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

On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

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

    On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

    His analysis of Ray Allen is probably enough to discredit this guy on its own, but that doesn't mean he's not correct about the 1986 Celtics .

    http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=331738

    Greatness doesn’t always translate to the front office

    By Mike McGraw
    mmcgraw@dailyherald.com
    Posted Monday, July 16, 2007

    Here is a list of people who should never be hired to run an NBA team:

    Scott Wedman, David Thirdkill, Robert Parish, Greg Kite, Sly Williams, Jerry Sichting and Bill Walton.

    Recognize the connection? They are all members of the 1986 Boston Celtics, one of the greatest NBA teams of all time, featuring some of the worst future talent evaluators of the modern era.

    Three players from that team are holding down jobs — Larry Bird in Indiana, Kevin McHale in Minnesota and the Celtics’ very own Danny Ainge — who is rapidly climbing the chart of poorest performances by a general manager.

    As a quick explanation, the modern era does not include anything prior to 1984, when some of the worst decisions in the history of mankind were made by NBA executives.

    Ever wonder why a good Los Angeles Lakers team landed the top pick of the draft in 1979 and ’82? Well, they got the Magic Johnson selection as compensation for New Orleans signing 33-year-old Gail Goodrich and acquired the James Worthy pick from Cleveland for Don Ford.

    People blame Portland for the bone-headed decision of drafting Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan in 1984. But that pick originally belonged to the Indiana Pacers, who sent it west for the immortal Tom Owens.

    The Pacers never would have taken Bowie ahead of Jordan. They had Herb Williams and Steve Stipanovich, for crying out loud.

    But that’s all ancient history. Today’s fans of ineffective management can watch the three ex-Celtics butcher their teams.

    Bird’s career as an executive started well, with the Pacers winning a league-high 61 games in his first season. But it has been downhill since.

    The turning point might have come on draft night in 2004. The Bulls acquired the No. 7 pick from Phoenix and were willing to ship it to Indiana for Al Harrington.

    The Pacers’ response: “Go ahead and keep Luol Deng, Bulls, we’ve got someone better in mind. His name is Stephen Jackson, and he’ll make Central Indiana forget all about Reggie Miller.” Of course, I’m paraphrasing here.

    McHale has done a remarkable job of collecting bad contracts while getting progressively worse during Kevin Garnett’s peak years.

    The sad part is, the Timberwolves still owe first-round picks to the Clippers for Marko Jaric and to Boston from the Ricky Davis trade. Meanwhile, Garnett’s trade value plummets by the day.

    Ainge has been on the job for just four years, but he’s already threatening to surpass ex-Grizzlies GM Stu Jackson for worst moves of the decade.

    Last year’s trade that basically sent rookie of the year Brandon Roy to Portland for overhyped point guard Sebastian Telfair was inexplicable. Ainge may never make a worse move, but he gave it a shot last month by trading the No. 5 overall draft pick to Seattle for aging guard Ray Allen, who has made the playoffs four times in 11 NBA seasons.

    Watching Seattle play the Bulls last season, I wondered if the Sonics would get better if they just released Allen. He’s often billed as the NBA’s best shooter, but shooting is pretty much all he does.

    Allen is one of many players in the league who’s primary goal appears to be scoring 25 points a night, whether it takes 15 shots to get there or 30.

    When a team has a player who dominates the ball and places a low priority on defense, morale tends to suffer. The same could be said of Jermaine O’Neal, Allen Iverson, Kobe Bryant, Michael Redd, Zach Randolph, the Bulls-era Jalen Rose and others.

    Paul Pierce has seemed to slide in and out of this category during his career. So who better to pair with Allen? During the 2009-10 season, the Celtics can look forward to paying Allen and Pierce a combined $38.5 million, when their combined ages will be 66.

    mmcgraw@dailyherald.com
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:
    @8pts9secs
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

    The sad thing is, we could have traded Al for a pick, either Chicago or Denver's, as was rumored, and we still could have signed Jack with the MLE.

    Regardless, this is still pretty low on my list of management ****-ups the last 4 years.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

      This newspaper is about the equivelant of the Hendricks County Flyer. I hold posters on this message board in higher esteem. I can say a lot of negative things about J.O. but saying he places a low priority on defense is "hog wash". I guess that is why this guy is working for Chicagolands version of the Greenfield Reporter.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

        This almost makes me want to cry.

        "The turning point might have come on draft night in 2004. The Bulls acquired the No. 7 pick from Phoenix and were willing to ship it to Indiana for Al Harrington.

        The Pacers’ response: “Go ahead and keep Luol Deng, Bulls, we’ve got someone better in mind. His name is Stephen Jackson, and he’ll make Central Indiana forget all about Reggie Miller.” Of course, I’m paraphrasing here

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

          As I recall, We didn't take #7 that year because we were trying to
          get #3 as Bird wanted Gordon, who he knew would be gone at #7.

