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

New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 21
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 21 template Next
  • #1

    New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

    I think there will be some gnashing of teeth by some when they realize that Bird is opening the door to another 3 year plan. Take it for what it's worth though he does say could be right away or take 2-3 years. But I know some of you and this should be fun.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...-may-come-fast

    Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star.

    After years of scrimping and saving and losing, after years of wandering NBA purgatory as one of the least compelling teams in the league, the Indiana Pacers now embark on their most important summer since 1993.

    Finally, there is hope.

    Finally, there is a young core of promising young players.

    Finally, there is salary cap flexibility, something Pacers bosses Larry Bird and David Morway worked diligently to acquire.

    Now comes the Pacers' summer of reckoning, a chance to change the face and alter the direction of this bedeviled franchise.

    "We've got to take a step forward; we can't stay the same," team president Bird said. "Thirty-seven (wins) ain't enough. These next two, three years, we can't spend all (the available money) unless something great happens, but these next two, three years, this thing ought to be at a level where we want it. It all depends on the development of the young guys. If they get better, we add pieces through free agency and have good drafts, it might not take two or three years, it might take one."
    It all begins with Thursday night's draft, in which the Pacers are scheduled to pick 15th.

    What will happen?

    We know what won't happen.

    There was a rumor that the Pacers talked with the Minnesota Timberwolves about a deal that would send center Roy Hibbert and the No. 15 pick to Minnesota for the No. 2 pick -- likely Arizona's Derrick Williams. Tuesday, though, Bird shot that down. (Although I'm not buying that Bird wouldn't trade Hibbert for the right price. You can't coach size, but you can't coach meanness, either.)

    That doesn't mean the Pacers will stay at No. 15. Bird said he has his eye on four players and expects at least two of them to be available when the Pacers select, but draft-day deals are definitely in play for a franchise that is under the salary cap. If they can package their pick and add a player, they will without hesitation.

    If they don't move and stay at No. 15, my money (roughly $1.50) is on Jimmer Fredette or Marshon Brooks. An educated guess, at best.

    At first glance, Bird's draft history is hit-and-miss, but if you look closer, the truth is he has done a pretty good job given the fact he has selected in the middle of the first round every summer.

    He took David Harrison at No. 29 in 2004. The big man never quite panned out, but the best guys selected behind him were Anderson Varejao and Trevor Ariza. So he didn't miss out on any stars.

    He took Danny Granger 17th in 2005.

    Of course, you, me and my cat could have made the call when Granger fell all that way.

    In 2006, well, that's a draft to forget. Shawne Williams had the talent, but not the maturity. It hurts to think that Rajon Rondo was chosen behind him. And James White, the second rounder, never got out of training camp.

    In 2008, Bird found a way to dump Jermaine O'Neal's salary and drafted Brandon Rush at No. 13 and Hibbert at No. 17. Rush hasn't developed the way anybody had hoped, but none of the players chosen behind him or Hibbert really turned into big-time players. Marreese Speights? Serge Ibaka? The best of that group was probably IUPUI's George Hill.

    In 2009, Bird chose Tyler Hansbrough, a selection that raised some eyebrows. But the kid has turned into a player. The Pacers passed up on several good point guards in that draft, but eventually dealt for Darren Collison at a bargain-basement price.

    And in 2010, he got the draft's best value in Paul George at No. 10.

    The best players chosen behind him? Greivis Vasquez and Landry Fields. A home run.

    (Bird also took a chance on Lance Stephenson in the second round, saying Tuesday, "He's our best player." Really, Larry? Really?)

    This draft, though, isn't going to be the thing that turns the Pacers into a perennial playoff team.

    That's going to happen later this summer -- assuming there is a basketball summer -- through trades and, to a lesser extent, free agency.

    The Pacers are one of the few teams in the league under the salary cap, which will allow them to make one-sided deals where they can take on far more salary than they give. It's likely the cap will decrease this summer, meaning cap-strapped teams will become even more desperate to shed salary.

    Free agency is an interesting option, but it's not the primary reason the Pacers positioned themselves for this summer. Still, there are some names, notably New Orleans' David West and Dallas' Tyson Chandler.

    So the summer of reckoning begins Thursday night. Soon thereafter interim coach Frank Vogel will get the official word on his hiring. (Don't stress over the fact Vogel isn't a big part of the draft; NBA coaches pay almost no attention to college players.) Then they will start looking at free agency and trades and . . . the lockout.

    The Pacers are done taking their lumps.

    Now it's time to administer some.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

    it will take at least 3 more years to be contenders IMO.(and that's if everything goes perfect like getting a really good free agent and a few one sided trades)

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

      That's why I love 3-year plans. If it rains tomorrow, it's because I said it would. If it doesn't, I'll come up with a reason why it will rain the next day.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

        As long as there is an obvious direction to winning and being a contender to more than the back end of the playoffs, I'm fine with another 3 years. Another 3 years of mediocrity and no hope for improvement is what gets me down.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

          I think the three year plan worked. Bird got rid of our bad contracts, filled the team with young, mostly high character players, and made the playoffs. Squeaked in, but playoffs nonetheless.

