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 still digging out of '06 draft

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

  • Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

    I'm no fan of Larry Bird, but once again Bob has way overstated his case here. To suggest that Shawne was a "horrendous choice" isn't fair - I mean he was the 17th pick - half of those picks are out of the NBA within 5 years - very few ever turn into starters. And none of the players taken after Shawne will ever be star players - or anything close to star players.

    Oh, I love it how he is saying the pacers should have shown a little more patience with him - really Bob - would you have said that after his next incident?



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

    October 15, 2008


    Pacers still digging out of '06 draft


    Here is a list of all the players the Indiana Pacers have to show for their fine work in the 2006 NBA draft:

    Well, unless you count 106-year-old Eddie Jones, who was acquired in last week's Shawne Williams trade and seems less enthusiastic about coming to Indianapolis than, say, Mike Tyson.

    The story here isn't Williams, who was a complete bust on and off the court and a horrendous choice for the Pacers at No. 17.

    The story here is team president Larry Bird, who will carry this draft like an albatross until he shows he can turn around this franchise. As much as some of us like what Bird has done this summer, ridding the team of virtually every last remnant of the TrailPacers, that 2006 draft will remain on his record.

    He took Williams at No. 17. And he moved up in the second round to take James White with the first pick in the second round, then gave the kid an unnecessary guaranteed contract, only to see him fail to get out of training camp. "Which," Bird acknowledged the other day, "we knew would look bad."

    The '06 draft qualifies as the biggest swing-and-a-whiff in recent Pacers history. It's the kind of oh-fer a franchise on the rebound can't afford, the kind of miscue that gets team presidents -- even Hoosier legend-turned-team-president -- fired.

    In case you were wondering about players who were chosen after Williams, here you go: Rajon Rondo at No. 21. Marcus Williams at No. 22. Kyle Lowry at No. 24. Jordan Farmar at No. 26. Paul Millsap at No. 47 in the second round. Leon Powe at No. 49 in the second round. And these are just the 2006 draftees who have made their mark within two years of entering the league.

    At this point in the game, it made sense to move Williams, even if it wasn't going to cost the Pacers much to keep him around and wait for the light to go on. The fact is, he wasn't going to play, not with Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy, Brandon Rush and the rest of the crowd they have at the swingman positions. And he wasn't going to be happy sitting on the bench, especially during the final year of a contract that the Pacers had no intention of extending.

    Instead of losing him for nothing at season's end, the Pacers got next-to-nothing, notably a veteran who doesn't want to be here, two second-rounders (who only matter if they're used well) and some cash. The hope is, the cash will help make the Jamaal Tinsley trade work for the Denver Nuggets; Bird recently said, "That's in Denver's hands right now."

    At first blush, my thought was, why not show a little more patience with Williams? He's only in his third season, which would make him a senior in college. Guys grow up, and some of them even quit hanging around with accused murderers. Heaven knows, Williams has some serious talent, even if he's not quite as good as he thinks he is and doesn't know much about work ethic.

    But you put some things together, and it makes sense. Like the fact he never stopped hanging around the wrong people, even when he was embarrassing the organization. Like the fact he didn't get into the kind of condition the Pacers wanted him in this summer. Like the fact he was often at odds with coach Jim O'Brien about a lack of playing time.

    Bottom line, he wasn't going to become the kind of player Bird thought he saw when Williams was in college for that one year at Memphis.

    The epitaph on the 2006 draft? A disaster.

    "When Scottie Pippen went from being an average young guy to blossoming into Scottie Pippen, he said that everything changed when he first started to think about basketball all the time," O'Brien said. "He said once he thought about how he slept, about nutrition, about what he did in the offseason, that's when he became an excellent player. If people only think about basketball when they come in the locker room and lace them up, that's not enough."

    That, regrettably, was the case with Williams, who wasn't in top shape this camp and only worked out in Indianapolis less than a quarter of the summer, according to O'Brien.

