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

Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

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

  • Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

    Simple question & yes I'll make a poll.

    This is the thread to let it out. Tell us how you feel one way or the other.

    Also I made the poll just a straight up question. I myself like the nuance of the middle ground but for this question we need to declare.

    If you are saying that you are giving him 1 or 2 more years and then you are done with him (or something similar) that counts as a yes, btw.
    161
    Yes
    77.02%
    124
    NO
    22.98%
    37
    Last edited by Peck; 06-26-2015, 03:50 AM.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

    Selected "NO" and would have done so already a year ago.

    He is not horrible GM (no Kahn, Isiah or Grunfeld). But over last few years, his decisions have IMO been net-negative...

    1) botching the situation with Granger.
    2) giving a bad deal to C.J.Miles
    3) the indecision of point guard spot
    4) acquiring Copeland who most obviously could not defend to qualify in Vogel-ball
    5) drafts - DRAFTS

    ...and so on...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

      No, but the only person I would trust is Vogel, so there is that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

        No, not now, not ever, never

        Celtics were quite right when they didn't want him in the front office, his schtick may have been fun when he played as his trashtalking, but as the POBO he has other responsibilities and if I were CEO he'd be flat out on his ear without a penny payment for destruction of company assets.
        An no there was little skill involved in drafting PG, heck DG had to ring him to tell endorse the guy!
        He also can't count, 3 year plan?? more like 9 and a new one on the way i assume.
        Add all that and his admittance that it was him who gave artest his last season here fully well knowing what happened the previous two years, than putting Tinsley in isolation in stead of a discretely handled trade, and now repeating that same stupidity with Roy makes for one of the worst in the league.
        And no i don't care he got an award for being the best gm in the league, he is not even a gm, he is president of basketball operations, something completely different. and he is bad at it.
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

          I do trust Larry. I know the Turner pick was not "sexy", but what the heck do you want? We want to play faster, have bigs that can spread the court, protect the rim and are athletic. Guess what, this mythical player was not there at #11, so we had to compromise. We got rim protection, youth, and a decent touch for a big and compromised on athleticism. I am ok with it at the end of the day.

          Considering we have CJ Miles and intend to bring back Stuckey, Booker would have been a reach. Lyles would have been ok, and probably a little more well rounded, but doesn't do anything spectacular etc. We were not going to get a player here to satisfy ALL of our wants.

          How would you like to be Larry now? Draft Tyler in 2009 and all the pundits come at him and say "you should have drafted a guy with more upside". In 2015 he drafts Turner and now he hears "you should have drafted a guy to help us win now". Dude can't win.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

            If you say "No" to having faith in Larry Bird running this franchise, then you might as
            well also say you don't have faith in Herb Simon as owner, because Herb obviously
            has faith in Bird, and it's his opinion that ultimately counts the most.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

              Can we have a "Maybe", a "We'll see" or a "Kinda"?
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                I like to judge by results, not by style points.

                2nd round (eliminated by LeBron)
                ECF (eliminated by LeBron)
                ECF (eliminated by LeBron)
                missed playoffs (Paul G injury, George Hill injury)

                Still looks good to me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                  Yes I trust him. There are so many second guessers here and pro-level GM's or President of Basketball Operations. You could run down every franchise and see bad draft picks, bad acquisitions, bad overall moves. It happens in every franchise but I trust Larry and team to do what is for the best because every decision he has made has been to make this franchise win. Not all of them worked but at the time, a lot of them were good moves. The only two question marks for me are Shawne Williams and Tyler but he even said himself that he did it to make our team better.

                  But then again...every team does that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                    How do people complain about his draft picks? Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, Paul George, Lance Stephenson, Kawhi Leonard, Miles Plumlee, and Solomon Hill have all largely overachieved. There are several all-stars and solid rotation players in that bunch taken from picks that typically yield players that dont stay in the league to rotational players. Sorry Tyler Hansbrough and Brandon Rush arent on team USA, but even they have had some solid years. And Brandon has certainly been better than Bayless who everyone wanted...
                    Lifelong pacers fan

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      No, not now, not ever, never

                      Celtics were quite right when they didn't want him in the front office, his schtick may have been fun when he played as his trashtalking, but as the POBO he has other responsibilities and if I were CEO he'd be flat out on his ear without a penny payment for destruction of company assets.
                      An no there was little skill involved in drafting PG, heck DG had to ring him to tell endorse the guy!
                      You make it seem liked Bird did no research on that draft and at the very end frantically called Granger to say, "Danny, Danny! I haven't scouted a single one of these players! For the love of God make our draft pick and save us!"

