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

Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

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

  • Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

    Forget the notion that today's Spurs-Lakers game will have "playoff intensity" simply because one team or the other wants to send a message that will resonate during a potential playoff matchup.

    The game is no "message game," despite the fact that a Lakers victory would give them a sweep of the regular-season series. That might sting Spurs pride a bit, but it won't mean a thing once the postseason arrives.

    No, any playoff intensity attendant to today's matchup at Staples Center will be because it may well determine when that matchup occurs.

    Should the Spurs get a victory, I believe the Midwest Division title is theirs. Since I also believe the Lakers will win the Pacific title, even if they lose today's game, the playoff matchup between the only two teams to have won a title since Michael Jordan last was a Chicago Bull would not take place until the Western Conference finals.

    Should the Spurs lose, well, there is no telling where they may end up in the playoff seedings.

    Fact is, there never has been a tighter race in the Western Conference, one through eight and nine and 10, for that matter in the past 20 years.

    Were the Spurs to win out to season's end, they might wind up with the top seed in the entire conference.

    Were they to lose even two of their remaining six games, they could be opening the playoffs at Memphis, in the shadows of Graceland.

    It is going to make for some real drama in the remaining 10 days of the season after today. The intrigue at the bottom of the playoff picture is even more compelling than it is among the five teams jockeying above them.

    Utah, Portland and Denver just want to be part of the postseason party. The three teams are engaged in a remarkably air-tight race to the finish line. The Spurs' victory in Utah on Friday night, coupled with Denver's victory over Houston, dropped the Jazz out of the final playoff berth in the West.

    Denver and Portland entered the weekend in a virtual tie and Portland has two games left against the Spurs. Denver holds the head-to-head tiebreaker over both the Blazers and the Jazz.

    How important is making the playoffs to these teams?

    Well, it has been 20 years since the Jazz weren't part of the postseason and every Jazz player knows Jerry Sloan's cancer-stricken wife, Bobbye, finds occasional respite from unpleasant treatment and bleak prognosis in the team's successes.

    Portland, a playoff participant for 20-straight seasons, desperately wants to make it as a springboard to a better future with new players that one of the league's most supportive communities has embraced as worthy of their affection.

    In Denver, Carmelo Anthony says he feels more pressure to get the Nuggets into the playoffs than he did when he played in last year's NCAA Final Four.

    Here is a fact you may find stunning: If Denver doesn't make it, you can expect the news conference announcing Jeff Bzdelik's dismissal as coach within days of season's end.

    Even as Bzdelik is being included by some among those whose names should be considered for Coach of the Year, the wheels are turning in Nuggets general manager Kiki Vandeweghe's head to find a replacement.

    The pressure Anthony feels to get his team in the playoff field?

    It's not because he is trying to save Bzdelik's job. Anthony is known to believe the Nuggets need someone better equipped than Bzdelik to manage games, especially in crunch time. The rookie sensation's refusal to re-enter a game in Detroit a couple of weeks ago was not intended to torpedo Bzdelik, but it had that effect, regardless of intent and Anthony's subsequent apology.

    Know what? Even if the Nuggets do make the playoff field, Bzdelik is gone, though I suppose an upset of the West's No. 1 seed in the first round might be enough to save his job.

    When Bzdelik does get fired, look for former Spurs assistant coach Mike Brown's name to emerge at the top of Vandeweghe's list of potential replacements.

    After three seasons as an assistant under Gregg Popovich, Brown now sits at Rick Carlisle's right hand in Indiana, where he is very much involved in game management. He is not merely an assistant coach for the team with the league's best record. He is listed as associate head coach.

    Though he is just 32 years old and never played in the NBA, Brown has leapfrogged to the top of the list of assistants destined for head coaching jobs.

    "There is no doubt in my mind Mike Brown is going to be a great head coach someday," said one Eastern Conference executive in San Antonio for the Nike Hoop Summit. "It's just a matter of when he is hired and who hires him."

    If the Nuggets miss the playoffs for the ninth-straight season, when and where could begin to take shape sooner than later.


    You have to register for the site so I just copied and pasted the whole thing. Looks like we will be losing Mike after this season if they are right.

  • #2
    Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

    Yeah Mike Brown is too talented , I would say he won't be with Indiana Next year unfortunately
    Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

      Well, maybe we can get Kevin O'Neil in that case?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

        Well, maybe we can get Kevin O'Neil in that case?
        Looks like that's the way it might play out.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

          well I don't think it pans out that way.

          Pacers can stop this, they will do if they have their own agenda like some of us expected at the news of his signing, He could be the one replacing Rick when Rick leaves.

