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: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

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

  • #16
    Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

    count55-

    Where Kravtiz is concerned, you are correct. Aside from
    generally being a horse's a$$, he's just being a condescending,
    ****-stirrer in his piece this a.m.

    As for myself, I don't root against the players, but I'd rather the
    franchise lose and optimize their position in what'll hopefully be
    their last draft in the Lottery for a long, long time.

    For the record, I really like the existing team. I enjoy them as
    much as any bunch since the post-Brawl squad of overachievers.
    They play their a$$es off.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

      i just realized how little playoff experience we have in the rotation. dunleavy, murphy, diener, shawne, and ike have never made the playoffs. granger and harrison have only played in 1 series. aside from jeff and hopefully jermaine, our "veteran core" consists of ... rush, quis, and flip, who have 2-3 postseason appearances each. in terms of playoff experience (or lack of), we're almost as bad as the hawks.

      playoff hungry indeed.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

        Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
        count55-

        Where Kravtiz is concerned, you are correct. Aside from
        generally being a horse's a$$, he's just being a condescending,
        ****-stirrer in his piece this a.m.

        As for myself, I don't root against the players, but I'd rather the
        franchise lose and optimize their position in what'll hopefully be
        their last draft in the Lottery for a long, long time.

        For the record, I really like the existing team. I enjoy them as
        much as any bunch since the post-Brawl squad of overachievers.
        They play their a$$es off.
        Cool...I apologize if I insulted you. As a vet primarily of RealGM, and somewhat of this board, I've been engaged in this general debate dozens of times. Last year, it was especially raw because of the top 10 protection...I found myself hoping we'd either make the playoffs or backslide into the bottom 10...What bothered me about last year's result was not that we lost Acie Law (meh), but that we literally ended up in the worst possible position (11th). It was one more example of the Pacers getting stuck with the worst case scenario.

        I think, in the back of my mind, by "best case scenario" (assuming we won't get lucky and land in the top 3) is that these guys play hard, but can't quite catch Atlanta, and we can land a DJ Augustin or Darren Collison. I'd love to get Derrick Rose, but it's clear Karma doesn't like us that much.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

          Originally posted by count55
          The only thing a higher pick guarantees you is that you'll have more players to choose from. It mitigates (somewhat) the inherent risk of the draft by allowing you more choices.

          More choices increases uncertainty, hence it increases risk. It doesn't mitigate it. But count55, I like everything else you wrote.

          Here's what shocks me:

          Originally posted by Bob Kravitz
          Give the Pacers this much: They are still trying, even if trying isn't what's in the long-term interest of their franchise.

          I don't see how he could bring himself to write those sentences. Trying is always in the best interests of the franchise.
          Last edited by Putnam; 03-30-2008, 12:28 PM.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

            LOL. . .I do not agree with this guy at all. There's so many prospects out there that can help this team in the top 20. why do people always think that getting a top 5 pick is gonna help out your team. unless there's a LeBron James in this years draft, there's really no sense tanking. The Pacers just have to be smart drafting players. I've seen a lot of PG's in this years tournament that could help the Pacers that aren't big names but have a lot of skill.

            I never believe in the hype, I don't hate on them, but there's a whole lotta young ballers out there that can help this team
            R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              This is my comment...

              He complains and complains that we don't play well. Now he is complaining that we are showing some heart. You never want your team to tank. And coming from someone who "lost interest". Why even bother writing if you aren't interested? If that's the case let someone else write the stories on the team.
              I bring this up from time to time, but Bob is the guy that wrote of the WOMEN'S Final Four when it was being held in Indy a few years ago (paraphrasing) - "I can't make you care about it so why bother writing about it."

              Wow, that's the spirit. Good thing he wasn't one of the producers of King of Kong or some other interesting film who's topic didn't exactly leap off the page before a great artist got his hands on it.

              Personally I thought a writer, ESPECIALLY a columnist, was supposed to make you care. Here's a topic, give me 500 words why I give a s***. The ones that can't aren't supposed to get jobs. I mean even JayRedd could muster enough noun-verb combos, maybe even in the correct tense, to make me at least put a subject at the bottom of my list of things I need to consider at some point reflecting on possibly caring about.


              Sadly I think this is his attempt to make you care, going with the whole "I'm with you, they should tank, but they are trying" reverse psychology thing. You know, like Hemingway did ala "hey, I think fly fishing sucks too, but guys go do it so I guess maybe that's something."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                More choices increases risk. It doesn't mitigate it.
                It depends on whether you believe the additions to the pool are better likely better than the average of those already present. While it's absolutely true that it would increase the risk of making exactly the right choice (ie...choosing the player who actually turns out to be the best), it could mitigate the risk of getting a good, productive player simply by the virtue of having more potentially good, productive players available. (This, of course, based on the premise that NBA talent scouting, as inexact a science as it may be, is at least directionally correct in it's overall assessment of players in the draft.)

                I guess the problem here is the use of risk. David Harrison was arguably a good draft pick at 29 because you really weren't expecting much out of the pick. If he didn't pan out, there was no real loss. I probably should have said "increases your chances" rather than "mitigates your risk".

