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 > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

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

  • Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

    Bigger, better East will be tough to win

    October 20, 2004

    This is not your father's Eastern Conference anymore. The NBA champions, the Detroit Pistons, come from the East. Now Shaquille O'Neal, the most dominant player in basketball when he weighs less than a bread truck, is in the East.

    Even the perennial soft touches have become competitive. Cleveland with LeBron James. Boston with Doc Rivers. Philadelphia with a healthy Allen Iverson and a coach he respects, Jim O'Brien. Even the Atlanta Hawks show signs they might awaken from their decade-long stupor. Seriously.

    The point being, the Indiana Pacers, who opened their home exhibition season Tuesday night at Conseco Fieldhouse against Minnesota, have to be better than they were last season if they want to reach the conference finals again.

    And to reach the NBA Finals?

    Not with this group as it's presently constituted. Not without picking up another useful big man some time during the season. Not if they're going to beat Detroit, which added Antonio McDyess, re-signed Rasheed Wallace and has Darko Milicic one year closer to getting off the bench. Not if they want to hope to compete with Shaq, who has stepped on Indiana's dreams before.

    Without question, most of the pieces are in place. Without question, this is a 55- to 60-win team. If their top players remain reasonably healthy, there's no reason to think the Pacers won't be fighting the Pistons and Heat for a chance to play in the Finals.

    But in my mind, team president Larry Bird and chief executive Donnie Walsh only got half the job done this offseason.

    They made a fabulous move, picking up Stephen Jackson to give them scoring at the shooting guard position and a ready heir apparent for when Reggie Miller retires.

    The other part of the job, though, needs finishing.

    They still need to get another big man to help Jermaine O'Neal, who had Wallaces hanging on him last spring like he was some kind of teen idol.

    Again, this isn't the old Eastern Conference, where Brad Miller can be an All-Star center.

    Now 'Sheed will be in Detroit the entire year. Shaq makes the Heat as big a threat as Detroit or Indiana to come out of the East.

    The Pacers' big-man options? There aren't many. Not on the current roster, anyway. (Come back, Primoz. All is forgiven.)

    Scot Pollard, who was picked up in a fruitless effort to salvage something from the Brad Miller deal, has been a non-factor.

    That leaves David Harrison, who stayed in Indy this summer and worked hard on his conditioning. But he's a rookie. And rookies, especially those picked at the back end of the first round, don't make much of an immediate impact.

    It's the only blemish on a team that is otherwise easy on the eyes.

    The Pacers need O'Neal to have another MVP-quality season. They need Ron Artest to continue to refine his game on and off the court. They need Jamaal Tinsley, who got hungry after losing his starting job last season to Kenny Anderson, to stay hungry.

    The only real mystery continues to be practice legend Jonathan Bender, who is heading into the fifth and final year of his contract and is -- yes, once again -- sidelined with an injury. He expects to return Monday.

    The Pacers have been waiting for him since he was drafted fifth overall in 1999, and it just hasn't happened. Some of it has been on Bender, but most of it, in fairness, has been the result of injuries.

    "I've learned so much about MRI's, CAT scans and parts of the body," Bender said. "I ought to be a doctor by now."

    Asked Tuesday if he's ever felt like he's turned a corner in this league, he shook his head.

    "Never, not once," he said disgustedly. "Just a couple of highlights."

    This is his best and last chance. Al Harrington is gone, but his minutes are not. The opportunity is there. It's make-or-break time.

    The Pacers can still go a long way without Bender ever developing; they had plenty of success last year without him having any sustained impact. But if he suddenly comes of age -- which means staying healthy for more than 10 minutes -- he will give Bird and Walsh a lot more options come the trading deadline.

    This year, it must be Indiana's turn to make the season-changing Rasheed-type deal.

    Because in today's Eastern Conference, size does matter.

    Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or e-mail bob.kravitz@indystar.com
    [edit=72=1098282746][/edit]
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  • #2
    Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

    This can't be true can it? Bender in the final year of his contract? I thought he signed a 4-year deal back when he, Jeff and Ronnie were locked into long-term deals.

    The only real mystery continues to be practice legend Jonathan Bender, who is heading into the fifth and final year of his contract and is -- yes, once again -- sidelined with an injury. He expects to return Monday.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

      Bender is signed through the 06/07 season.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

        I thought this article tried to make good points, but 3 or more times I was reading his innaccuraces and rolling my eyes too much to notice them. I thought it was a crappy article (per the norm)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

          I can't disagre with his major point thogh and if a team wants to give the Pacers a Sheed Wallace caliber player for basically nothing, then yes the Pacers should do that. It is easy to say the Pacers need more size, that they need better big man, yes every team in the league would say the same thing, but it is naive to think the Pacers will be able to steal a player like the Pistons did.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

            But in spite of his bumbling, it *is* reasonable to say, barring the generosity of another team giving us a player similar to how Atlanta and Boston teamed up to give 'Sheed to Detroit, that our odds to make The Finals or win it all this season are much lower than last season.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

              Well, inaccuracies aside, I thought it was an excellent article in its general tone.

