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 Says.... No Playoffs

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

    Indystar.com
    Bob Kravitz
    http://www.indystar.com/article/2009.../1034/SPORTS15

    For sure now, forget the playoffs

    Larry Bird did a very smart thing during the period leading up to Thursday's 3 p.m. NBA trading deadline.
    He did nothing.


    Well, not really nothing. He did make phone calls, did accept them, did talk various deals with other NBA teams. But when it came time to pull the trigger, the Indiana Pacers president stood pat, and for that, Pacers fans -- at least those who are capable of thinking beyond next week -- should be suitably satisfied.
    Too often in recent years, the Pacers have been forced to make bad deals under distress. They had to trade Ron Artest and walked away with a Peja Stojakovic rental. They had to trade Stephen Jackson and ended up with two solid but overpaid and untradeable players, Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy.
    Right now, the only trades out there for the Pacers are bad trades. Deals that bring in further drains on the salary cap. Deals that force them to part with cap-relievers like Rasho Nesterovic and Marquis Daniels, two guys with expiring contracts. Virtually all of the deals out there could be summed up this way:
    Our junk for their junk.
    What's the point?
    "We weren't willing to take on long-term deals with players who weren't going to be part of our core group," general manager David Morway said. ". . . We weren't going to do anything to reduce our cap flexibility, which was something we worked really hard to get and wanted to retain. If we could have added a draft pick, we would have, but teams are holding on to them for now."
    There were only three good reasons to make a deal:
    To rid the franchise of Jamaal Tinsley, the multi-million-dollar albatross.
    To add to the team's cap flexibility down the road.
    To bring in an additional draft pick.
    On all three fronts, good luck.
    Nobody is dumb and desperate enough to trade for Tinsley. Every point guard in the NBA could come down with peanut-butter-induced salmonella, and still, nobody would make the move to bring in the Tin Man.
    And with the NBA looking at a lower salary-cap and luxury-tax threshold in coming seasons, the two most valuable commodities are added cap flexibility and draft choices.
    There was no reason for the Pacers to panic and make a deal they would later regret. The record isn't what they hoped it would be, but on a lot of fronts, this season has been a relative success. They dumped Jermaine O'Neal's contract, brought seven new players into the system, established an entertaining offensive style of play and . . . no gun play or appearances on the police blotter.
    Standing pat is a difficult, counterintuitive thing for Bird, who breathes to win and has just one year left on his deal. It would have been tempting to make a deal that would have brought in a player like, say, Tyson Chandler, the defense-minded New Orleans center who might have given the Pacers a boost in the effort to earn a playoff spot.
    But what sense would that have made, short term or long term? Especially now with word that Danny Granger is going to be out of the lineup for 10 days to three weeks with a foot injury, and talk that Mike Dunleavy might not return this season?
    News flash: They're not going to make the playoffs. They weren't going to make the playoffs even before the Granger injury. The Eastern Conference is fool's gold that dupes lousy teams into thinking they can sneak into that eighth spot. They should have forgotten about the postseason a long time ago. Keep playing Roy Hibbert, who has developed into a possible core player. Play Brandon Rush, a disappointing basket case whose only chance of emerging from his shell is by getting minutes.
    Forget the fact that nobody was offering anything worthwhile to the Pacers. Ask yourself this: Who do the Pacers have who might be worthwhile to another team? And would the Pacers be willing to part with that player?
    Granger is untouchable, unless Cleveland calls and offers LeBron James.
    I wouldn't move Hibbert, who has a chance to be a solid center for years to come. I wouldn't move Rush, who's too young to be dismissed as a bust. I wouldn't move Nesterovic or Daniels, whose expiring contracts will free up roughly $15 million. The Pacers blundered by moving Austin Croshere for Daniels just when Croshere's expiring deal made him the most valuable.
    Now, one guy who is valuable to other teams and a guy I would move is Jeff Foster, and it boggles the mind to comprehend why the Pacers appear to be so keen on keeping him. Great guy, solid citizen and he plays hard, but he's a rotation player and he's starting to break down.
    In the end, it was a quiet day for the Pacers, just as it was for most of the league. That was a good thing for Indiana. A smart thing. A patient thing. This isn't about this year. It's about next year, and the years after that.

    -------------

    I seriously don't understand why he called Brandon Rush a "basket case". The kid hasn't done a damn thing to deserve something like that, or maybe I'm just reading it the wrong way.

    "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
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

    Originally posted by DanGrangerPwrRanger View Post

    I seriously don't understand why he called Brandon Rush a "basket case". The kid hasn't done a damn thing to deserve something like that, or maybe I'm just reading it the wrong way.
    I think you're taking it the wrong way... at least if you are taking it to mean "nut job" or something similar. I took it to mean Rush has lost his confidence and direction. That he's got butterflies... is a bundle of nerves... isn't sure of himself or his game any longer....etc..
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

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

    -John Wooden

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

      I wonder how much Mike Wells had to spoon feed him to be able to write this column? I think it is pretty well known that Kravitz has a pretty poor working knowledge of the NBA.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

        Yet I can't help, but agree with almost all of it.
        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

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
          I wonder how much Mike Wells had to spoon feed him to be able to write this column? I think it is pretty well known that Kravitz has a pretty poor working knowledge of the NBA.
          Mike Wells spoon-feeding him is one possibility, but the other is that Kravitz gets his info and some of his opinions from reading message boards like this. There's been a few times over the years when his comments sound eerily like those of members of this board (or the Star's board).