                It "mitigates the risk" of the player you want not being available when you draft. (Though, considering that Scott Haskin, Jonathan Bender, Fred Jones, and George McCloud were "the players we wanted", maybe that's not altogether a good thing.)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  More choices increases uncertainty, hence it increases risk. It doesn't mitigate it. But count55, I like everything else you wrote.
                  You forgot to finish with "see: Jonathan Bender".

                  Having more options still on the table is great, but a higher pick means higher risk-reward as Putnam says. That's why with Granger we say "it was the obvious pick". Sucks to not get credit for it but the fact is they didn't have the #3 on the line. Compare that to the Manning/Leaf choice. Without that top pick you can't get Manning, but if you picked 5 you also didn't pick Leaf over Manning (or lots of other players).


                  I guess with the draft you have to sincerely ask who you trust more, Bird getting it right or a few other GMs getting it wrong before it gets to Bird. I like Shawne and that wasn't a no-brainer, but even still I think the jury is still out. This is the first real deal out on the table, just as his rep for dealing is about to start getting accumulated this summer for better or worse.


                  This, of course, based on the premise that NBA talent scouting, as inexact a science as it may be, is at least directionally correct in it's overall assessment of players in the draft.)
                  Good overall response, and on this quote the stats sure back up the fact that they are directionally correct. There is noise but the curve of potential success does peak at the #1 pick and slope quickly down, somewhat exponentially even.

                  I've posted it before, I think from 82 Games, but there is one thing to being 8-14, that's the sweet spot for PAY vs TALENT. Those guys tend to overplay their rookie deals. There is a premium for the extra talent that comes at 1-6 or so. Of course that's not going to make or break a team financially. It's just a small bit of sunshine for a team drafting out of the top slots.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-30-2008, 12:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                    ^^^^


                    Originally posted by count55
                    I guess the problem here is the use of risk. David Harrison was arguably a good draft pick at 29 because you really weren't expecting much out of the pick. If he didn't pan out, there was no real loss. I probably should have said "increases your chances" rather than "mitigates your risk".

                    Exactly right. David Harrison was a good draft pick, who turned out to be a crappy NBA player. A lot of people think they can apply hindsight and declare Harrison a mistake. But you can't. Even though there were questions about him from college, Harrison was still the right guy to pick at that moment. He flopped, but no one knew he was going to flop on draft night.
                    Last edited by Putnam; 03-30-2008, 12:44 PM.
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                      Dog ball sixteen jumped tornado orange across potato basket.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                        Which comes first, fans not caring or the media telling them they don't care.

                        I'm sorry, I don't think this is much of a compliment to the players at all. It's more of slap to anyone who cares about the rest of the season - fans and players alike.

                        I guess we need a "Bob Kravitz's Things We All Should Care About" list so we can make sure we're in synch and all just waiiting for football season to start.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          Dog ball sixteen jumped tornado orange across potato basket.
                          What is this, a Family Guy plot line?


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                            Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                            Dog ball sixteen jumped tornado orange across potato basket.
                            Is that how Stern is going to fix the lottery for the Knicks this year? Clever.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                              Originally posted by Irk Woodsman View Post
                              Knowing that these guys are trying makes me proud to be a Pacer fan. If the players want to make it, I'm not going to wish them bad luck just for lottery balls. Tanking is low-class, it was hilarious when Boston ended up not getting the #1 last year (even though the offseason worked out pretty well for them).
                              I think a lot of us agree with you here. I just picked up tickets to 2 more games, 1 of which I had tix that I'm moving to a friend who hasn't been able to get to a game this year (age).

                              Look, this is what we do - Pacers, 500, Colts. I know there are Reds fans who drive over, supporters of the college or HS sports of all varieties, plenty of Brickyard fans (toss that into the "500" category), Indians, Ice, whatever. But those are the big 3 things that Indy sports SHOULD revolve around.

                              It's winter, that's Pacers. Period. I honestly don't get how you can't care. That's not the same as thinking they will win or even liking the current roster. But "not liking" is caring, being bummed about the losing is caring.

                              My go-to example here is Peck just because I know him and see him at tons of games. He's not sunshining at all right now, but he cares. He cares about the parts he wants changed, he cares about the hopes being low or high.

                              I wish Bob had taken the angle that the city does (or should) care and is bummed about the current situation. Or hell, if he likes the draft so much then where is his "here comes the draft, have you been watching the prospects in the tourney" article.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Kravitz: Pacers' effort noble . . . but not real smart

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                Dog ball sixteen jumped tornado orange across potato basket.
                                Note to self: Wiki "potato baskets", get oranges at store, walk neighbor's dog while they are on vacation


                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                Is that how Stern is going to fix the lottery for the Knicks this year? Clever.
                                Yep, pictures on the back of the envelopes. We get "tornado" obviously and somehow just when he is about to pick it up he'll switch to the one with a dog on it which naturally represents the Knicks, though personally I'd label them potatoes.
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-30-2008, 12:59 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X