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

Great article about fired Coaches

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

    Great article about fired Coaches

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3486922

    Straight shooting: Head coach firings and more

    CharleyRosen / Special to FOXSports.com
    Posted: 2 hours ago

    It's axiomatic that coaches are hired to be fired. And in the bloodthirsty world of the NBA, there's always more to a hatchet job than merely comparing the number of wins and losses. So far, six coaches have been axed and three committed hari-kari before they could be measured for a black hood.


    Paul Silas

    Okay, so he's stubborn, meaner than he looks, slow to forgive a slight, and too honest for his own good. For sure, his offenses are overly simplistic, but that's why Brendan Malone was his top assistant. Call Silas old fashioned, too, if that means expecting a fulltime, full-court effort from all his players. But could LeBron James have developed so rapidly under any other coach?


    It seems that the new owner, Dan Gilbert, complained Silas had no set rotation —that his players didn't know when they'd play and exactly what they were supposed to do when they did. Say what? All Silas was doing was trying to mix and match a bench full of flawed players.

    Silas is another standup guy who's paid the price for his general manager's inability to assemble the right cast of characters to complement LeBron. And the franchise's new ownership will soon discover that quick fixes don't work in the wonderful world of the NBA.

    The big question in Cleveland is this: Who can Jim Paxson hire to lure LeBron into re-upping once his contract expires?

    I think I've seen this movie before. It's a remake of a Hollywood classic — One Dribbled Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

    Johnny Davis



    Davis simply wasn't firm enough in dealing with a squad full of undisciplined, irresponsible and downright foolish hooplings. Not a screamer, not a disciplinarian, Davis had the crazy idea that pros should act like pros. Give him a team of Grant Hills and Davis' rational, intelligent approach would be extremely successful.

    Davis' firing also points out one of the unavoidable traps that eventually doom most coaches — having to coach somebody else's players. In Orlando, the onus is on John Weisbrod for making Cuttino Mobley walk the plank; for shanghaiing Doug Christie, who was better left for dead in Sacramento; for insisting that Jameer Nelson was ready for primetime responsibilities at the point; and for paying a sultan's ransom for the erratic, slow-footed and defenseless quasi-talents of Hedo Turkoglu.

    Through it all, Weisbrod's professed game plan was to clear cap space to recruit a crop of blue-chippers for next season and beyond. If he was responsible for sacrificing this season (and making a wasteful trade for T-Mac), then Weisbrod shouldn't blame Davis for the Magic's disappearing act.

    But it's always the dimwit behind the curtain who pulls the strings and the coach who takes the fall. What happened to Davis in Orlando is proof that nice guys finish closer to last than to first.

    Maurice Cheeks



    Cheeks is a wonderful assistant who simply lacked the charisma to lead the NBA's modern day recalcitrant warriors into battle. Like Davis, Cheeks also took the hit for the malfeasance of his general manager. That would be John Nash, who was more interested in justifying the mega-bucks he spent in signing Darius Miles —a notorious malcontent, under achiever and all-around softie — than in backing his coach. Even if Cheeks were more forceful and more accomplished, the dysfunctional crew assembled by Nash was virtually un-coachable.

    Jeff Bzdelik



    The Nuggets have totally mortgaged their future to Carmelo Anthony. Kiki Vandeweghe is convinced that Anthony will become a legitimate franchise player sooner rather than later. Maybe yes … probably no. But as soon as C-Ant understood that Bzdelik wanted him to share the ball and play earnest defense, a divorce was unavoidable. In the ensuing settlement, Anthony was granted full custody of the team.

    Jeff Bzdelik's problem was he wanted Carmelo Anthony to share the ball. (Garrett W. Ellwood / GettyImages)


    To be fair, George Karl is a decided improvement. Obviously, Karl has his faults:

    Under the guise of being totally honest, he's totally obnoxious. He inevitably alienates his players by criticizing them in the media. His over-the-top obsessiveness can be a drag. And if Larry Brown acts as though he invented basketball, Karl acts as though it was his idea to cut a hole in the bottom of the peach basket.

