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

A Quinn Buckner Q&A of Olympic Proportions

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

    A Quinn Buckner Q&A of Olympic Proportions

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/buckner_q&a_040817.html

    In addition to his duties as the Vice President of Communications for Pacers Sports & Entertainment and analyst on the Pacers’ television broadcasts, Quinn Buckner also serves on the USA Basketball Executive Committee as Vice President for Men’s Programs. The former Indiana University star was a captain of the 1976 U.S. Olympic team that won the gold medal in Montreal.



    Q. As Vice President for Men’s Programs with USA Basketball, what are your primary areas of responsibility?

    A. The job includes all of the men’s programs from the Senior National Team, which is the Olympic team, our collegiate and under-21 teams, and we have a development festival. This year, in addition to high school seniors, we went down to the freshmen and sophomores for the first time in what we’re calling a developmental camp. We had a camp in New York and what we’re trying to do is get the fundamentals back in the game. We’re trying to do it in two facets. We’re trying to teach the young people about the fundamentals but we also think an area of concern, without being disparaging, is coaching. Who’s coaching the kids? We had Pete Newell, the great coach from the 1960 Olympic team, headline that for us and we’re looking to expand that this coming season.

    Q. How would you characterize the current struggles the U.S. team has had with its well-publicized exhibition loss to Italy and Olympic opening-round loss to Puerto Rico? Have you seen this coming? Is it an aberration?

    A. It’s a byproduct of the original Dream Team. That team inspired a lot of international players, and that’s good for basketball. The tough part about it is I’m not sure all of the American players, the NBA included, appreciate how much it inspired them. In 2000, we almost lost to Lithuania (an 85-83 victory). We knew that was a problem. We came to Indianapolis and finished sixth in the 2002 World Championship (losing to Argentina, Yugoslavia and Spain). So it was very evident the gap was closing. We don’t have a national team, so different people are filling the gaps, so they’re not responding in unity. That’s part of it. The other part of it, frankly, is they’re two different games. The international game is more structured toward a real group dynamic – share it, screen, get something for the other person. The NBA game, because of the talent level of the individuals, is geared more toward two-on-two or three-on-three but to a lesser degree five-on-five. That’s a real adjustment. Going into the international game with different rules, playing a different game in different venues, the U.S. has to make a bigger adjustment than the international competition.

    Q. To address the issue of team unity, USA Basketball decided in 2003 to name a “core group” of players that would comprise the nucleus of the U.S. rosters for international competitions. But because of injuries and withdrawals, only one of the original four players named to that group (Tim Duncan) is in Athens (the others were Tracy McGrady, Jason Kidd and Ray Allen). Only three players from the 2003 team that qualified for the Olympics by winning the Tournament of the Americas in Puerto Rico last summer (Duncan, Allen Iverson and Richard Jefferson) are in Athens. Is that lack of continuity also a problem?

    A. The world has changed. The basketball world was not unaffected by 9/11. We thought we had it pretty well situated and guys were comfortable. But we had a sense in Puerto Rico that there were growing concerns about how guys were going to go forward because of security issues, and you can’t blame them. Though you may or may not have (the same concerns), you can’t blame them because they have families and they have legitimate issues.

    Q. Though the publicity generated by the loss to Puerto Rico has been negative, can it in some way be used to help achieve a greater long-term good?

    A. I think it’s good for basketball. I really do. I know I’m sitting here in a USA Basketball position, but I think it’s good for the sport. We exported the game internationally. They’re very good students, they learned it and they gave it back to us. Now the question is, do we rise again? So it fosters a higher level of play all the way up the basketball chain. It forces everybody to look at what we don’t do well in the country. I wouldn’t be surprised if we hear a lot more about ramping up that developmental camp process because part of what you see is the inability to knock down a fundamental jump shot and the recognition of what to do against a zone defense. It’s really fundamental basketball. All of those things come under scrutiny, and they should, so I think it’s good for basketball.

    Q. What needs to change in terms of structure in the U.S., to address the current problems?

    A. We’ve got to look at the way we put the team together and the whole training period. Do we consider trials? You have to ask those questions. If you go with the top 10 players on the All-NBA team, you may be able to get away with two or three weeks of practice. But if you don’t get seven of those guys, you’ve got to figure out where the balance is. If you do any less than that, you’re not being realistic about the challenge. These international teams play better at their style of basketball than the U.S. does. It’s just that simple.

    Q. Would going back to the old system using college players rather than NBA players be considered?

    A. It can’t work. College players are just not good enough. Go back to the time when you were a freshman in college, then think about when you were 25 and compare the difference emotionally and physically. And because of a lot of the really good players are leaving college early or not going to college, you’re further down in terms of where you are on the talent pyramid. The skill level wouldn’t be high enough, and you’re talking about boys going against men who have played the international game for some time. I don’t think we go back.

    Q. Could a potential solution include broadening the authority of USA Basketball as a true governing body of American basketball?

    A. Structurally, every basketball governing body is under USA Basketball, so it might be the right umbrella. I think what we have to do is provide the venue for the NCAA, high school federations and the NBA to come together. It’s going to be a slow process, but that’s really what we’re trying to do. I think we have a systemic problem in basketball, in the way the young people are brought up through the system. They’re brought up basically just trying to get ahead, not learning how to play basketball. We have to find a way to stem that, because that’s why fundamentals are down.

    Q. Though there was a brief uproar after the 2002 World Basketball Championship, and it has rekindled, will losing in the Olympics shake us enough that we truly re-evaluate how basketball is developed in this country?

    A. The reaction that I’ve gotten in the last few days over losing in the Olympics suggests to me there is a great deal of passion about how people feel about basketball, particularly our basketball as it relates to the United States in the Olympics. So yes, I do think it will make a difference. I expect us to get more calls about how USA Basketball can be a more effective body in helping direct the system as I see it back in the direction it was when Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley took it to the pinnacle. Since then, I don’t know if we’ve been on a decline, but everyone else has been on an incline toward us.

    Q. Are we still the best in the world in basketball?

    A. Yes. If we put our best five out against the best five in the world, I firmly believe we’re the best. But when you start down the talent pyramid, the gap closes.
    Tags: None
Previous template Next
Working...
X