would suggest there are significant differences of opinion in the Pacer hierarchy.

          -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

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

            Originally posted by Bball
            Yet again... a snippet... a bone tossed to the masses... that would suggest there are significant differences of opinion in the Pacer hierarchy.

            -Bball
            I caught that, too. But I don't know whether Donnie and Larry differ in opinion all that much, or whether JO just doesn't trust Larry following the firing of Thomas. At the very least, I believe we can assume that the communication between Larry and JO is very poor.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

              Originally posted by NuffSaid
              What kinda gets me is neither Bird nor Walsh have come out to squash this rumor.
              I've noticed that, too. Usually Brunner has a quick response to these kinds of rumors with a quote from DW or LB, but not this time. hmmm....
              "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
              -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

                looks to me like both teams are denying this rumor thru the media trying to gain leverage in the trade.
                STARBURY

                08 and Beyond

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

                  Finally, a fair and even-handed article by the badger.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

                    God, I hate it when agrees with me. Makes me look like a ****ing moron.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

                      Originally posted by Shade
                      Finally, a fair and even-handed article by the badger.
                      Actually, I think he made several good articles this year, particularly in the second part off the basketball season.


                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      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

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

                        Maybe JO isn't thought of as highly around the NBA as he is around here. Maybe this is as good as it gets.

                        I think there is a better deal out there but it won't surface until after the draft.
                        "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

                          Originally posted by Mourning
                          Actually, I think he made several good articles this year, particularly in the second part off the basketball season.


                          Regards,

                          Mourning
                          Not really. Everyone was just in "Tim mode" at the time and Kravitz's tirades seemed more relative to the masses.

                          Originally posted by fwpacerfan
                          Maybe JO isn't thought of as highly around the NBA as he is around here. Maybe this is as good as it gets.

                          I think there is a better deal out there but it won't surface until after the draft.
                          If this is as good as it gets, we keep JO and tweak the roster. If all else fails, maybe we can dangle him in a package offer for Oden or something in a year.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

                            Originally posted by Shade
                            If this is as good as it gets, we keep JO and tweak the roster. If all else fails, maybe we can dangle him in a package offer for Oden or something in a year.
                            :shakehead
                            STARBURY

                            08 and Beyond

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz: No to JO for #1

                              Well this JO to Toronto rumors is getting a lot of publicity. It was just talked about on Around the Horn and PTI. I gotta wonder if it was still just a Chad Ford idea, or if the Pacers are actually looking to make a deal for JO.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X