    How could Bird have anticipated that Williams was going to be a less-than-fully-committed draft choice?

    Listen, that's why they pay Bird the big bucks, why some general managers get it and some don't. A personnel man has to know as much about a potential draftee's internal fire as his external talents. Bird and the Pacers missed badly on two picks in 2006, two mistakes that a rebuilding team can't make.

    The 2008 class of Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert better be the real deal, or Bird will be back on the golf course sooner rather than later.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-15-2008, 08:18 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

    Hum, this sounds like something that was posted on this forum last week!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

      I've been saying he was an awful choice since we made it, I think it IS fair. There were 3 legit point guard options there, and 2 of them have proven to be far superior players than Shawn. Bird should have drafted Rondo or Farmar, we'd be better off for it. If Bird had drafted the PG Williams I could see a legit defense, but he drafted a far too young, unproven player who played a position we had no need for. Terrible pick.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

        Don't get me wrong, Williams as it turns out was the wrong pick. But it isn't like Chris Paul or Deron Williams was available. Rhondo, Williams or Farmar - are not that good

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

          This is recycled garbage. Kravitz really shouldn't be allowed to talk about the Pacers or the NBA in general, it usually seems like he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

          "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

            Sure, the 2006 draft was botched, but needs to get over it.

            How about some positivity towards the good guys we have now. This is an
            entirely different team going in an entirely different direction than what we
            had going into the 2006 draft.

            Those picks didn't work out, they are not here, that was then, this is now.

            Move on Kravitz....chit happens.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

              Kavitz gets two thumbs down from me on this one.

              The first thumb is for speaking out of both sides of his mouth in the same article, and the second is for doing what I think others predicted he would do: Be critical about the Pacers keeping the "bad eggs", and then turn around and be critical of trading the "bad eggs".

              If I had a third thumb, it would be down, too, because I think he's making more out of it than should be.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

                kravitz is an idiot. heard him complaining about this monday on the radio. to suggest that the players we "passed on" are anything more than average to decent role players at the moment just shows how little knowledge he possesses about the nba.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

                  Look, the 2006 draft was a failure by every measure. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, though it doesn't accomplish much of anything.

                  Here's my problem with Kravitz here: He basically sandbagged Bird. Bird's quotes are taken directly from an interview Bird had on Monday...with Kravitz and Eddie. So, Bob sits mute during the interview, swallowing basically all of these criticisms, then trashes Bird in print two days later. I am not impressed by that particular tactic.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    I am not impressed by that particular tactic.
                    That tactic, indeed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

                      Bird likes to needle Bob and that article is just a chance to be vindictive. Not very professional in my opinion.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

                        Originally posted by DanGrangerPwrRanger View Post
                        This is recycled garbage. Kravitz really shouldn't be allowed to talk about the Pacers or the NBA in general, it usually seems like he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
                        So, you think the Pacers should have kept Williams & White, or what?

                        I think he has hit it pretty much on the nose. Maybe he overstated it a bit, but you can hardly call the legacy of that draft a success. Bird himself had spoken about being tired of getting the younger players (high school or very young college players), and wanting players with a bit more maturity or experience.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

                          Why do we still care about Rondo or Farmar? Ford is a much better PG than either of them.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

                            Buck, if you'd seen Williams in college, you might have been more inclined to feel it was a horrible pick. But Kravitz is an idiot, so what does it matter.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft

                              Kravitz is wrong on several fronts, most of which have been pointed out already. Personally, I don't think Shawne was a bad choice. He had/has more potential than any of the guys drafted after him that Kravitz mentions. I don't think it's fair to slam Bird for his failure to accurately gauge Shawne's poor work ethic.

                              As for the James White pick, it didn't work out. I still like that we saw a guy we liked and went after him aggressively.

                              If you can find a GM in the NBA that hasn't blown a draft pick in his career, let me know who he is.
                              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                              - Salman Rushdie

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X