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

Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Actually, in the State of Indiana, Larry Bird is bigger than the Pacer franchise in many people's eyes. IOW he isn't going anywhere unless it's his choice. The Simons will ride that horse to the end.
    Maybe to the general public but to Pacer fans?

    Comment


    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Please, understand something. The main issue I have with Bird is that he's going public with this BS. If he approached the players in private and spoke his mind I would be completely fine with it. But he didn't. He chose to go public and make a spectacle out of the situation.
      Knew what you meant typo from Vogel to Bird.

      I agree with Nuntius. This idea quit being a wuss and sack up is fine if contained in the locker room, but it does not do any good brought out in public. I personally have the responsibility of evaluating a staff of 10 every year and I guarantee if I treated my fellow workers that way it would not be pretty. Funny thing the loudest noise probably wouldn't come from the employee doing the bad job. Rather others do a good to great job that do not like the fact they would consider that unprofessional.
      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....

      Comment


      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        And here's the root of the problem. People think that because he's Larry Bird he can say whatever the heck he wants. But he shouldn't. Not when he's the GM of the Pacers. Not when he's deciding this franchise's future.

        In his private time he can say whatever the heck he wants. But when he's out there representating the Pacers franchise then he has to be a professional. He has to understand that the franchise is bigger than him.
        This is my problem. Bird has been in a position to manage personalities for years as coach and President.

        In the 20 years he's been involved in basketball as a "boss' has there been one complaint from a former coach, player, etc?

        The only thing close is the Hibbert/West situation, which has several layers to it. Bird claims he was never informed of West's departure, yet West claims he told the organization "2 or 3 days before the draft to be respectful." Both could have reason to lie, but then you have the press conference where Bird is straight up about where Hibbert stands with the franchise. So West, who left the Pacers because “I’m just not sure the Pacers are in title contention right now. I’m going into my 13th season. I’ll be 35 soon,” says he didn't like what Bird said about Hibbert. Yet Hib on the situation, who had no problem bad mouthing JOB...

        "Larry says what's on his mind. He doesn't hold his tongue. Things happen," Hibbert told Aldridge. "Like I said, I enjoyed my time there in Indy. You just have gotta move on, get ready for the next chapter... Larry was very up front with me. He said before the press conference that I can't promise you minutes next year, and they wanted to go in a different direction. So it wasn't like what happened came out of nowhere, what he said. I'll always say that Larry changed my life. I was on the phone with my agent in the office during the (2009) Draft process and Larry said 'If Roy's there at 17, we'll take him.' That meant a lot to me. I know that things change and the NBA is 'What have you done for me lately?', but I could never say a bad thing about Larry or the Pacers' organization."
        So in 20 years, the only time anything CLOSE to a negative thing said about Bird and how he dealt with players or people in origination came from a guy who was already disgruntled by the "he hasn't informed us" situation and was making his case for chasing a ring.

        Bird's reputation speaks for itself. If he has been a jerk with an ego problem, players would speak bad about Bird and the organization.

        But Jalen Rose,

        I appreciated and loved him so much
        Reggie thanking Bird during HOF speech, or Jermain O'Neal,

        My love for this organization to this day is still the same. I'll always be considered a Pacer. People ask me who I want to retire as, it'll be as a Pacer, there's no doubt.
        Granger (despite everyone crying bout he was "mistreated" by Bird and the Pacers) still is fan of the organization,



        Danny was injured on the last year of his contract. Not a bad idea or disrespectful to get something out of it. The West/Hibbert situation was max player who severely declined and a player that didn't want to be here because he wanted to chase a ring. These aren't good examples to say Bird has a people problem or ego issues.

        Like I said, reputation speaks for itself. Guy just says how it is, it hurts fans feelings, but the players respect that. You know where you stand.

        Comment


        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          This is my problem. Bird has been in a position to manage personalities for years as coach and President.

          In the 20 years he's been involved in basketball as a "boss' has there been one complaint from a former coach, player, etc?

          The only thing close is the Hibbert/West situation, which has several layers to it. Bird claims he was never informed of West's departure, yet West claims he told the organization "2 or 3 days before the draft to be respectful." Both could have reason to lie, but then you have the press conference where Bird is straight up about where Hibbert stands with the franchise. So West, who left the Pacers because “I’m just not sure the Pacers are in title contention right now. I’m going into my 13th season. I’ll be 35 soon,” says he didn't like what Bird said about Hibbert. Yet Hib on the situation, who had no problem bad mouthing JOB...



          So in 20 years, the only time anything CLOSE to a negative thing said about Bird and how he dealt with players or people in origination came from a guy who was already disgruntled by the "he hasn't informed us" situation and was making his case for chasing a ring.

          Bird's reputation speaks for itself. If he has been a jerk with an ego problem, players would speak bad about Bird and the organization.

          But Jalen Rose,



          Reggie thanking Bird during HOF speech, or Jermain O'Neal,



          Granger (despite everyone crying bout he was "mistreated" by Bird and the Pacers) still is fan of the organization,



          Danny was injured on the last year of his contract. Not a bad idea or disrespectful to get something out of it. The West/Hibbert situation was max player who severely declined and a player that didn't want to be here because he wanted to chase a ring. These aren't good examples to say Bird has a people problem or ego issues.

          Like I said, reputation speaks for itself. Guy just says how it is, it hurts fans feelings, but the players respect that. You know where you stand.
          I mean, if you're going to use Danny's words, maybe apply them to the right situation.




