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

Sam Smith wrotes for Bulls.com - Conrad Brunner for pacers.com

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

  • Sam Smith wrotes for Bulls.com - Conrad Brunner for pacers.com

    I found this interesting and wondered if Conrad Bruner has a similar set-up with pacers.com. I tend to think he doesn't.

    This seems to bhe a growing trend as several big time newspaper writers are now working for Yahoo.com and I expect the trend to continue


    http://www.cjr.org/reports/the_smith_rules.php?page=1


    The Smith Rules

    Sam Smith covers the Chicago Bulls—for the Bulls
    By Daniel Libit


    Sam Smith says he’s living out the “ultimate journalistic fantasy” after leaving the news business. The former Chicago Tribune sports writer, who gained a national following—and, at times, citywide scorn—for his relentless, guileless coverage of the Chicago Bulls during the Michael Jordan era, is blogging hard again about the Bulls—for the Bulls.

    It’s an odd wedlock, to be sure, and one that justifiably arouses suspicions about what the writer had to give up in order to keep practicing his trade. To hear Smith tell it, he has bridged the holy divide between journalism and public relations with his integrity and incredulousness intact, and with more freedom than he had before. Of course, things are glorious in Chicago these days, with the Bulls enjoying their best season since Michael Jordan won his sixth championship in 1998, so the team and its blogger-in-chief acknowledge that their relationship isn’t currently being stress-tested.

    In March, when I met the sixty-three-year-old Smith near his home in Aurora, Illinois, he had just returned from Miami, where the Bulls’ season-sweeping road victory over the Heat had sent him off on a 2,365-word soliloquy. It was a typical Smith offering: long and obscenely thorough, less a recap than an elucidation of the season as seen through the various subplots of a single game. Among the many things he enjoys, post-newspaper, is that there’s no editor to chop up his sentences. “Now, if you read me you know me a little better,” Smith says, “because now you can hear my voice better.”

    This is not the first time that Smith has gone against the conventional wisdom of his beat. In 1993, he cemented his status as the doyen of Bulls sportswriters with his best-selling book, The Jordan Rules, which painted a detailed and not always flattering account of Michael Jordan in his first championship run. By revealing the superstar’s petulant and spiteful side, Smith broke something of a sacred vow in Chicago media—Thou shall not blaspheme His Airness—and became the target of criticism from some fans and fellow reporters alike. Among the latter, some knocked Smith for saving his goods for a book, as opposed to putting them in the paper, while others condemned him for simply publishing them at all.

    Smith has no regrets for the things he put in the book and the things he didn’t. “The day The Jordan Rules came out,” he recalls, “I walked up to Jordan in the locker room and said, ‘I just want to let you know if you have any problems with anything, I am glad to talk about it, but I’m going to keep being here.’ And to me, that was the thing about The Jordan Rules: I didn’t write a book and go away. I wrote a book and came back.”

    Indeed, over the next two decades, Smith served as the Tribune’s NBA writer, where he continued to burnish his name with a raconteur’s accounting of trade deals and coaching hires and general league skullduggery. Smith sometimes seemed to write more of what was going on around the NBA than what many team executives knew.

    Smith’s former colleagues and competitors say they haven’t noticed a change in his writing now, or any evidence of suppression, and roundly say that if you still want to read the best Bulls stuff around—hell, the best NBA stuff around—you better check out Sam Smith.

    Only once before in his career had Smith considered crossing the line into the realm of public relations. After starting out as a city hall reporter for the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, he decided to go to Washington to cover politics. He worked for three years at an upstart newswire service, but left after a falling out with the owner. While hunting for new employment, he was offered a job as Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker’s press secretary. Smith liked Weicker—a Rockefeller Republican whose jousts with the Nixon White House earned him the nickname, “The White Knight of Watergate”—but was leery about the job. “The notion then was that if you went to the inside you could never get back out, that you were compromised,” he says.

    But figuring that as long as he didn’t stay in it too long “it wouldn’t taint” him, he took the job, and, among other things, began squiring leaks from the senator to the columnist Jack Anderson. Five months later, the Tribune called with an offer in Chicago and Smith came aboard the general assignment desk. Eventually, he asked to be put on sports, where he hoped to carve out a niche covering pro basketball in a town ruled by baseball and football. And he did.

    After twenty-five years at the Tribune, Smith’s exit came abruptly in the spring of 2008. He says that Mike Kellams, then the Tribune’s assistant sports editor, raised a vague formal complaint about him to then managing editor George de Lama, and Smith was summoned to the “principal’s office.” Nothing much came of this, Smith says, but he read it as writing on the wall. “I loved the job,” he says, “but I came to hate where I was doing it.” Kellams, now the paper’s associate managing editor for sports, has a different recollection of events and says he was never under the impression that Smith felt forced out. In any event, Smith moved to Phoenix, where he did some freelance work. As months passed without a job offer, he reached out first to an NBA team he will not name, and then to the Bulls, asking if he could be of service.

    Back in Chicago, Steve Schanwald, the Bulls’ executive vice president of business operations, was confronting the shrinkage of the Chicago sports-journalism scene. “When the Tribune started to cut back, as when all sports sections were cutting back, we felt it was leaving a void for us to effectively market our product as we had in the past,” says Schanwald. After receiving Smith’s e-mail, Schanwald immediately invited him to Chicago. Smith was hired on a two-year deal as an independent contractor, and was told to carry on just as he had done before. According to his contract, there would be no constraints or interference from Bulls brass; his work would appear on the Bulls website and Smith would get the final say on everything he wrote.

