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 - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #1

    Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

    I'm a bit hesitant to post this, because I'm sure it will just turn into another Kravitz bashing. However, if you take a step back and think about this from a non-Pacer fanatic angle, he is exactly right.

    It was a low blow by Bird. As a basketball executive, he hasn't earned that kind of leeway, in my opinion.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...IndyStar.com|s

    Originally posted by Bob Kravitz, Indy Star

    This is a term you rarely hear in French Lick, but it applies to Larry Bird: The man has chutzpah.

    How else do you explain his statement that he would consider returning as Indiana Pacers president of basketball operations if owner Herb Simon, who has always been generous with Bird and the franchise, is willing to spend the cash necessary to improve the team?

    It's OK to have those private concerns; it's not OK to go public with them. It's wrong from a personal standpoint -- Simon has been extraordinarily good to Bird -- and it's wrong from a business standpoint, sucking the air out of the room after the team's energizing late-season improvement.

    I like Bird immensely, appreciate his accessibility and honesty, but when did his team play in the Eastern Conference finals? Did I miss something? In the last year of The Plan, Bird's team won a sub- mediocre 37 games and only made the playoffs because the Eastern Conference stinks.

    The truth is, if the Pacers were in the West -- in which case, they probably wouldn't have won 37 games -- Indiana would have missed the playoffs and everybody would be calling for Bird to pack his bags.

    Now he's talking like he's Pat Riley or even Memphis' Chris Wallace: I might think about coming back, but only if you give me some assurances.

    Really?

    Even if Bird's concerns are valid -- though it's never been my sense that Simon is hiding the checkbook -- this isn't something you drop on your owner in a public setting.

    Simon gave Bird the go-ahead to extend Rick Carlisle's contract, and Carlisle was fired. Simon let him extend Jim O'Brien's contract, and O'Brien was fired. Bird has been given money to spend, and when he hasn't spent it wisely, Simon has kept his opinion out of the public domain.

    The owner has been immensely patient with Bird and his front office. Patient with lousy draft choices like Shawne Williams and Brandon Rush (who got a contract extension for reasons that elude me). Patient with free agents who never made much of a contribution, like Sarunas Jasikevicius and Travis Diener. Patient with mistakes like giving two second-round choices, James White and Lance Stephenson, guaranteed contracts. (White never made it out of training camp; Stephenson is, without question, the most despised player in that locker room.) Patient with the coaching changes, the way he jettisoned Carlisle too quickly -- how's Rick doing, by the way? -- and stayed too long with O'Brien.

    I've written that Bird has earned the right to make his own call, specifically because he has stuck by his long-term plan and helped the Pacers out of salary-cap purgatory. He's done good things: drafting Danny Granger and Paul George; getting rid of Jermaine O'Neal's contract while getting Roy Hibbert; dealing for Darren Collison.

    It's been a mixed bag, slightly more good than bad.

    But if Simon came out today and said of his front office, "It's time for a change," I'd have a hard time arguing. Especially after Bird, who doesn't have much in the way of leverage here, tossed him under the minivan last week. Simon told WTHR he was "disappointed" by the comments. If I was his boss, I'd be enraged and even hurt.

    That will be a very interesting meeting between Simon and Bird on Tuesday in Los Angeles, and something needs to be settled, one way or the other, very quickly.

    The coaching situation has to be settled. The free agency game plan has to be put together (and yes, Nene said he was thinking of opting out of his deal and yes, he would be a perfect fit here).

    I would say this to Bird: Either you're all in or you're out.

    That's what Reggie Miller told me the night he decided to remain retired and not join the Boston Celtics for what ended up being a championship run.

    That's what I wrote about Tony Dungy before he decided to retire as Colts coach. He wanted to continue flying back and forth from Tampa, Fla., where his family lived. Either you're all in or you're out.

    No halfway measures.

    It's gotten even stranger in recent days, with the report that Jim Morris, Simon's right-hand man, reached out to San Antonio executive Dennis Lindsey. Lindsey properly told him he had no interest in talking to the Pacers while Bird and general manager David Morway were still employed.

    Why would anybody have Morris, who knows as much about basketball as I do Vietnamese cooking, contact prospective general manager candidates?

    Everything seemed to be making perfect sense as the Pacers pushed the Bulls to the edge in four out of the five playoff games, but now, there's just confusion. Does Larry want to come back? Does Herb want Larry back, especially after the way Larry did him last week?

    The Pacers seemed to turn the corner recently, only to get lost again.

    Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or email bob.kravitz@indystar.com. You can also follow Bob on Twitter at @bkravitz.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

    Yes Kravitz bashing is in again because Bob shows his ignorance of the Pacers again. He writes pieces that are either fluff or gruff, never something that really has insight.

    There's actually a good article here but Bob's not up on the Pacers enough to know that. All along the Simon's have spent money, and it was well known by hardcore Pacer fans that Herb would spend up to the tax line. Bird knows that too, so the question is why would Bird want to know if Herb would continue to spend money? Find the answer to that and you have a story.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 05-04-2011, 08:17 AM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

      I do agree in principle of what is talking about. The public demand was no worse than JO demanding more touches.

      But I do have issue with 's assessments on some of his transactions:

      Travis Diener- Was he botched? Or could he have been a decent backup and third stringer. Was it such a torrid signing?

      the way he jettisoned Carlisle too quickly
      I am not going to dig up his articles, but I am pretty sure that Bob was on board with letting Rick go. I mean it was like we did Rick a favor, saving him from the babies that were on our team. It was time for a change, even though he was a good coach.

      Brandon Rush- I wouldn't call him a horrible draft choice. I would call him a good pick that has gone sour.

      But Bird needs to be called into account of three trade deadline botches. If that happens regularly then we need to do a better job of keeping it private like the other teams.

