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

Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

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

    Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

    http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...quiet/7234543/

    Coach Frank Vogel has seen the locker room quotes, including the recent one in which Roy Hibbert talked about the existence of "selfish dudes'' in the Indiana Pacers locker room — a blast that I believe was directed at Lance Stephenson and, to a lesser extent, Paul George. Hibbert also suggested the other night that the Pacers were "spiraling'' and "splintering.''
    And Vogel has had enough, not just from Hibbert but from any of his players who've shared their internal concerns with the media.
    "It bothers me,'' Vogel said before the Pacers' 101-94 win over the Detroit Pistons on Wednesday
    "It was a weird thing. Roy said it a couple of days ago (after the Washington loss) and nobody really caught onto it until (recently). So I made sure to tell them that A) I don't believe we have 'selfish dudes' in our locker room and B) whatever you might want to say about your teammates, don't say it to the media. We have to get that stopped.''
    The incendiary quotes make for good copy for guys like me, but I understand Vogel's view on this. All it does is feed the growing perception of the Pacers as an immature, young-minded team that has fallen to pieces internally.
    There are a lot of factors that have conspired to bring the Pacers to their knees these last 36 games.
    The biggest problem is their star player, George, who hasn't been the same since the All-Star break. He has had difficulty adapting to the new defenses that have been thrown his way. More, though, he's had to deal with sudden stardom, had to deal with off-the-court issues involving A) a Miami stripper and B) a social-media photo that may or may not have been part of a ruse. Sometimes we forget — he's just 23.
    And there's more. David West has been in a shooting slump. Hibbert appears and disappears, sometimes because of his teammates and sometimes because of his own failure to get deep post-up position. Luis Scola can't make a shot, with the exception of the recent home victory over the Chicago Bulls. Backup point guard C.J. Watson has been missed more than anybody realizes.
    I asked Vogel if the Danny Granger-Evan Turner trade sent his team careening in the wrong direction, even though the Pacers started struggling before the deal was made.
    "No, I don't think that's what's responsible for us struggling,'' he said. "I think the schedule in March would have beaten us down whether we made a trade or didn't make a trade. We had 11 games on the road this month. With 82 games, that's why it's so tough to win 60 games. Every team has stretches like this, some in December, some in January. It just happens that it's happening to us in March. I still think our guys really believe in what we have here. I think it's going to stabilize and turn around for us.''
    
    These have been a challenging couple of months for Vogel, who has properly been a Teflon coach since taking over for Jim O'Brien. What's there been to criticize? Not much. Not until now, anyway.
    But less than a month ago, when the Pacers were in the throes of a four-game losing streak, Vogel had to read in my Star column how team President Larry Bird took some issue with his perpetually positive coaching style
    I asked Vogel if those comments bothered him. He shook his head and said, "No.''
    Well, it would have bothered me if I was in Vogel's position. Who wants to hear from their boss that he doesn't quite agree with your style of coaching? Especially when you're in first place in the Eastern Conference?
    I asked Vogel if he has lit into his players in recent weeks since the skid began.
    "Yeah, we've had some pretty intense film sessions and practices to get these guys playing the right way,'' he said. "Some strong messages have been sent and received.''
    Then Vogel went home Tuesday night and did what he often does: He pushed play on the DVR and started watching one of his favorite shows, ESPN's "Pardon The Interruption.''
    The lead story was headlined, "Vogel out, Bird in.''
    Vogel laughed when he recounted the story Wednesday.
    "I saw that and said, 'What the (bleep)?'" he said with a smile. "I had just met with Larry earlier. I think everything's cool. I'm really confused.'' Turned out, it was an April Fool's joke.
    Vogel didn't take it badly — he loves the show — but it was another shot across the bow during a challenging time.
    At this point, Vogel knows there are no short-cuts, no magic potions. All he can do is work, do all the things he's been doing all year, whether the Pacers are on a roll or on the ropes. In public, he won't criticize his players; that's not his style and shouldn't be his style.
    "I ... think he's got to start going after guys when they're not doing what they're supposed to do,'' Bird said in March. "And stay on them, whether you've got to take them out of the game when they're not doing what they're supposed to do, or limit their minutes. I will say, he hasn't done that enough.''
    
