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

ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

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

    ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

    Anyone else noticed over the past year or two ESPN/ABC's NBA coverage has gotten a whole lot better. Gone are Bill Walton and Stephen A Smith. I think they have finally found a good studio show at ABC, Wilbon, Magic and John barry are pretty good - although Stu Scott still is annoying. Sure TNT's studio show is still a whole lot better than anything that ESPN or ABC has. But where I really see the improvement is the game broadcast. ESPN IMO is now as good as TNT's. I don't think it is by accident either as the guy who used to run TNT's NBA coverage moved over to ESPN/ABC two years ago (his name excapes me right now)

    But with Hubie Brown, and Jeff Van Gundy/Mark Jackson - they rival anything TNT has. Although I give TNT credit, I think PJ Carlisimo is excellent. But I'm sorry blast me if you want, but I think Reggie Miller is awful - I almost can't watch the games he is doing.
    Technically though I think ESPN is better than TNT - the sound I get on my TV is better on ESPN, the camera work - the replays - overall I think ESPN is better than TNT in the techincal dept.

    Here is an article discussing SAS departure
    http://usatoday.printthis.clickabili...partnerID=1662


    By Michael Hiestand, USA TODAY

    Stephen A. Smith now wants to talk to you about everything.
    And that, he says, is why his last scheduled appearance on ESPN will be Thursday morning's First Take and his last day will be Friday: "I don't want to be in a situation where I'm limited."

    Not that he's knocking ESPN. Smith says it made him offers in recent months "for an additional year or two" which he says he turned down before ESPN said simply that it was not renewing his contract. He says he won't look for new work until Friday, when he hopes he'll face "a plethora of opportunities."

    He certainly got them at ESPN, where he started in 2003 and quickly popped up on various shows. The turning point was supposed to be his own signature Quite Frankly ESPN2 talk show, which debuted in 2005 with monstrous hype even by ESPN's standards.

    At the time, Smith said he'd be "a cross between Bill O'Reilly and Larry King." (Think about that for a second. On second thought, don't.)

    Al Jaffe, who oversees ESPN's on-air hiring and had been a judge alongside Smith on ESPN's Dream Job game show, back then said Smith was "a unique talent" with "huge upside." Sports Illustrated, before the show premiered, suggested Smith was already widely recognized as "the most despised sports personality on the air today … and the final triumph of bluster and confidence over content."

    Turned out to be much ado about a show that produced next-to-nothing ratings. Now, Smith says the biggest problem was the show being shifted from its original 6:30 p.m. ET time slot to sometime around 11 p.m. ET — sometime, that is, after the live games leading into his show ended. Says Smith, of that show, which lasted 17 months: "I believe to this day if my show had a definitive time slot, it would have been more successful."

    Smith's radio show on ESPN's New York affiliate came and went and he went back to popping up on various ESPN shows. But he kept getting noticed: An online video using a sock puppet meant to imitate Smith working the NBA draft — "You must talk to me!" it insisted — became an Internet hit.

    And all that, he hopes, will lead to future on-air work he would like to include, but not solely focus on, sports.

    Could happen. Plenty of TV sports types have gone on to broaden their on-air horizons. Smith now sees them as his role models. Like Robin Roberts — "I adore her" — and Bryant Gumbel — "I idolize him." He admires Keith Olbermann, another crossover case who has a largely political talk show on MSNBC while also working NBC's NFL studio and writing columns for mlb.com. But he says his ESPN exit is nothing like Olbermann's fiery 1997 departure and is instead a matter of wanting to branch out.

    With ESPN, Smith was allowed to go on non-sports talk shows, but saw the limits to someone on ESPN dragging a famous sports brand into social or political debates: "I don't blame ESPN. It's a model that's worked for them to near-perfection. … They're the most successful sports conglomerate in American history."

    Smith, when he began Quite Frankly, said "it's not that I always agree with black folks, but it's my responsibility to give their take." That made him really stand out, since the TV sports genre is generally squeamish about touching on racial issues and would usually prefer positioning sports as a color-blind meritocracy. And the TV sports genre is also squeamish about its analysts supposedly representing ethnic groups.

    The New York Post this week opined Smith is "a self-promoting, race-based gasbag." But Smith, asked if he now sees himself primarily as a sort of spokesman, is low-key: "I'm not this voice, or that voice. But if people want to hear a perspective from the African American community that otherwise wouldn't be heard, I'd be honored to deliver that message."