          I don't expect the Pacers to be so "generous" as to let him go so simple, he is of major importance to the team and the players like him a lot according to some interviews.
          It also remains to be seen that it would be his wish to go to the Nuggets, surely there is a better environment he will be able to become headcoach once he holds on a little longer.

          not yet worried.
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

            I don't think Rick has a choice if Brown leaves or not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

              There was something in one of the papers the other day regarding the terminology of associate coach versus assistant. There may be something written into Brown's contract with the Pacers. Having said that, I don't think the Pacers would stand in his way because Rick is going to be here a long time.
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

                There was something in one of the papers the other day regarding the terminology of associate coach versus assistant. There may be something written into Brown's contract with the Pacers. Having said that, I don't think the Pacers would stand in his way because Rick is going to be here a long time.
                I think being the associate coach versus the assistant means he can only leave the staff to become a head coach and not an assistant someplace else.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

                  Having said that, I don't think the Pacers would stand in his way because Rick is going to be here a long time.

                  Two more seasons, then Larry shows him the door.

                  I think Larry's three-year 'rule' for when players tune out a basketball coach is brilliant and I would also find it hypocritical if he didn't 'enforce it' as GM.

                  The Pacers won't stand in Mike Brown's way if he's offered a head coaching job. I think he'll be a candidate this summer but I don't think he'll get hired - he's still very young and that will scare some teams away. Then after next season, we should 'sweeten the pot' so that he sticks around one more year before succeeding Rick.
                  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: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

                    I dont buy the three season crap. Jerry Sloan has been in Utah for 19 years. They have been to the finals only twice but they have had a very good team for 19 years. I think one of our problems and one of the overall problems with the NBA is the lack of stability. The reason the players tune the coach out is that they know he will be gone if they do.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

                      Two more seasons, then Larry shows him the door.

                      I think Larry's three-year 'rule' for when players tune out a basketball coach is brilliant and I would also find it hypocritical if he didn't 'enforce it' as GM.
                      Larry invented his "3 year rule" so he could get out of coaching, for two reasons:

                      1) He was having health problems- a heart arrythmia and recurring back issues. He did NOT want to draw attention to his medical problems until he overcame them, since it might affect his future employability (is that a word?)

                      2) He did not enjoy coaching as much as he thought he would enjoy management. He wanted to own a team. It wasn't long after he bowed out that he put together a failed bid to be an owner for the Charlotte expansion franchise. Maybe he still wants to own a team. I just hope he's happy being GM.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

                        Two more seasons, then Larry shows him the door.

                        I think Larry's three-year 'rule' for when players tune out a basketball coach is brilliant and I would also find it hypocritical if he didn't 'enforce it' as GM.
                        Larry invented his "3 year rule" so he could get out of coaching, for two reasons:

                        1) He was having health problems- a heart arrythmia and recurring back issues. He did NOT want to draw attention to his medical problems until he overcame them, since it might affect his future employability (is that a word?)

                        2) He did not enjoy coaching as much as he thought he would enjoy management. He wanted to own a team. It wasn't long after he bowed out that he put together a failed bid to be an owner for the Charlotte expansion franchise. Maybe he still wants to own a team. I just hope he's happy being GM.
                        I recall Bird saying from the day he was hired that he'd only coach for three years, which is why he only took a three year contract. Nobody took him seriously until the beginning of year #3 when he said it would be his last season. I've slept since then, so I could have it wrong, but I recall an introductory press conference remark that he began tuning out his coaches (such as Bill Fitch and KC Jones) after about three years and that he wouldn't be the Pacers coach any longer than that.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

                          I think being the associate coach versus the assistant means he can only leave the staff to become a head coach and not an assistant someplace else.
                          That is exactly right

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

                            I think being the associate coach versus the assistant means he can only leave the staff to become a head coach and not an assistant someplace else.
                            That is exactly right
                            Yep. The reason he's an "associate head" is you can only hire assistants away if it's a higher position. Carlisle noted as much his opening press conference.

                            That said, regardless of what happens with Brown or O'Neill, I want Chuck Person hired as a full assistant. He deserves it considering how well he's done in player development (Jamaal's shot, Jeff's post play, etc.)
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Props for Mike Brown in San Antonio paper

                              well I don't think it pans out that way.

                              Pacers can stop this, they will do if they have their own agenda like some of us expected at the news of his signing, He could be the one replacing Rick when Rick leaves.

                              I don't expect the Pacers to be so "generous" as to let him go so simple, he is of major importance to the team and the players like him a lot according to some interviews.
                              It also remains to be seen that it would be his wish to go to the Nuggets, surely there is a better environment he will be able to become headcoach once he holds on a little longer.

                              not yet worried.
                              I'm not worried about Brown leaving...If he goes...he goes!

                              I totally disagree with you that the Pacers would even think about standing in Mike Browns way if ANY head coaching position opens up for him. Head coaches make a lot more money then assistants, associate, or whatever kind of subordinate coach and I just don't see Bird or Walsh holding up a coaches chance at an oppertunity at advancement. Only head coaches are ever denied permission to talk to other teams because the move is unilateral. I have never heard of any subordinate coach being denied permission to take a head job. Heck, we let players go to seek better oppertunites so why would we stop a coach getting a promotion?
                              ...Still "flying casual"
                              @roaminggnome74

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X