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:
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

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

Coach Frank Vogel

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Coach Frank Vogel

    I was against giving Vogel the full time job originally and haven't seen much in the last year and 5 games to indicate my original assessment was incorrect but a hybrid of Red Auerbach and Phil Jackson couldn't get this team to the Finals.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson


    • #17
      Re: Coach Frank Vogel

      I don't know but sure seems like Hibbert hasn't been running through any walls for Frank lately.
      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....


      • #18
        Re: Coach Frank Vogel

        Give me elite players and I can win a Championship.

        Example: Erik Spoelstra, Doc Rivers


        • #19
          Re: Coach Frank Vogel

          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
          Give me elite players and I can win a Championship.

          Example: Erik Spoelstra, Doc Rivers
          I will admit that Spoelestra seems to have the players buying in to sharing the ball. They are destroying teams.
          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


          • #20
            Re: Coach Frank Vogel

            I said "not sure" because, as many problems as I have with Frank right now, it's just too early to make a final judgement. No plan survives contact with the enemy, let's give him more than a week to adjust this one.

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...


            • #21
              Re: Coach Frank Vogel

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              Give me elite players and I can win a Championship.

              Example: Erik Spoelstra, Doc Rivers

              I usually compare Brooks from OKC with Vogel, they to me are good cheerleaders but not so good X's and O's coaches, I guess my point is that Brooks had a team with 3 elite players and he didn't win the championship, Brooks and Vogel also fall in love with one or two players in their teams and don't stop using them even if those players are hurting the team.

              You can have elite players but if you don't have a good coach, that coach can hinder your ability to win a championship, example: Brooks.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!


              • #22
                Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                If you read the complaints you should notice they are the exact same complaints from last year. It is all about his offensive system, and too much reliance on iso plays.
                So apparently we had players extremely talented to win as many games as we did despite the lack of an offensive system, yet these same guys apparently got worse or forgot how to win the games we won last year. Makes sense.


                • #23
                  Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                  okay so a few points here i want to make after reading comments:

                  1) i feel like the Pacers are in the same boat the hoosiers were in a few years ago. Mike Davis basically stepped in for Knight and led that team to the Final Four so immediately he was given every chance to succeed. Vogel took over for a coach that probably 95% of this board wanted run out of town and he did well.

                  last year not having a training camp was an accetable excuse. this season it will be not having Granger.

                  2) how many coaches go from assisting the assistant coach to the head coach position and succeed. i like Vogel but lets be real here. it takes time to become a good coach in this league and right now Vogel needs to be groomed further as an assistant coach.

                  3) i want to rephrase this question a little bit to give a different perspective. do the Pacers have enough talent to advance to the ECF or NBA Finals.?

                  Hill (strong player w/ championship experience), West (all-star), Granger (all-star), Hibbert (all-star).

                  * outside of NY, Brooklyn, Miami, Lakers, SA, OKC, is there any other team in the NBA with more talent in its starting 5.

                  If this team has the talent to become an ECF finalist is Vogel a coach who can take them the next level up.

                  personally, i dont think Vogel is a guy that can take this team to the next level. Vogel will become a good coach one day but right now we need someone with more nba experience.

                  I like Shaw cause i have heard alot of great things about him and he played in the NBA and today those are the type of coaches that seem to really succeed alas a Doc Rivers.

                  We need a coach who can get the most out of this young team (Hibbert, Paul George, Stephenson, etc).


                  • #24
                    Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                    These Mike Davis comparisons gotta go. Davis took over a good IU team. Vogel took over a crap Pacers team. The obvious major difference.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.


                    • #25
                      Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                      So apparently we had players extremely talented to win as many games as we did despite the lack of an offensive system, yet these same guys apparently got worse or forgot how to win the games we won last year. Makes sense.
                      That is a nice theory you came up there, good thing I didn't come up with it because it is pure ****.

                      Vogel had an offensive scheme last year that very few people were satisfied with last year. It is a scheme designed for people to beat their man either one v one or in a two man game. It wasn't an offense that really got more than two people involved at any single time. It was a big reason why we struggled to get open shots. This year we have the exact same offense that is easy to defend. Again the players are having to overcome the offense to win games. The difference between last year and this year, we have no Granger and we came out of the gates slow. Nothing I would worry about. Just we would look a lot better if we had a scheme that helped the players instead of relying on the players to do everything by themselves.


                      • #26
                        Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        These Mike Davis comparisons gotta go. Davis took over a good IU team. Vogel took over a crap Pacers team. The obvious major difference.
                        it wasnt that great of an IU team. from what i remember they got pretty lucky in who they played on the way to the final 4. kinda like the Pacers last year in playing a D12 less Magic squad.

                        the comparision is not based on team talent but that Davis was in an interim role who far exceeded expectations and therefore was given additional time to succeed when in all reality he was not the best coach for the team.


                        • #27
                          Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          Vogel's offense sucks but I'm not going to blame him yet, he said he was going to make the offense less complicated yesterday, whatever that means?
                          I think it means he tried to implement a system that the guys have shown they can't run successfully in a game situation. They aren't making crisp cuts, they aren't making good passes. They aren't setting consistently good screens. We all know (well, maybe not all, but those of us who followed off-season coverage closely) that they worked on at least one of those things - screening drills. Vogel talked about how he wanted them to set good, hard screens. Tyler has shown some improvement in that area, but it's not consistent. Vogel cannot go out there and set the screen his damn self. The best he can do is keep reinforcing what he wants and putting them through the drills that will make it more likely that they'll form the habits he wants.

                          The idea that we need to simplify the offense is really not a good sign re: our basketball IQ as a team, that's for sure.

                          I do think this is more on the players than it is on Frank. But I still voted I'm not sure, because I need to see how Coach responds to what is happening now.
                          Last edited by gummy; 11-08-2012, 05:13 PM.
                          "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                          "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                          "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider


                          • #28
                            Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                            Not sure its Vogel's fault the FO downgraded our overall talent
                            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel


                            • #29
                              Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                              Doesn't help that we still cannot set proper screens/picks.

                              If it's not the coach, I'm going to say that our BBIQ is rather low.

                              Either way, I expect us to improve, but by how much, I don't know. Other teams really improved their roster. Pacers played well above reality due to injuries that plagued other teams. Looks like instead of coming back down to earth, the Pacers are experiencing a huge crash down to earth.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.


                              • #30
                                Re: Coach Frank Vogel

                                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                                Not sure its Vogel's fault the FO downgraded our overall talent
                                I don't agree. Ian is much better than a 6'8 PF playing C. Ian will be fine. Same with Green.

                                DJ is a definite downgrade. A huuuuuge downgrade. Still don't think Hans is playing as well as some of you think. Still can't hit a shot and still can't rebound.
                                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.