          And while in hindsight, taking #7 and then Deng would have been
          a great move, I'm just thankful we didn't take #7 and draft the
          other guy Bird supposedly liked alot that year, Luke Jackson.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

            The Pacers’ response: “Go ahead and keep Luol Deng, Bulls, we’ve got someone better in mind. His name is Stephen Jackson, and he’ll make Central Indiana forget all about Reggie Miller.” Of course, I’m paraphrasing here.
            It's taking everything I have not to go PFFL right now.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

              Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
              As I recall, We didn't take #7 that year because we were trying to
              get #3 as Bird wanted Gordon, who he knew would be gone at #7.

              And while in hindsight, taking #7 and then Deng would have been
              a great move, I'm just thankful we didn't take #7 and draft the
              other guy Bird supposedly liked alot that year, Luke Jackson.
              In hindsight, I would have rather had Luke Jackson than the Jackson we ended up with.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

                Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                In hindsight, I would have rather had Luke Jackson than the Jackson we ended up with.
                You don't mean that...

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

                  Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                  You don't mean that...
                  Of course he does.

                  And for the record, we also would have been better off with Tito Jackson, Jesse Jackson, Peter Jackson, Jackson Browne, Bo Jackson, Samuel L. Jackson, Jackson Pollack, Luscious Jackson or Shoeless Joe.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:
                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

                    Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                    And for the record, we also would have been better off with Tito Jackson, Jesse Jackson, Peter Jackson, Jackson Browne, Bo Jackson, Samuel L. Jackson, Jackson Pollack, Luscious Jackson or Shoeless Joe.
                    But not Michael. We have enough image problems.


                    I'm pretty convinced the whole Bird likes Luke Jackson thing was a smokescreen. He wanted Gordon and only Gordon.
                    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                    - Jimmy Buffett

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

                      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                      The sad thing is, we could have traded Al for a pick, either Chicago or Denver's, as was rumored, and we still could have signed Jack with the MLE.

                      Regardless, this is still pretty low on my list of management ****-ups the last 4 years.
                      well we did end up signing aj for part of the mle. if we had signed jax outright, then we wouldn't have been able to get aj.

                      i'd rather have a pick than aj though...

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

                        Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                        This newspaper is about the equivelant of the Hendricks County Flyer. I hold posters on this message board in higher esteem. I can say a lot of negative things about J.O. but saying he places a low priority on defense is "hog wash". I guess that is why this guy is working for Chicagolands version of the Greenfield Reporter.
                        I agree and so do the numbers. You don't fall ***-backwards into top 10 charges taken AND shots blocked. I mean seriously, if that's LOW priority then what kind of results do you get with high priority? He swats the ball so hard it deflates and the Pacers win the game by default?

                        See even if JO isn't a great 1 on 1 defender you still can't question his effort due to the statistical results he produces as an elite HELP DEFENDER. The desire to defend isn't a question with JO, at least not for anyone that actually watches the Pacers play.

                        JO has 3 very specific issues that keep him from being truly elite:

                        1) He's not a great shooter. He's got some range but he's struggled to reach up into the 48%+ area that he needs to be.

                        2) He's not a clutch scorer most of the time. This is due to #1 as well as the difficulty that post guys have as clutch players since they require someone to be clutch enough to feed them the ball safely down the stretch as well.

                        3) He's not a great team leader. He was artificially put in that role by Bird and he hasn't ever really adjusted to it.


                        I'll give you all 3 of those and admit that because of them he is currently overpaid. But hustle, desire and defensive effort? Please. I saw the dude SPRINT back after someone else turned it over and come up with a huge blocked shot last season.

                        You might as well tell me he doesn't wear a headband too.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

                          That article seems inaccurate to me. I thought that it was reported from numerous sources that yes the Pacers tried to trade Al for the Bulls 7th pick but the Bulls turned it down. I thought that was widely reported - this is the first time I've ever heard that the Bulls were willing to do it, but the Pacers weren't.


                          And it is pure stupidity to think that Bird, Walsh or the Pacers janitor ever thought Jax or anyone for that matter would ever make anyone forget about Reggier Miller.

                          Until or unless someone else independantly reports something similar, I don't believe this report.

                          Many of you think I'm crazy to take Vescey's word on so many things - but for me to believe something like this, they first must make common sense, and I find most things Vescey reports especially on the Pacers does make sense - but this report from this guy - I'm not buying it
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-17-2007, 05:38 AM.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

                            Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                            This newspaper is about the equivelant of the Hendricks County Flyer. I hold posters on this message board in higher esteem. I can say a lot of negative things about J.O. but saying he places a low priority on defense is "hog wash". I guess that is why this guy is working for Chicagolands version of the Greenfield Reporter.

                            Hey now........I was a HS correspondant for the Reporter. They gave me my own bottle of ink and an new quill every year.
                            DO NOT disrespect the Greenfield Repeater.


                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: On Bird - "Greatness Doesn't Translate to Front Office"

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              This almost makes me want to cry.

                              "The turning point might have come on draft night in 2004. The Bulls acquired the No. 7 pick from Phoenix and were willing to ship it to Indiana for Al Harrington.

                              The Pacers’ response: “Go ahead and keep Luol Deng, Bulls, we’ve got someone better in mind. His name is Stephen Jackson, and he’ll make Central Indiana forget all about Reggie Miller.” Of course, I’m paraphrasing here


                              yeah, I was looking for a rope and a chair after reading that too.
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X