    By now, though, Karl has discerned that Eduardo Najera is an authentic tough guy and that Kenyon Martin is a fake. But the biggest problem for Denver's latest coach is how to domesticate Anthony. Indeed, a coach's only leverage is to control a wayward player's burn — but whenever Anthony is forced to sit on the bench and wear a dunce cap, his pouting arrogance flares into anger.

    Good luck, George.

    Flip Saunders



    Saunders was lifted up in friendship and then unceremoniously dumped by his ex-college roommate, Kevin McHale. But wasn't McHale primarily responsible for signing the sinister, irresponsible Latrell Sprewell? And Sam Cassell, one of the most selfish point guards in the league? How about Michael Olowakondi, he of the big ego and small talents? Or Wally Szczerbiak, who'd rather flex his muscles than play defense? Not to mention Troy Hudson, who needs to play fifty minutes per game and shoot at will to be satisfied?

    At least McHale put his own butt on the bench and wasn't afraid to take the heat. Still, coaches throughout the league are fervently rooting against him.

    Lenny Wilkens



    Wilkens never should have been hired in the first place, and his dismissal was merciful.

    Hubie Brown



    He was sick alright ... sick of Jerry West's perfectionism and sick of his players constant moaning about insufficient game time and not enough touches. Hubie is one of the most perceptive and pragmatic men ever to have graced an NBA bench. If he ever decides to write a tell-all autobiography, it would be one of the most fascinating sports books ever.

    Rudy Tomjanovich



    Rudy T. had been a fixture in Houston for twenty years — 10 as a player and 12 as a coach —until bladder surgery forced him into temporary retirement. But he couldn't avoid scratching his (coaching) itch one more time. So, forget about the Lakers roster being clogged with undersized and underpowered players. Disregard the media circus that always spotlighted the misadventures of Kid Kobe. From the get go, Rudy T. lacked the enduring passion, the sheer ruthlessness and the basketball know-how to succeed in an unduly stressful, big-time market like Los Angeles.

    Don Nelson



    The word around the league is that Nelson had been cruising for many years. Like Chuck Daly in Orlando, Nellie was mostly in it for the money.

    Trivia



    Over the years, a total of 27 different players have led the NBA in rebounds. But only nine averaged more per game rebounds than points. Who are they?

  • During a recent Minnesota-San Antonio game, Kevin Garnett set what must be an all-time (albeit unofficial) record by successfully traveling three times on a single foray to the hoop.

    Upon catching the ball at the left foul line extended, he executed several jab-step fakes with his right foot. When he finally made his move, Garnett stretched and planted his left foot into the paint before his dribble ever touched the floor. (That's one) He came to a jump stop in the shadow of the hoop, then made a two-footed bunny hop (That's two) before he started faking again. Moving his right foot only, he faked going up, under and sideways. Then he hopped on his left foot (That's three) and made a head fake before being fouled in the act.

    Hmmm. Perhaps KG's traveling show is merely another aspect of the NBA's effort to outlaw defense. The ratings game is apparently more important than what happens on the court.

    Trivia answer: Mel Hutchins (1951-52). Harry Gallatin (1953-54). Mo Stokes (1956-57). Bill Russell (1957-59, 1963-65). Wes Unseld (1974-75). Swen Nater (1979-80). Dennis Rodman (1991-98). Dikembe Mutombo (1999-00). Ben Wallace (2001-003).

    Charley Rosen, former CBA coach, author of 12 books about hoops, the current one being A pivotal season — How the 1971-72 L.A. Lakers changed the NBA, is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com.
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.
Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Great article about fired Coaches

    That is an interesting article, I certainly don't agree with all of it, but I agree with more of it than most will

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Great article about fired Coaches

      For sure, his offenses are overly simplistic, but that's why Brendan Malone was his top assistant.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment

        • Previous template Next
        Working...
        X