    He's glad that "finally people notice I don't scream nearly as much as I used to." (That resulted from his mother Janet forcefully asking him to "explain why you have to be so loud.") But he says silence isn't an option: "My aspiration is to have my own show again. I can't express to you how hungry I am for that opportunity."
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-30-2009, 08:58 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

    I've mostly quit watching TNT's show because I don't like everyone talking over everyone. More and more shows are doing that. I switch channels every time. As for Smith, I didn't like his screaming.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      I've mostly quit watching TNT's show because I don't like everyone talking over everyone. More and more shows are doing that. I switch channels every time. As for Smith, I didn't like his screaming.
      It is like the View of NBA pregame.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
        It is like the View of NBA pregame.
        This space for rent.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

          Jesus, I never thought I would see the day when UB would say "Reggie Miller is awful". I had to gather myself after I read that. I do agree that Walton and Smith were probably two of the most annoying people on the planet. I watch most of the games with the TV muted. Reggie to me was OK because I just like the guy for what he did for Indy. He's a likable person unlike those other two.
          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

            Originally posted by aceace View Post
            Jesus, I never thought I would see the day when UB would say "Reggie Miller is awful". I had to gather myself after I read that. I do agree that Walton and Smith were probably two of the most annoying people on the planet. I watch most of the games with the TV muted. Reggie to me was OK because I just like the guy for what he did for Indy. He's a likable person unlike those other two.
            Reggie is likable. But he says "here" or "there" in every sentence. And last night he actually said "don't play no cards". And besides the grammar mistakes which are in about every sentence - he doesn't say anything beyond the obvious - although he's better in a three man team - better with Fratello than he is by himself

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

              To me Jeff Van Gundy just jumped the shark on Mike and Mike with his "let them play" opinion on Howard and Rondo's plays.

              Remember when Floyd Landis used steroids in the final stage of the Tour de France, but perhaps hadn't used them prior to that? JVG would say "hey, let that go, it's late in the race".

              I guess now in the 4th Granger should just pick up his dribble at half court and sprint in for the dunk after shoving 3 guys down. It's the final 3 minutes, gotta let the players play, don't want the game determined by refs.

              Also, now in the 4th home teams will get 9 points for every made basket rather than 2. It's late in the game, let 'em play even if we are bending the rules.


              It makes me want to have a meltdown to hear idiotic statements like that. Maybe instead players can think "hey, it's late in the game and a STUPID play now would really cost my team, I should get my act together".

              Anyway, so that makes it tough for me to respect listening to Jeff Van Gundy now. He's almost starting to sound like an NBA shill.


              Oh yeah, SAS was/is a disaster. Sports Illustrated got that one 100% right. People used to let the content do the talking.
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-30-2009, 11:57 AM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

                Originally posted by grace View Post
                Bad topic. That would inevitably lead to a "Reggie should be the coach" debate where I would have to remind people that Reggie has said he has no desire to coach. Then that would morph into people arguing about whether Reggie is any good on TNT which would lead to a poll about announcers and comentators we love/hate.
                Now all we need is for a thread about Reggie coaching and my prediction will come true.

                I'm probaby repeating myself, but I don't mind Reggie at all. Mark Jackson and JVG on the other hand I won't watch. IMO they're beyond abismal (Jeff more so than Mark).

                Now that ESPN is getting rid of SAS I'm hoping they'll ax Skip Bayless next.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

                  I'm glad that I don't have to listen to one more comment by Bill Walton about how great the LA Kobe's or the Lebrons are. If I had to hear one more word out of his mouth while clinging to Kobe's or Lebron's jock, it would be one word too many.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Reggie is likable. But he says "here" or "there" in every sentence. And last night he actually said "don't play no cards". And besides the grammar mistakes which are in about every sentence - he doesn't say anything beyond the obvious - although he's better in a three man team - better with Fratello than he is by himself
                    Emmitt Smith was fairly likable too, but he still stunk as a broadcaster (Debacled?). Of course most of us love Reggie, and I was in denial too, initially, but when he calls games, he sounds like he's forcing everything he says. Nothing he says seems fluid or natural. Not to mention what UB said about the grammar and obviousness. And I agree, he does much better in a three man team, no question.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

                      As annoying as Screaming A. is at least he was honest with his opinion or at least appeared that way I don't get that from others who obviously have agendas.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

                        I'm in the boat where I don't think Reggie is really close to a good commentator.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Tons of stuff about Jeff Van Gundy that I completely agree with....
                          I absolutely HATE JVG and Mark Jackson being paired together. I think Mark Jackson is very good. I think JVG picks very stupid things to argue with him about. The other day during one of the Pistons/Cavs games, LeBron got a step on his man where you knew no matter what the defender did it was gonna be a monster tomahawk throwdown. The defender let him go. Why bother fouling when all he's gonna do is dunk it anyway AND get the free throw? Mark Jackson said exactly that and JVG jumped all over him like he had just advocated public executions at center court. I can't stand to listen to him.
                          Last edited by travmil; 05-01-2009, 12:57 AM.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

                            I think Jeff Van Gundy is great - he points things out that I don't think about - I learn things when I watch a game he does. He's as good IMO as Collins and Hubie Brown. I think JVG is funny too

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN's NBA coverage has really improved, (Stephen A. Smith out)

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I think Jeff Van Gundy is great - he points things out that I don't think about
                              Yes, there aren't many people who wouldn't think to debate who is better dressed: Michael Curry or Mike Brown.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X