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: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

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

  • #31
    Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

    Here's a scenario, this year's draft is deeper but maybe not at PG if Conley stays in school. This year's draft is more attractive for frontcourt players.

    Let's say we get to keep our pick (bottom 10).

    We then make a deal with Atlanta (or somebody else) to use our pick this year, they give us back our pick next year (or somebody else give us back a good #1 next year) along with extra picks, #2 this year, or in future years, and/or rights to flip-flop future picks.

    There of lots of ways having a pick in this year's perceived deeper draft can benefit the Pacers, even if we don't use the pick ourselves. It has higher value than picks in other years, particularly among teams starving for front line help.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
      Let's say we do wind up with the top 10 pick this summer. There's nothing that says we have to draft a PG, right? Maybe we do. I like both Law and Conley (if he comes out) reasonably well. Think Conley's got better overall upside, but probably neither is a sure fire NBA calibur starter immediately. Nor is either a guaranteed superstar down the line, but then again who truly is without the benefit of hindsight.

      It's just that the PG scenario seems to be the focal point on here. Is that like having blinders on? If this draft is so great, but top heavy on bigs, pick a big and then trade one of our multitude of frontline guys for an established point. Perhaps that big would be JO or perhaps not. Or even just trade the top 10 pick for an established back court presence.

      Just saying it's not written in stone that if we end up with the pick that we certianly will take a PG. There are other alternatives.

      I could see us trading the pick if we got one as well! Don't know why, but most mocks have Law and Conley going late lottery, mid 1st round, I'm sure there stock may have changed, but IF Conley comes out, and either he or Law were going to be availible later on, I could see the Pacers trading down and possibly getting/giving another piece. Or simply drafting for someone else, and working a trade out that way.

      Many things can happen until then though, so I'm just gonna sit back and root for the Pacers to win.... even if losing might be for the best, I never root for my team to lose.. if they do... so be it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

        Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
        Let's say we do wind up with the top 10 pick this summer. There's nothing that says we have to draft a PG, right? Maybe we do. I like both Law and Conley (if he comes out) reasonably well. Think Conley's got better overall upside, but probably neither is a sure fire NBA calibur starter immediately. Nor is either a guaranteed superstar down the line, but then again who truly is without the benefit of hindsight.

        It's just that the PG scenario seems to be the focal point on here. Is that like having blinders on? If this draft is so great, but top heavy on bigs, pick a big and then trade one of our multitude of frontline guys for an established point. Perhaps that big would be JO or perhaps not. Or even just trade the top 10 pick for an established back court presence.

        Just saying it's not written in stone that if we end up with the pick that we certianly will take a PG. There are other alternatives.


        Smartest thing I've read this week. Including anything I've posted.

        When your team sucks - and I follow a team that's sucked for over 5 years so I know what a team sucking is - and this year the Pacers suck - you go for the best player and don't worry about position.

        Drafting for need only counts when everything isn't a need. The only position that isn't a need is PF (which makes the Harrington deal last summer such a puzzle) but you don't need a PG any more than an SG or C.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post

          Drafting for need only counts when everything isn't a need. The only position that isn't a need is PF (which makes the Harrington deal last summer such a puzzle) but you don't need a PG any more than an SG or C.
          So much for the theory that the Harrington deal was a fall-back, security blanket situation for some of the 'what if' scenarios involving JO.
          "What if JO decides he wants traded?"
          "What if JO decides to opt out and test the market?"
          "What if JO stays habitually injured?"
          "What if management wants to move on past the JO era?"

          Instead it looks more like he was just brought in as a commodity/trading piece in case we decided to move some of our players that had worn out their welcome.

          For a team that is not known for getting in a hurry about anything, letting along cutting their losses, they sure moved Harrington quickly.

          It is certainly a head scratcher at this point.

          -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


          • #35
            Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

            Center isn't as glaring a need because most teams don't have big time centers, and Foster gives us a rebounding advantage more often than not. We have no advantage at SG, which I think is the area of greatest need, followed by PG and THEN at center.

            Through interviews you can tell that Walsh is pretty much done with Tinsley, for what its worth. Before the season he and Bird were saying they expected him to have a career year.

            Anyway, both Law and Conley will see their draft stock rise before draft day. I don't see either lasting past 15.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

              Originally posted by able View Post
              The man once again proves he's a wizz in cut&paste

              IMO he should stop reading PD, it doesn't improve his "vision".


              If Kravitz is a stand-up guy he would spring for the pizza for the next PD party. That's the least he can do. I think that the admins on this board should copyrite everything that appears here so Kravitz can pay fees.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                If Kravitz is a stand-up guy he would spring for the pizza for the next PD party. That's the least he can do. I think that the admins on this board should copyrite everything that appears here so Kravitz can pay fees.

                That's a double edged sword.....


                -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


                • #38
                  Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  So much for the theory that the Harrington deal was a fall-back, security blanket situation for some of the 'what if' scenarios involving JO.
                  "What if JO decides he wants traded?"
                  "What if JO decides to opt out and test the market?"
                  "What if JO stays habitually injured?"
                  "What if management wants to move on past the JO era?"


