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 - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

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

    Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...18/1004/SPORTS

    Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

    Either that, or a pink slip.

    Because the alternative -- a lame-duck coach who has been publicly dissed by his boss and is working with a noose hanging loosely around his neck -- is a recipe for another Indiana Pacers disaster.

    Think about it:
    After the Pacers quietly exited the playoffs without much fanfare beyond Anthony Johnson's calls for a "change of culture,'' the front office could have made some roster moves, Carlisle could have made some changes on his bench and nobody outside of Carlisle's agent would have made a big deal about the fact the head coach was heading into the final year of his deal.

    Since then, though, team president Larry Bird has used the occasion of his postseason postmortem to publicly scold Carlisle with words usually reserved for a private office, suggesting his coach lost the team, failed to demand accountability from players and lacked communication skills.

    And, oh yeah, there was that telling little quip about arrogance.

    "Rick doesn't come in and get my advice very often,'' Bird said. "He's one of those guys who thinks he knows more than me, so why should he ask me?''

    To me, that changes the equation completely, and makes Carlisle's upcoming summit meeting with Donnie Walsh and Bird all the more compelling and unpredictable.

    After that, how can Carlisle come back without added security, or at least a promise that the roster will be overhauled?

    He can't.

    Contract extension.

    Or pink slip.

    One, or the other.

    If, as Bird suggested, Carlisle lost his team this season, what happens next year if Carlisle enters the year as a lame duck who's been made even more toothless by his boss/friend?

    If last year's team wouldn't perform for a coach with a modicum of security, what makes anybody think next year's team is going to leave its DNA on the floor to ensure the continued employment of a coach many of them barely tolerate?

    If they played last year like they were trying to get him fired, how about next year, when they know Bird, who talked about Carlisle last week like he was Paul Westhead or something, has gone on the record saying he's going to keep an unusually close watch on the team?

    If Bird isn't careful, he's going to turn into Pat Riley. He says he doesn't want to coach. But you wonder.

    "I probably should have done more last year,'' Bird said last week. "I don't like to walk into the middle of the season and sort of discredit Rick, but I know what I have to do and we're going to do it.''

    Well, he didn't discredit Carlisle during last season; he did it the other day, committing a verbal Flagrant 1 that wasn't necessary or particularly well-deserved.

    If you're the Pacers' coach, and you've been through two years of Ron Artest- and injury-related madness, how is that public scolding supposed to make you feel? Was Carlisle the one who kept propping up Artest? Was Carlisle the one who gave those mind-bending contracts to Austin Croshere, Jonathan Bender and others? Even the immortal Sarunas Jasikevicius, whose presence is becoming a heightening source of tension between Bird and Carlisle, earned more praise from Bird than the coach.

    No, he's not Mr. Congeniality -- he's paid to win, not sing and dance -- but give Carlisle a reasonably healthy and sane team, he's going to win 50 games and get you deep into the playoffs.

    Now, Bird has some decisions.

    If he keeps Carlisle, he is forced to change most of the roster.
    If he keeps most of the roster, he is forced to either extend or fire Carlisle.

    Players or coaches?

    Players win that battle every time, whether they deserve to win it or not.
    If I'm Carlisle -- which means I'm tall and own several dress white shirts -- I'm going into that meeting with Bird and Walsh, I'm demanding a contract extension and finding out quickly whether I'm their guy.

    And when they tell me they're not sure -- or hell no -- then I start to play hardball when they bring up the subject of coaching-staff changes.
    Want to fire me?

    Fine.

    Put me on the Larry Brown payment plan.

    Now, you wonder, is that how it will play out?

    I asked Carlisle the other day, and he responded with his usual bland brand of Kissingerlike diplomacy.

    "These last two years, we've been faced with extraordinary circumstances and we've done some extraordinary things,'' Carlisle said carefully. "I'm looking forward to sitting down with Larry and Donnie and talking to them about this team's future.''

    Zzzzzz.

    I asked him all kinds of questions. If he was bothered by Bird's words. If he thought he needed a contract extension. If Bird ever came to him during the season and told him, "Look, you've got to bring the hammer down on these guys.''

