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

Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

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

  • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

    I would like to see what Frank can do with better parts. Give him a 1 year extension and bring in some new talent.

    Comment


    • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

      The interesting thing about O'Briens tenure is that his teams were also better defensively than they were offensively. They just weren't very good on either side of the ball. In his 3 full years, O'Brien's teams were on average 21st in offensive rating and 16th in defensive rating. That's not what the era felt like because the team played so fast, but it's interesting to note.

      In fact, an interesting stat...the last time the Pacers were 20th or worse in defensive rating? The 1998-1999 lockout year. They finished 24th in defensive rating, but still were an excellent team because they were the #1 offense in basketball that year.

      Comment


      • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
        I would like to see what Frank can do with better parts. Give him a 1 year extension and bring in some new talent.
        Why would Frank want to do this? It is just like your trade requests. There has to be interest on both sides.

        Comment


        • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Getting rid of Frank would be insane. It's like having a Corvette that has this annoying pull to the left at high speeds and deciding to get rid of it for that 1964 Dodge Dart on craigslist instead of, well, fixing the pull to the left.
          My only issue with this is the bold part. Vogel isn't fixing his flaws.

          My main concern: Lets say we actually build a roster worth competing for a Championship soon(something I think is unlikely), I don't want to be in a position again where his rotations cost us another playoff series. It wasn't like this was a one time thing, the same thing happened against Miami back when we could compete.

          Comment


          • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

            Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
            The interesting thing about O'Briens tenure is that his teams were also better defensively than they were offensively. They just weren't very good on either side of the ball. In his 3 full years, O'Brien's teams were on average 21st in offensive rating and 16th in defensive rating. That's not what the era felt like because the team played so fast, but it's interesting to note.

            In fact, an interesting stat...the last time the Pacers were 20th or worse in defensive rating? The 1998-1999 lockout year. They finished 24th in defensive rating, but still were an excellent team because they were the #1 offense in basketball that year.
            They say a good offense trumps a good defense. Maybe that's right after all.

            Comment


            • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

              Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post



              Jeff Van Gundy supporting Frank. I have doubts that he would be a replacement choice Larry would use.
              The Van Gundy brothers have always "come to the aid" of fellow NBA coaches. I remember when Stan called Larry Bird out for firing Jim O'brien.

              Comment


              • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                My only issue with this is the bold part. Vogel isn't fixing his flaws.

                My main concern: Lets say we actually build a roster worth competing for a Championship soon(something I think is unlikely), I don't want to be in a position again where his rotations cost us another playoff series. It wasn't like this was a one time thing, the same thing happened against Miami back when we could compete.
                Not fixing his flaws? His rotations completely changed after 5 game. Say he reverts back to his flaws the next year, okay, but to say he didn't fix his flaws when he went with a 6man rotation for two straight games in the second half isn't true.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  The Celtics weren't any better rebounding the ball than we were, I'll give you Charlotte.
                  Fair enough. The Celtics had better rebounding talent than we did but it's true that they didn't the rebound the ball any better than we did.

                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  But who are these shooters and playmakers you speak of on those rosters? None of them have any better assist to turnover ratio guys than Monta, who people loathe handling the ball here.
                  Who are these shooters I speak of?

                  Let's take a look at Boston. They had 5 rotational players that shot above 33% from 3. Everyone in their starting backcourt shot well (Avery Bradley shot 36.1%, Isaiah Thomas shot 35.9% and Jae Crowder shot 33.6%) and they actually had two real stretch 4s in Jonas Jerebko (who shot 39.8%) and Kelly Olynyk (who shot 40.5%).

                  Now, let's take a look at Charlotte. Once again, we're looking at a backcourt that shot well from 3 point range. Kemba Walker improved his shooting spectacularly and shot 37.1%, Nicolas Batum shot 34.8%, Jeremy Lin shot 33.6% and late addition Courtney Lee shot 39.2%. We're also looking at another team that had some real stretch 4s (and 5s). Marvin Williams shot a blistering 40.2%, Spencer Hawes shot 37.3% and rookie Frank Kaminsky shot 33.7%.

                  Both Boston and Charlotte had a number of 3 point threats both in their backcourt and frontcourt. You couldn't leave any of the players named above alone and that helped their spacing immensely.

                  On the other hand, we only had 3 players shooting over 33% from 3. George Hill shot 40.6%, Paul George shot 37.2% and CJ Miles shot 36.7%. That's it. We know that Miles is an extremely streaky shooter so we couldn't really rely on him to hit 3 when we needed it. So, unlike Boston and Charlotte we really only had two reliable 3-point shooters throughout the season.