              - The Jackson deal was a good one.

              - The East does provide a bigger challenge at center now.

              - The Pacers one weakness is size down low. JO needs defensive help.

              - Bender either sucks or is injured.


              I thought it was interesting that his main point on Bender was not helping the team, but that if he plays well, his trade value might get us a center.

              Conversely to the praise of this article, I can also understand the criticism. But some of you need to realize that most readers aren't as informed as this forum, and these accurate zingers he wrote are the first time anybody's heard of it who doesn't visit this forum.

              Also, I don't think its naieve for him to call for a good center trade. I just think that's his job as a journalist--to point out weaknesses. If you want nice, nice evaluations of the trade histories, reread all of Monteith.

              Kravitz may not be as good as several posters here on the PD. But for the Star, he is refreshing, IMO.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                But in spite of his bumbling, it *is* reasonable to say, barring the generosity of another team giving us a player similar to how Atlanta and Boston teamed up to give 'Sheed to Detroit, that our odds to make The Finals or win it all this season are much lower than last season.
                Although last year right now no one was thinking championship for the Pacers. right now there are those who think the Pacers have a shot.

                The playoff seedings make it much tougher, having to beat the Pistons and then the Heat. If they would seed like they should, the team wit the best EC record would only have to bet one of those two teams

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck
                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                  But in spite of his bumbling, it *is* reasonable to say, barring the generosity of another team giving us a player similar to how Atlanta and Boston teamed up to give 'Sheed to Detroit, that our odds to make The Finals or win it all this season are much lower than last season.
                  Although last year right now no one was thinking championship for the Pacers. right now there are those who think the Pacers have a shot.
                  True - I thought about prefacing that comment with the notion that the championship expectations were formed between late December and the trade deadline.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

                    [quote user=bob.kravitz@indystar.com]
                    Again, this isn't the old Eastern Conference, where Brad Miller can be an All-Star center.
                    [/quote]

                    Wasn't Brad an All-Star center in the west last year?

                    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                    - Jimmy Buffett

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

                      While I do think Kravitz' point is true, I think it is also possible that we can win it all without a big center.

                      We won't be perfect, but we will be much, much better this year, IMO. I think we very successfully addressed our biggest problem--a healthy shooting guard who can defend and create. (And can shoot. It's always nice to have a shooting guard who can shoot )

                      Remember, we almost beat Detroit last year even with an injured JO and Tinsley. We addressed our biggest problem. We didn't fix EVERY problem, but, then again, having Foster in the game brings several little plusses that a bit center wouldn't bring to the table. (I think there is credibility to the theory that Foster was benched against Detroit, not because he couldn't shoot, but because the "shooting" guard couldn't shoot.)

                      Miami? Sure, Shaq could be big problem. But I see a least a 50 percent chance they won't get all their pieces together in one year.

                      So, I say a 50 percent chance or better of a Championship ring THIS YEAR!
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

                        Originally posted by btowncolt
                        That's the thing about Kravitz. He's like a little kid, running back home with the brand new kitty he just found outside school. And just when you think he's on to something, he gets back and he's smashed the kitty into a horrible bloody mess inside his book bag."
                        Yuck.

                        I wasn't familiar with that analogy before now. Certainly is... colorful.

                        "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                        -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

                          After reading this thread I am left to believe either:

                          Kravitz is right even when he is wrong...

                          Kravitz is wrong even when he is right...

                          Or Don't put a cat in your book bag...



                          :P

                          -Bball
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

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

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz > Bigger, Better East (surprisingly low on the 'this article sucks' factor)

                            This article is a change of pace for Kravitz. It's not like him to come out and say that an Indy team sucks, has no chance for a championship and it's management screwed up.

                            Kravitz has proven time and again he's imcompetent and only rehashes the obvious. Yes the Pacers (and most other teams in the league) need a big man. Yes Bender's hurt and needs to prove himself. Where's the solution? Good writers will sometimes give a suggestion as to what could happen - he never does - he simply bashes.

                            The only thing that would have been more surprising than a positive Kravitz article would be for Jay to disagree with the notion that the Pacers aren't going to win anything or for Peck to not bring up Brad Miller in every post.
                            "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                            - Benjamin Franklin

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X