          This was our roster going into the summer of "the 3-year plan":



          3 years later we have a few young pieces with decent trade value - Granger, Hibbert, Hansbrough, Collison, George, a couple prospects - Lance and #15, a handful of role players - Price, Rush, Dahntay, an expiring contract - Posey, and the 2nd most cap room in the league. Not gonna win a ring next year, but as somebody who used to stare at a roster filled with Ike Diogu, Shawne Williams, Troy Murphy, Jamal Tinsley, and Jermaine O'Neal's corpse -- I'll take it.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

            My take was Bird was talking about 3 years before he would have a team that would contend. Meaning the third year we would be contending.

            That's more or less what everyone expects, so I don't see any reason to get grumpy about him saying it.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

              Ha, just noticed this.

              Originally posted by Kravitz View Post
              In 2008, Bird found a way to dump Jermaine O'Neal's salary and drafted Brandon Rush at No. 13 and Hibbert at No. 17. Rush hasn't developed the way anybody had hoped, but none of the players chosen behind him or Hibbert really turned into big-time players. Marreese Speights? Serge Ibaka? The best of that group was probably IUPUI's George Hill.
              Kravitz being oblivious to how good Ibaka is shows how much he follows the NBA.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

                So instead of a 3 years plan is becoming a 6 years plan? And pleople thought I was crazy when I didn't want Larry to come back as the GM.

                By the way, Larry didn't got rid of the expiring contracts,he just let them expire.
                Last edited by vnzla81; 06-22-2011, 07:07 AM.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

                  3 years to get back to respectability and put us in the position to become contenders
                  Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

                    Larry is starting to sound to me like the crazy guy who thought the world was going to end two months ago, he keeps changing the date until it becomes reality.
                    Last edited by vnzla81; 06-22-2011, 08:03 AM.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      By the way, Larry didn't got rid of the expiring contracts,he just let them expire.
                      Not true, The only ones he let expire was the later, Ford, Dunleavey, Foster. He tried to trade Ford, Dunleavey would have been impossible and Foster...I think most would like Foster back on the cheap. I give LB props for being patient this last 2 years and not trade into other bad contracts to get rid of bad contracts. So many GM would've been impatient and gotten theirselves in deeper and LB refrained from this. And don't use Posey cause he came with DC on the cheap.
                      Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

                        Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                        I think the three year plan worked. Bird got rid of our bad contracts, filled the team with young, mostly high character players, and made the playoffs. Squeaked in, but playoffs nonetheless.

                        This was our roster going into the summer of "the 3-year plan":



                        3 years later we have a few young pieces with decent trade value - Granger, Hibbert, Hansbrough, Collison, George, a couple prospects - Lance and #15, a handful of role players - Price, Rush, Dahntay, an expiring contract - Posey, and the 2nd most cap room in the league. Not gonna win a ring next year, but as somebody who used to stare at a roster filled with Ike Diogu, Shawne Williams, Troy Murphy, Jamal Tinsley, and Jermaine O'Neal's corpse -- I'll take it.
                        You have to just sit back and laugh seeing that injured designation next to Jamaal Tinsley's name.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

                          Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                          Not true, The only ones he let expire was the later, Ford, Dunleavey, Foster. He tried to trade Ford, Dunleavey would have been impossible and Foster...I think most would like Foster back on the cheap. I give LB props for being patient this last 2 years and not trade into other bad contracts to get rid of bad contracts. So many GM would've been impatient and gotten theirselves in deeper and LB refrained from this. And don't use Posey cause he came with DC on the cheap.
                          LOL! Trying is not accomplishment!
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

                            Anyone who isn't happy with or otherwise doesn't like Bird will use this (and anything else, frankly) as an excuse to knock him, but I realize that the 3 year plan we just got through was never about winning a title, it was about getting out from the ****** situation we'd been in, ready to finally get back into "win now" mode.

                            From here on, it's no longer about pursuing financial stability and a roster free of albatrosses. Now it's about winning; the sooner, the better. Realistically it's true it could be 2-3 years before we're a serious contender; I think most of us realize and understand that's probably accurate.

                            But you never know; it could work out faster, or it could never work out. That's the NBA unless your name is the Los Angeles Lakers.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Anyone who isn't happy with or otherwise doesn't like Bird will use this (and anything else, frankly) as an excuse to knock him, but I realize that the 3 year plan we just got through was never about winning a title, it was about getting out from the ****** situation we'd been in, ready to finally get back into "win now" mode.

                              From here on, it's no longer about pursuing financial stability and a roster free of albatrosses. Now it's about winning; the sooner, the better. Realistically it's true it could be 2-3 years before we're a serious contender; I think most of us realize and understand that's probably accurate.

                              But you never know; it could work out faster, or it could never work out. That's the NBA unless your name is the Los Angeles Lakers.
                              Finally, Thank you. Some sanity.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 21 template Next
                              Working...
                              X