                  Now, about our playmaking. Monta had a 1.89 assist to turnover ratio. Stuckey had a 1.87 ratio. The player that had the best assist to turnover ratio in our team (excluding Lawson who didn't play a lot of games) was George Hill at 2.56 but we all know that GH was not used as a primary facilitator for most of this season. Here's the link to our team's advanced stats page in NBA.com -> http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612...t=AST_TO&dir=1

                  Boston had 3 players with an assist to turnover ratio better than Monta's. Marcus Smart and Isaiah Thomas were both at 2.31 and Evan Turner was at 2.12.

                  Charlotte had 4 players (that played significant minutes) with an assist to turnover ratio better than Monta's. Late addition Courtney Lee was at 2.61, Kemba Walker was at 2.46, Al Jefferson was at 2.06 and Nicolas Batum was at 1.97. Yes, that Al Jefferson. The so-called black hole of the post had a better assist to turnover ratio than our lead guard.

                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  And wouldn't shooting, playmaking, and offensive statistics overall have at least some correlation with the systems you run anyway?
                  Some correlation? Definitely. But correlation doesn't imply causation. We really only had 3 competent shooters this season and no one can deny that. Both Monta and Stuckey are non-shooters and we didn't have any big who was capable of stretching the floor. Bird may have wanted us to go small and run but he really didn't sign any players that were capable of playing that style.


                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  Would the Pacers offensive statistics suck this bad if their coaches were coaching up our players? I seriously doubt it. I know you and others have been consistent with the bad mix narrative and I don't disagree, but can you honestly sit here and tell me that you thought this team would be in the bottom half of the league offensively let alone 24th! That's where this team underachieved.
                  Yes, they would still suck. Maybe we wouldn't be 24th in offensive efficiency. Maybe we would be a little higher like 20th, 18th or even 15th. But it wouldn't be good enough to matter. The fit just isn't there.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                    Lol Jeff Saturday has an opinion


                    Comment


                    • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                      There are predictions, then there is the REALITY of the situation and performance. Someone can predict me to be C+ student before school ever started. During the school year, I performed like a B- or B student under average teachers. However, it was discovered based on HOW I completed tests and homework, that I could have been an B+ or A- student with a better teacher.

                      Just because I met your predetermined predictions before I ever did a single piece of work, it doesn't mean that I don't have the potential to do better under different circumstances.
                      The reality is that our hot start distorted the expectations that some of you had. You saw the 12-5 start and thought that this roster was better than it really is. You're forgetting something crucial here. During that 12-5 start we were #1 in the league in 3P%. Yes, we were shooting better than the freakin' Warriors. There's no way that we could have sustained it.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        I also don't think defense falls apart w/o Vogel. We have good/great defensive players down low and on perimeter. We would be fine.
                        We have three good defenders. Three. Paul George, George Hill and Ian Mahinmi. Myles Turner will eventually grow to become a good defender as well (he's a pretty good rim protector right now but he struggles in the PnR). Solomon is a good defender but I don't expect him to be here next year since Bird didn't pick up his QO.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Not fixing his flaws? His rotations completely changed after 5 game. Say he reverts back to his flaws the next year, okay, but to say he didn't fix his flaws when he went with a 6man rotation for two straight games in the second half isn't true.
                          Okay, he fixed them for a game or two, but will revert right back to his old ways next season when it costs us another series.*

                          Comment


                          • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                            Food for thought. The Charlotte Hornets improved from 28th in ORTG last season to 9th this season, while maintaining their defensive identity. What changed this year? Hint: it wasn't the coach, nor the assistants either.

                            Spoiler Spoiler:

                            Comment


                            • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                              The reality is that our hot start distorted the expectations that some of you had. You saw the 12-5 start and thought that this roster was better than it really is. You're forgetting something crucial here. During that 12-5 start we were #1 in the league in 3P%. Yes, we were shooting better than the freakin' Warriors. There's no way that we could have sustained it.
                              That's not the reality. The reality is that the pacers were by far the worst team in the league in the final 3 minutes of close games, and it's not even close. We aren't disappointed based on a hot November, we're disappointed because we were good enough for 3rd in the East for 45 minutes a game. And this same phenomenon cost us a first round playoff series.
                              Danger Zone

                              Comment


                              • Re: Should Frank Vogel be offered either a second contract or some form of extension or would you prefer the Pacers go a different direction?

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                Food for thought. The Charlotte Hornets improved from 28th in ORTG last season to 9th this season, while maintaining their defensive identity. What changed this year? Hint: it wasn't the coach, nor the assistants either.

                                Spoiler Spoiler:
                                Their crap big man was injured?
                                Danger Zone

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X