    Nothing.

    No response.

    Like asking my kids about their day at school.

    Still, it would be naive to think Bird's words didn't wound Carlisle or leave some scars. That relationship is not what it used to be, or what we think it is. Even if nothing dramatic happens these next couple of days -- even if this doesn't turn into a Madison Square Garden-quality mess -- it's not impossible that something interesting will happen down the line.

    I say address that issue now, before an already unhealthy situation gets downright toxic.

    Contract extension or pink slip.

    Choose.

    Bob Kravitz s a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or e-mail bob.kravitz@indystar.com.
    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

    My vote: pink slip
    Heywoode says... work hard man.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

      I've never agreed with Bob more.

      If Rick is smart which I think he is, he'll demand a contract extension or he should leave. He won't have any trouble getting a good job either this offseason or next summer.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

        Clue to Rick......If you see someone from Human Resources setting in your office upon arrival, you might want to find a cardboard box right away.
        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

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

          when is this meeting taking place?
          Heywoode says... work hard man.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

            Originally posted by Doug in OH
            when is this meeting taking place?


            Bob said the next couple of days, whatever that means

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

              I agree with the main point of the article. However, I think one of Kravitz's premises is off base.

              Kravitz seems to think that the season is over, and voila, just like that roster movements can be made. And if they are not made, it is not exactly a vote of confidence for the coach.

              I think that multiple trades will be completed. But just like the Artest-Peja trade, I don't think it will happen overnight. I will take a couple of months to explore and put together the best possible trade in each instance.

              But other than that one point, I think I agree with everything else.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

                f he keeps Carlisle, he is forced to change most of the roster.
                If he keeps most of the roster, he is forced to either extend or fire Carlisle.
                i disagree with that...i think BOTH are in order.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

                  Bird has really mishandled this situation publicly.

                  WWDD? (What would Donnie Do?)

                  Could Donnie say the same thing about Larry?

                  "Rick doesn't come in and get my advice very often,'' Bird said. "He's one of those guys who thinks he knows more than me, so why should he ask me?''
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

                    I asked him all kinds of questions. If he was bothered by Bird's words. If he thought he needed a contract extension. If Bird ever came to him during the season and told him, "Look, you've got to bring the hammer down on these guys.''

                    Nothing.

                    No response.

                    Like asking my kids about their day at school.
                    Looks like Bob has lost the team...again.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                      Bird has really mishandled this situation publicly.

                      WWDD? (What would Donnie Do?)

                      Could Donnie say the same thing about Larry?

                      Some of the things Larry said are the types of things you only hear in a press conference where a guy is fired... and honestly, people are usually more cordial than that.

                      I think Bird is a straight shooter. He does not throw up smokescreens like DW does. Not a great trait for a GM.
                      Heywoode says... work hard man.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

                        Part of me agrees with Bird and part of me thinks he is in full-blown CYA mode over the disaster for which he has been largely responsible.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

                          Originally posted by Doug in OH

                          I think Bird is a straight shooter. He does not throw up smokescreens like DW does. Not a great traight for a GM.
                          And is it possible we're finally hearing the frustration coming out of Bird, who let his friend have a free reign handling this team without interferance?
                          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

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

                            Yeah, you can't both "rip" the guy like Larry did and make a public comment that you "expect him back for the last year of his contract."

                            The only good outcome is if Larry is trying to drive Rick to quit so he won't have to fire him. Still, its somewhat sleazy (or just plain stupid) the way it has happened publicly.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz - Memo to Pacers: Either extend Carlisle's contract or fire him

                              I'm sure that what Larry said to the public wasn't anything he hadn't already said to Rick face to face. I imagine that he's probably just raising a challenge to Carlisle, and if Carlisle steps up and proves his doubters wrong, Bird will know he made the right decision to stick with him through all of this. If he bows down with a "poor me, look at what the media and my President are saying about me...I must be a bad coach", I don't think Bird will have any guilt about firing him.
                              Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X