    The only thing the team insisted on was that a disclaimer appear on each of his pieces, spelling out his editorial independence and lack of special access. “I just think it is important for anybody who reads what he writes to know that Sam is not a mouthpiece,” says Schanwald. “I think it is important for other colleagues in the NBA, when he writes about other players or rumors, to know they aren’t coming from the Bulls organization.” While Smith refused to discuss the details, within his first month on the job the disclaimer was moved from the bottom to the top of the page after another NBA team raised an issue about something he had written.

    Three years later, the team says it couldn’t be happier providing one of its most vigilant followers editorial independence on its own web platform. And the returns have been noticeable: the Bulls’ website’s pageviews increased 8 percent the first year of Smith’s blog, which, according to the team, currently accounts for 13 percent of its web traffic.

    In recent decades, a number of ex-sportswriters have left newspapers for communications and PR jobs with the teams they once covered. Smith not infrequently hears from them and their reaction is usually the same: there is no way in hell my team would let me do what you do.

    Schanwald thinks that if not for Smith, he could have made a similar arrangement with another sportswriter. But Bill Adee, a former Tribune and Sun-Times sports editor, is not so sure. “Here is a guy who was well established as a personality in town, and especially one that would take controversial stands,” says Adee, who now runs Tribune Company’s digital side. “So, I think Sam is in a different boat.”

    What if the Bulls’ charmed record takes a turn for the worse next season, and Smith’s coverage turns harder? “Sam wouldn’t be writing anything that talk show hosts wouldn’t be saying, that people wouldn’t be writing in newspapers in town,” says Schanwald. Smith points out that things weren’t so peachy in 2008, when the Bulls, following a season in which they finished .500 and fired their head coach, first reached out to him. And he adds: “If I were writing things that were offensive to the Bulls, I’m sure it would be an issue. But I never felt I was doing that anyway, even when I wrote The Jordan Rules.”

    So is Smith influenced by the entity that signs his checks? Adee thinks Smith’s situation is no different than any other reporter’s. “Everybody has conflicts,” Adee says. “So to me, Sam’s are stated and that disclosure is very clear on the site and it is up to me to judge whether I buy that.” But Kellams, while attesting to Smith’s virtue, adds, “I don’t know if discerning fans are ever going to completely trust that stuff.”

    At the beginning of this season, Smith re-upped with the Bulls for a three-year contract. He won’t say how much he earns but says it is commensurate with what he made at the Tribune. The terms of his deal remained the same: he is contracted to cover the Bulls’ games, write an NBA notes column on Monday—just as he did at the Tribune—and answer reader mail in a Friday column. He posts game follow-ups directly to the website once he’s finished them, and the typos are all his own.

    He spends less time traveling than before, usually watching Bulls road games on TV, and has been able to avoid a lot of the scut work of latter-day beat coverage, like in-game tweeting. “I love this arrangement with the Bulls now more than anything I’ve done in sports,” he says, “because I get to write in-depth about things. It is the same concept with The Jordan Rules: I get to say what happens, but also why it happened and how it happens.”

    So far, Smith says he’s faced only one losing battle with the Bulls: he’s failed to convince the team to leak him information, in spite of multiple attempts. By being an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, Smith does not have to adhere to the restrictions the NBA places on team personnel. For example, while Bulls management is not permitted to comment on labor negotiations with the player’s union, Smith can write about them. (He recalled that at one point, the Bulls ran one of his blog items about collective bargaining by the league, just to make sure.)

    “That’s why they keep me at arm’s length,” he says. “They weren’t looking at it so much journalistically as to protect themselves from other teams. They didn’t want other teams saying this was their words in effect. They wanted deniability.”

    However it has come to be, Smith feels he’s never been freer. When Bulls executive John Paxson and former coach Vinny Del Negro got into an embarrassing scuffle last April, Smith deconstructed the entire affair on his blog.

    The same incident snagged the Tribune’s Bulls beat writer, K. C. Johnson, who was criticized after it was revealed that he knew about the fight weeks before it became public, but opted to sit on it.

    Johnson responded in print, writing that his decision was based on a “humane reason,” and not for any beat-sweetening journalistic purpose. But Smith—who claims he didn’t know about the fight until it was reported elsewhere—won’t let his former colleague off so easily. “K.C. did what every good beat writer does,” he says. “You measure your priorities.”
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-11-2011, 09:38 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Sam Smith wrotes for Bulls.com - Conrad Brunner for pacers.com

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I found this interesting and wondered if Conrad Bruner has a similar set-up with pacers.com. I tend to think he doesn't.
    I think this statement is the answer to your question.

    Originally posted by Daniel Libit's Article
    In recent decades, a number of ex-sportswriters have left newspapers for communications and PR jobs with the teams they once covered. Smith not infrequently hears from them and their reaction is usually the same: there is no way in hell my team would let me do what you do.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sam Smith wrotes for Bulls.com - Conrad Brunner for pacers.com

      http://blogs.bulls.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sam Smith wrotes for Bulls.com - Conrad Brunner for pacers.com

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        So far, Smith says he’s faced only one losing battle with the Bulls: he’s failed to convince the team to leak him information, in spite of multiple attempts. By being an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, Smith does not have to adhere to the restrictions the NBA places on team personnel. For example, while Bulls management is not permitted to comment on labor negotiations with the player’s union, Smith can write about them. (He recalled that at one point, the Bulls ran one of his blog items about collective bargaining by the league, just to make sure.)
        This is another big difference I think. Conrad is an employee of the Pacers and is privy to all sorts of stuff. Not only league stuff, but also Pacer insider info. It really would be impossible in that case to juggle PR and journalism.

        Comment

        Working...
        X