                      Part of being a good executive is having the sense to value the opinions of those around you who make the organization work. That's what Bird was doing there. But I guess if you have an extremely anti-Bird agenda, you have to find a way to marginalize the PG pick since he went on to become one of the best players in the league.

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      He also can't count, 3 year plan?? more like 9 and a new one on the way i assume.
                      So three straight years of great regular season records and going to the ECF's in two of those years don't count as a successful achievement that reset the clock? So when we took the Heat to 7, the clock was still ticking in fury on Bird's plan? PG's wicked injury has no relevance here?

                      And that doesn't even get into the fact that Walsh was still pulling the strings up through his departure in 2008.

                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      Add all that and his admittance that it was him who gave artest his last season here fully well knowing what happened the previous two years, than putting Tinsley in isolation in stead of a discretely handled trade, and now repeating that same stupidity with Roy makes for one of the worst in the league.
                      First, Artest was not Bird's guy. Walsh traded for Artest. Walsh extended Artest before the 02-03 season. All of that happened before Bird even came to the Pacers. Yes, Bird supported Artest after the brawl along with the rest of the organization, but he would have never been allowed to do that without the support of ownership and Walsh since it was such a unique issue. The organization - from Simon to Carlisle - stood behind Artest. Awful decision, but everyone had accountability there.

                      Tinsley was a cancer whose attitude needed to be punted away far far far far away from a team that was trying to develop character in its younger players. Unlike Hibbert right now, Tinsley had no positive attributes at that point, and no team on Earth would have been dumb enough to trade for him at that contract. Bird was trying to establish a positive winning attitude and culture, which is why one of the first things he did after Walsh left in 08 was banish Tinsley. Thank God he got that toxic personality far away from the team. Guys like rookie Hibbert didn't need to be anywhere around that.


                      Originally posted by able View Post
                      And no i don't care he got an award for being the best gm in the league, he is not even a gm, he is president of basketball operations, something completely different. and he is bad at it.
                      Well the award is called NBA Executive of the Year................

                      "GM" is a commonly used metonym to describe the guy who makes the final roster moves. Being considered a "Wall Street firm" doesn't literally mean that your office has to be on Wall Street.

                      Better go rip Danny Ainge's Executive award away too since he is also a "POB". Everyone knows that "POB" is just a fancy way of saying GM.

                      Looks like people have already started to lose sight of just how much Bird achieved with those teams he built. This franchise was completely dead when he took complete control in 2008. No one in Indy cared about them. The general public would not have cared if they bolted town and boarded up the Fieldhouse. Bird made a series of undeniably outstanding moves to make this franchise elite again. Great drafting, trades, and a key FA signing in West. People cared about the Pacers again, which is a direct result of what Larry Bird did. When the crowd was caught up in "Beat the Heat!" chants, no one was hung up on the fact that he banished poor Tinsley in 2008. Instead, they were enjoying a team that made back-to-back ECF's and restored the Indiana Pacers to relevance. Then PG suffered one of the biggest fluke injuries in league history, while West got old and decided to bolt. We are at a crossroads, but Bird has a proven track record.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-26-2015, 10:21 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                        Yes. Bird like to play the long game vs the short game, but as fans it's hard for us to see what the long game is so it can be frustrating.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                          I am really disappointed in the front office right now. Not so much because they drafted Turner at 11 but because they were not prepared when Winslow began to drop. Many indications out there that the Hornets were willing to talk deal with the 9th pick and the need to move up in front of the Heat was obvious. Instead TPTB left it to chance and hoped they would get a break just like they did with Granger & Leonard.

                          IMO Winslow is worth the price to move-up even it mean't sending them a lottery protected 1st in PG's contract year. Winslow is ready to play now and as good a bet for a solid 10-year starter as there was in the draft. I thought this type of creative dealing was the primary purpose for bringing in Pritch. Maybe something is happening with a potential Hibbert trade that we don't know about but can't help but feel the 1st big opportunity available to build a legit contender during PG's new contract term has been wasted.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                            Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
                            How do people complain about his draft picks? Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, Paul George, Lance Stephenson, Kawhi Leonard, Miles Plumlee, and Solomon Hill have all largely overachieved. There are several all-stars and solid rotation players in that bunch taken from picks that typically yield players that dont stay in the league to rotational players. Sorry Tyler Hansbrough and Brandon Rush arent on team USA, but even they have had some solid years. And Brandon has certainly been better than Bayless who everyone wanted...
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	CH0DV_XVEAA_JH1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	49.3 KB
ID:	3241322

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                              This happens every year I swear. Calm. Down. People.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X