    Now he wants his team to follow suit, quit bickering in private and in public, and get its act together in time for the playoffs.
    There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

    Looks like people on Internet forums weren't the only ones peeved about Roy's comments.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

      My goodness, perhaps little bobby is growing up as a sportswriter. About time!
      Go Pacers!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Looks like people on Internet forums weren't the only ones peeved about Roy's comments.
        Couldn't have been that big of a deal inside the lockerroom if they went unnoticed for days.
        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

          Thank God.

          Roy should never EVER have gone public like that.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Couldn't have been that big of a deal inside the lockerroom if they went unnoticed for days.
            Or were they just the straw that finally broke the Camel's back since they came on the heels of the New York comments which had to be noticed immediately?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

              Straw that broke the camels back days after the straw was put on? Meh.

              When Vogel talked about players not playing team basketball, not playing for their teammates, etc, that's saying they're playing selfish. Maybe he's not happy with the strength of the word choice, "selfish," but describing a pig and calling a pig a pig, is the same thing.

              I don't particularly like Roy going public, but there are times when I agree with it. Publically shaming someone is a great motivational tool, sometimes, even if it's not the "right" thing to do.
              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Straw that broke the camels back days after the straw was put on? Meh.

                When Vogel talked about players not playing team basketball, not playing for their teammates, etc, that's saying they're playing selfish. Maybe he's not happy with the strength of the word choice, "selfish," but describing a pig and calling a pig a pig, is the same thing.

                I don't particularly like Roy going public, but there are times when I agree with it. Publically shaming someone is a great motivational tool, sometimes, even if it's not the "right" thing to do.

                Big difference between a coach calling out his underlings and a player calling out a peer. A coach stands alone at the top of the pecking order and it's his job to get them in line. Same thing with Bird - he stands alone as the guy who makes the basketball decision and has no peers, so it was one thing when he called the guys "soft" a couple of years ago. But if a player would have called his peers out for being soft, then it would have been different.

                A teacher is within their rights to discipline the classroom, but no one likes when a student tattles on another student. How big of a deal have Roy's comments been? Impossible for me to say, but they were big enough issue for Vogel to address them in both the locker room and local press.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Couldn't have been that big of a deal inside the lockerroom if they went unnoticed for days.
                  How do we know they weren't? Other players may have actual just done the prudent thing and handled it in the locker room, not following up in the media.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Big difference between a coach calling out his underlings and a player calling out a peer. A coach stands alone at the top of the pecking order and it's his job to get them in line. Same thing with Bird - he stands alone as the guy who makes the basketball decision and has no peers, so it was one thing when he called the guys "soft" a couple of years ago. But if a player would have called his peers out for being soft, then it would have been different.

                    A teacher is within their rights to discipline the classroom, but no one likes when a student tattles on another student. How big of a deal have Roy's comments been? Impossible for me to say, but they were big enough issue for Vogel to address them in both the locker room and local press.
                    I think there's a pretty big difference between kids in a classroom and grown adults.
                    “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

                      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                      How do we know they weren't? Other players may have actual just done the prudent thing and handled it in the locker room, not following up in the media.
                      So we should run with assumptions over what Vogel said?

                      I bet Roy said that and much more to everyone in the lockerroom, but that's not the assumption we run with either, we just assume Roy is a coward and doesn't say anything. People use their assumptions to fit their ends. Even when I assume.
                      “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

                        I thought Lance gave a concentrated effort to get Roy the ball last night, outside of his late game poutfest.

                        We might not like the approach, but it at least seems to be getting some good results. (So far)
                        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I think there's a pretty big difference between kids in a classroom and grown adults.
                          You'd be surprised.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            You'd be surprised.
                            True, but just like the response has been towards the suggestion that the Danny trade sent them in the downward spiral, if something like that can knock them completely off their mental game, then it was a matter of time it was going to happen anyways.

                            All of them, Roy included, need to get a little more mentally tough.
                            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Bob Kravitz- Frank Vogel-"Shut Up."

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              I think there's a pretty big difference between kids in a classroom and grown adults.
                              Fine, I'll use an adult example. Everyone accepts that their boss can discipline them, but no one likes the peer employee who complains about other people when they themselves have their own work issues that need fixed.

                              The players are BENEATH Bird and Vogel. Bird and Vogel decide if they're going to play here and how much time they're going to get. Part of their responsibility is to be a disciplinarian to their underlings. Hibbert OTOH was talking about his peers. Biiiiiiig difference between a coach calling out the team and the players calling out other players.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X