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

            Originally posted by lafayettepacer View Post
            Mike Wells spoon-feeding him is one possibility, but the other is that Kravitz gets his info and some of his opinions from reading message boards like this. There's been a few times over the years when his comments sound eerily like those of members of this board (or the Star's board).

            You know what funny....He gets paid.... No really I saw an AP guy on PD during a game once.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

              Mr. Obvious strikes again.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                I think you're taking it the wrong way... at least if you are taking it to mean "nut job" or something similar. I took it to mean Rush has lost his confidence and direction. That he's got butterflies... is a bundle of nerves... isn't sure of himself or his game any longer....etc..
                I agree. And I think Kravitz is putting some of the onus on JOB.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

                  I am very frightened that I actually agree with almost everything here.

                  I disagree that any of the Foster deals were lost opportunities because, as far as I can tell, we got nothing "core" from them and Foster is the last player we should trade simply because we could. I understand that many see Foster as a nutritious part of a good breakfast who is bad for you if he is the whole meal, but I think his destiny is to be the bench vet for the Pacers who helps keep the locker room stable and shows an example of a work ethic.
                  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

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

                    They could save money by simply paying for articles from freelancers from the public, and instructing them what tone / agenda they are trying to push. They would get better talent as well.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      I agree. And I think Kravitz is putting some of the onus on JOB.
                      If JOB is going to get some of the blame for Rush's problems, then JOB deserves a lot of the credit for Hibberts recent play (I think he's really improved from earlier in the season)

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

                        Playing time matters. Without consistently getting it, either no development or backsliding is likely to occur due to a lack of confidence and the struggle of adjusting to teammates tendencies while trying to execute within a system that the player is not familiar with is difficult to overcome, especially after coming from spending four years at a fundamentally sound basketball school, as both Hibbert and Rush did. Hibbert is being trusted more and is responding somewhat to that, and now we should be giving Rush a chance as well, regardless of how many mistakes he makes for a while. We should also encourage him to shoot more so that his confidence on offense that he had at Kansas is re-established. Will this occur? Time will tell.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

                          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                          Playing time matters. Without consistently getting it, either no development or backsliding is likely to occur due to a lack of confidence and the struggle of adjusting to teammates tendencies while trying to execute within a system that the player is not familiar with is difficult to overcome, especially after coming from spending four years at a fundamentally sound basketball school, as both Hibbert and Rush did. Hibbert is being trusted more and is responding somewhat to that, and now we should be giving Rush a chance as well, regardless of how many mistakes he makes for a while. We should also encourage him to shoot more so that his confidence on offense that he had at Kansas is re-established. Will this occur? Time will tell.
                          Of course, Rush got extensive playing time early in the season and has been shown more trust by JOB than Hibbert in many ways, not the least of which being the fact that O'Brien has left him on the floor with key assignments during crunch time of several games. I can't recall once Hibbert being on the floor at the end of a close game.

                          I actually think O'Brien has done a much better job with Rush than he has with Hibbert. However, Hibbert is actually responding better than Rush is. Rush has struggled with success this year, mysteriously disappearing just after it appeared he had finally put it together. (Seth will likely come along and disagree with this, but, while it is a criticism of Rush, it is not an indictment. I like Rush as a player a lot, and I still expect him to become a productive member of this franchise's future.)

                          Now, all that being said, I absolutely believe it's time, now and for the rest of the season, to basically give both all the minutes they can handle. Rush is a "basket case" in that he overthinks the game to much. He's like a golfer with the case of the yips. He doesn't have faith in his core shooting/game, so he keeps making adjustments in what he's doing, trying to find the sweet spot. Then, when it starts working, it's never long lasting because it's based on some cobbled together adjustments of turning his left foot out, opening his stance, and shortening up his backswing. In effect, his shot isn't working because he's not developing consistently good form, rather he's band-aiding and adjusting to an approach that's not sustainable.

                          That's actually the reason I still have a lot of faith in Rush. His problems are eminently correctable.

                          Anyway, I generally agree with this article, and I would consider the misuse of Rush and Hibbert for the balance of this season to be a firable offense by O'Brien.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

                            I would love to see Rush out there doing well. However, watching him play offense, I'm often thinking "what was that?". I worry that Rush just doesn't have offensive talent to really contribute. With Hibbert its different. I can see the potential and see the talent. He makes mistakes, but those can be fixed.

                            Rush really needs to work with that new shot coach. With that athleticism, he might combine an adequate jumper with power to the rim and contribute.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz Says.... No Playoffs

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              If JOB is going to get some of the blame for Rush's problems, then JOB deserves a lot of the credit for Hibberts recent play (I think he's really improved from earlier in the season)
                              UB. I was talking to one of my buddies yesterday and told him I feel Hibbert has improved his game more than anybody on our entire roster this season. I remember his first game @ the Coliseum that ended in ejection and they I watch him play against Philly on Tuesday and was impressed.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X