      All in all if we hired someone else I would not care all that much. It is not like Bird has done a horrible job, but has he done a stellar job?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

        Stephenson is, without question, the most despised player in that locker room.
        Kid is going to fk himself right out of the league and will have no one to blame but himself

        It will be sad if Lance finally "gets it" but its too late

        I look at someone like Lance , with the god given talent I would give my right you know what for

        Yet instead of busting his hump, he seems to go out of his way to make people not like him. In two years he will have made over 1 and a half MILLION dollars

        In 12 years of working , I dont think I have made near that amount

        **** Lance

        Sittin on top of the world!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          Yes Kravitz bashing is in again because Bob shows his ignorance of the Pacers again. He writes pieces that are either fluff or gruff, never something that really has insight.

          There's actually a good article here but Bob's not up on the Pacers enough to know that. All along the Simon's have spent money, and it was well known by hardcore Pacer fans that Herb would spend up to the tax line. Bird knows that too, so the question is why would Bird want to know if Herb would continue to spend money? Find the answer to that and you have a story.
          It isn't "finding the answer" that Kravitz is writing about. The "answer" is not the point of the story. The subject of the article is Bird's talking about it in the media. As I said in another thread, if Bird has a question about whether Simon will or won't spend (Which I doubt he really questions.), it is a subject that should be dealt with privately, between the two of them. Not in a press conference. Especially, with this following so closely on the heels of the team asking the city for more money.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

            I just wish we knew what the hell was going on.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              I just wish we knew what the hell was going on.
              I just wish I thought they knew what the hell was going on.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

                I agree with Kravy. Bird was wrong, makes me wonder why he did it, maybe he was just be 100% honest, or maybe he was trying to force Herb to make a decision.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

                  As soon as I read the part about Nene being the perfect fit for the Pacers, I knew where Kravitz got that idea...... PD. I for one want to thank you Bob for getting much of your Pacer BB insight from US on PD!

                  There has to be something in the background that hasn't surfaced as to why Bird made his statement about Herb spending money. Does Bird know something we don't? He must be upset by going public with the statement.


                  Simon doesn't want to spend money b/c he wants to sell the team?

                  Was Bird was referring to Herb wanting to cut Bird's salary substantially?

                  Bird feels he needs more money to hire more/different FO personel.

                  Is this a shot at Herb b/c Bird knows Herb is going to go a different direction in the FO?

                  Not being a Bird the FO fan, I have to admit this is what I feel is totally out of character for Bird to do and say. Something is amiss for Bird to go public. Maybe Bird is too prideful to say he wants out, and is trying to force Herb to let him go. I really have no clue as to what is going on, and I imagine only a few do. AND Kravitz ain't one of them! As soon as we find out Bob, you can get your info here on PD for your article about it.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    Yes Kravitz bashing is in again because Bob shows his ignorance of the Pacers again. He writes pieces that are either fluff or gruff, never something that really has insight.

                    There's actually a good article here but Bob's not up on the Pacers enough to know that. All along the Simon's have spent money, and it was well known by hardcore Pacer fans that Herb would spend up to the tax line. Bird knows that too, so the question is why would Bird want to know if Herb would continue to spend money? Find the answer to that and you have a story.
                    Apparently money is an issue. Maybe because of poor attendance and the collective bargaining agreement Mr Simon has finally reached his limit. I am sure he has the money but not from the Pacers business. If it is losing money year after year that needs to be delt with in the next CBA.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

                      The recent floods must have drowned the pod in 's basement. The REAL Bob is back.

                      Yes, it is a bizarre chain of events, but at what point does some reporter (and, yes, I know, Kravitz is a columnist who doesn't have to do any real digging, just spout off. How does a guy apply for that gig?) decide to approach this like a news story and actually ASK SOME QUESTIONS instead of just making guesses that look at the worst possible motivations so the pot can be stirred.

                      Hicks, get PD some press creds and I'LL go ask the questions.
                      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

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

                        Bob writes anything negative about the Pacers = Terrible column, he doesn't know how to do his job. Kravitz is a terrible columnist.

                        Bob writes anything positive about the Pacers = Great column, what's wrong with Kravitz?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          Bob writes anything negative about the Pacers = Terrible column, he doesn't know how to do his job. Kravitz is a terrible columnist.

                          Bob writes anything positive about the Pacers = Great column, what's wrong with Kravitz?
                          Considering the second happens so seldom, why wouldn't it be treated like an exception?

                          Though I think I've never said Kravitz was a terrible "columnist", I just bemoan the lack of accountability to actual fact. I'd prefer a reporter, especially since Wells seems to have changed into a "twitterist" (like a columnist without needing to write as much to stir the pot).

                          Can we please get a real sports reporter rather than a bunch of people trying to be the latest to promote their own opinions? At this point, it's guys hamstrung by PR positions like Brunner (no matter what he writes it is going to be considered biased) vs. guys like Kravitz and Wells who want to play contrarian and get folks to freak out over something.
                          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

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post


                            Hicks, get PD some press creds and I'LL go ask the questions.

                            Great suggestion!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz - Bird wrong to go public with demands to Simon

                              I thought, when I started reading this thread, I'd be in the minority of thinking it was a good column and agreeing with Kravitz. I guess it's kinda split.

                              I agree. The point wasn't about the answers to these questions, but about Bird going public after more or less seeing his squad luck its way into the playoffs. Apparently he wants champ contender compensation despite the fact that the Pacers only really made the playoffs by default. As exciting as the run was and bright as the future may be, the Pacers could have just as easily not made the playoffs this year. They are a little more than their record says they are...but we shouldn't pretend they're a lot more, or that Bird has been an elite PBO.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                              Working...
                              X