                  -Bball
                  I might be wrong but JO didn't talk about getting traded or opting out till after Harrington was traded.
                  And JO was relatively healthy early on this year, heck even I thought he might have beaten the injury bug.
                  Who knows what our management is planning. Hell they don't even plan they just flip a coin for all the decisions.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

                    I don't agree to the tanking because I think we can still make a trade and get a reasonable draft pick. BUT, my favorite scenario would be for us to get a top 10 pick AND STILL trade for yet another pick in the 1st round. Late in the 1st round there's bound to be a team that just doesn't need the pick they have, and would rather have a role player of some sort.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

                      Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
                      I don't agree to the tanking because I think we can still make a trade and get a reasonable draft pick. BUT, my favorite scenario would be for us to get a top 10 pick AND STILL trade for yet another pick in the 1st round. Late in the 1st round there's bound to be a team that just doesn't need the pick they have, and would rather have a role player of some sort.
                      Dude we don't get a draft pick unless we tank. Unless you meant trade a player for a draft pick, and if so who?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

                        Originally posted by IMissReggie View Post
                        I might be wrong but JO didn't talk about getting traded or opting out till after Harrington was traded.

                        I think that he said this first before the season started, when Al was still here,

                        basically saying that if the team was not successful this year then he and the Pacers both need to decide if he ought to be here.
                        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and TANK it

                          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                          I think that he said this first before the season started, when Al was still here,

                          basically saying that if the team was not successful this year then he and the Pacers both need to decide if he ought to be here.
                          He said that the last 2 summers as well. I thought JO made some comments in the middle of the season that he was refering.

                          Hell if we traded JO everytime he or Bird said he should go if things didn't work out, well JO would have been traded the year of the brawl.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and PHONE it in (the article I mean)

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            You have to have a pick to actually draft someone.

                            Unless they finish 1-8 in the lottery, the Ps won't even have a chance to land a pick next year.
                            Fixed.

                            Now hands up, who thinks the Pacers next year are a contender? Who thinks they won't want to have a high draft pick next year after 2 years of bad seasons?

                            The pick is gone, no matter what tank game you play. That's the lesson. Yes, a pick this year has value, so does a pick next year or the year after that. If JO was out all this year and the team was set to stage a huge comeback next year and hand ATL a #25 pick then I could see this debate.

                            But the fact is that there appears little they can do to drastically improve the team in one season which means that they will have another blah year just like this one and might want a #9 pick next year more than a #10 this year.

                            What, a year from now a pick in the upcoming draft won't have value anymore?

                            Why not do what EV said, make the playoffs, trade for a pick if you must, and then get your pick unconditionally next year (and the years after that).



                            As for the cost - FANS, that's all. Jackson is gone, fans still aren't showing up. In fact more fans came to games LAST YEAR with no Reggie, JO out half the year and Tins out half the year. Jackson played 2900 minutes for that team and more fans showed up then than are now. And that's facts, not my opinion. Losses lose fans more than incidents do.

                            Keeping the pick for this year, maybe next, maybe even 3 years means losing 50 games a year for 2-3 seasons straight. Then you can enjoy the Vegas Pacers winning the title with all those draft picks finally paying off. Weee, that WAS fun after all.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and PHONE it in (the article I mean)

                              Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                              For the record, Mateen Cleaves was taken very lightly as an NBA prospect, and Joe Dumars was ripped apart for a) making a homer pick, and b) not taking MoPete if he was dead set on reaching for a Spartan. Also, Khalid El Amin was a clutch college point guard, and no one took him until round two.

                              If I recall correctly (and I don't have time to do the research to back this up), point guards taken in the top ten have had a pretty good track record in recent years, especially in relation to other positions.
                              Acie Law is being looked at as a #18 or so PG himself, so in fact the Pacers would be reaching for him just like Joe D did. El Amin NOT getting drafted sooner proves the point, it just doesn't feature a desperate Pacers team reaching for him. Guys are clutch and run the show in college and then come out and aren't all that much. Other guys play a role and suddenly jump up in the NBA.

                              Law is not regarded as a solid top 10 pick by anyone at this point. Teams that don't desperately need a PG won't touch him till late in round 1. Conley coming out would jump ahead of him. If Law, Conley and Mayo all came out next year together he would be in even worse shape on the PG rankings because the desperate teams wouldn't need him.

                              He's only a top 10 PG IF a team reaches for him. The track record of top 10 PGs is due in large part to teams taking legit top 10 players that were PG in the top 10, not based on a bunch of reaches.


                              I picked two examples. I didn't hit the gray area of guys like Dixon, Dooling or even Telfair (non college example anyway). A player that can start at PG and make the team much better fairly quickly is what is under discussion here, not a decent backup with Tinsley still starting.


                              I'll give you another mid-1st round PG that Law might be a lot like - Travis Best. Ladies and Gentlemen, your 00-01 World Champion Pacers.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Kravitz: What's the point? Go ahead and PHONE it in (the article I mean)

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post


                                Keeping the pick for this year, maybe next, maybe even 3 years means losing 50 games a year for 2-3 seasons straight. Then you can enjoy the Vegas Pacers winning the title with all those draft picks finally paying off. Weee, that WAS fun after all.
                                Before we worry the Ps might move we might want to remember how much money the Simons are truly missing.

                                http://www.orlandoweekly.com/util/pr...dy.asp?id=2217

                                Lease terms for publicly built arenas can be almost as staggeringly generous. Magic officials have been holding up Indianapolis’ brand-new Conseco Fieldhouse as a model for their own arena dreams, and no wonder: though the building’s $222 million cost was paid entirely with public money, the Indiana Pacers will receive all revenues from both basketball and non-basketball events -- as well as the $40 million naming-rights fee paid by Conseco to slap its name on the facade. The team’s operating expenses on the arena are capped at a low $3 million a year, with the public picking up the difference. In exchange, the city of Indianapolis receives all of $1 a year in rent, plus the right to use the parking garage built with city tax money -- but only when the Pacers aren’t in town.
                                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X