          And NBA players just don't speak badly of their bosses. It reflects poorly on the player and you can bet they are heavily cautioned against it. I think Danny could very well like the Pacers but not care for Larry Bird, but there's no fact either way. It's speculation no matter how you approach it.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment


          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            Have I? I've been talking about those statements these past few pages.



            Not replacing Hibbert with an equally good big has resulted in our rebounding plummeting to 15th. Trading away Danny proved to be destructive for our chemistry. You may believe that those moves weren't wrong but I think that this is pretty debatable.



            And what if your boss rented a one-hour special on primetime TV just to inform everyone in the world (including all possible future employers) that you're worthless? Would you still take it in stride and "pick it up"?

            Please, understand something. The main issue I have with Vogel is that he's going public with this BS. If he approached the players in private and spoke his mind I would be completely fine with it. But he didn't. He chose to go public and make a spectacle out of the situation.
            Bird did actually talk to Hibbert in private, see my post below.

            But whether you like it or not, a big part of Bird's job is reporting to the media and fans. What Bird said about Hibbert and the direction of the franchise, the majority of fans and people who buy tickets, tune into FSIN wanted to hear. The decline of Hibbert from All NBA player, arguably top center in the league, to a nearly unplayable moping shell of himself was unprecedented. Bird simply said that Hibbert wasn't guaranteed to be starting next season, gotta get faster and score points. That's not disrespectful.

            Did people complain about Bird saying Danny doesn't work hard in the offseason? No. Only reason people think Bird is a jerk is because he got rid of their favorite players.
            Last edited by freddielewis14; 05-05-2016, 09:28 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
              I mean, if you're going to use Danny's words, maybe apply them to the right situation.




              And NBA players just don't speak badly of their bosses. It reflects poorly on the player and you can bet they are heavily cautioned against it. I think Danny could very well like the Pacers but not care for Larry Bird, but there's no fact either way. It's speculation no matter how you approach it.
              Waived and traded are too different things.

              But the point is, coaches, GMs, etc get reputations. Jim O'Brien is a perfect example. Several players have come out and he was a complete *******, even bigot. In 20 years, nothing on Bird. And the Pacers, even through the brawl, is always described as a class organization.

              Comment


              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                All I really need for a vote of confidence for Bird is to think back to the days of Donnie Do Nothing Walsh and then the days of the 2 Headed Monster. I much prefer Bird over the style of the FO in those days. He's earned the right to do it his way until we see his way blows up in his face... or not...
                Considering Bird has spent the last few years flipping half the roster every year and that many of the offensive issues are that we're continually having to deal with new lineups every year, I might want to call Bird "Larry Do-too-damn-much"
                BillS

                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...

                Comment


                • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Considering Bird has spent the last few years flipping half the roster every year and that many of the offensive issues are that we're continually having to deal with new lineups every year, I might want to call Bird "Larry Do-too-damn-much"
                  Well, last year we had no choice to flip the roster, and years past we only brought in a few different bench players because Vogel bench unit wasn't strong. I don't see why you would say trying to bring in a few new bench players is doing too much.

                  The trademarks of the Pacers after bringing in West were top defense, no offense, bad bench BUT continuity.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    Well, last year we had no choice to flip the roster, and years past we only brought in a few different bench players because Vogel bench unit wasn't strong. I don't see why you would say trying to bring in a few new bench players is doing too much.

                    The trademarks of the Pacers after bringing in West were top defense, no offense, bad bench BUT continuity.
                    Continuity in the starting lineup plus Ian mahinmi you mean?

                    Our starters with West were actually quite good offensively. Slow, but they ranked well per shot.
                    Time for a new sig.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                      Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                      Continuity in the starting lineup plus Ian mahinmi you mean?

                      Our starters with West were actually quite good offensively. Slow, but they ranked well per shot.
                      Sure, like I've said before, I think the issue has been egg timer subs and playing correct rotation of starters and bench.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                        Giving the example of managing people and not going public doesn't apply at all, because you likely don't work in the public eye. The Pacers are a televised product, where everyone can see and comment at anytime, any place about the state of the product, and Bird is no different. I lead a software team --- we don't write software on a basketball court, on national TV, with millions of fans, Twitter, etc.

                        The situation is apples to oranges. What he said in the context of a highly visible basketball team based on public exposure, is completely fine.

                        He comments on the team ALL the time. In fact, you all practically demand that he does so --- you always want explanations. The problem is, what you guys evidently want is that he ONLY makes positive comments, and never talk negatively or in a constructive manner.

                        I've never seen one ounce of complaining about Bird from any present or past employees. Not one. Granger is less upset about his trade than you all are.
                        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-05-2016, 10:45 AM.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                          I am in complete agreement with Larry Bird. It is time for a new voice. However that new voice needs to come from the top.

                          It's time for Bird to go and replace him with a new voice and direction.


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

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            I am in complete agreement with Larry Bird. It is time for a new voice. However that new voice needs to come from the top.

                            It's time for Bird to go and replace him with a new voice and direction.
                            Never have I agreed more, the man is a menace to the Pacers, PLEASE let him go to the Celtics!
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                              I am starting to reconsider my vote of confidence.

                              Wanted: Coach willing to have style dictated to him by meddlesome GM
                              that will toss you aside like a rag when he becomes tired of your voice.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                                Originally posted by able View Post
                                Never have I agreed more, the man is a menace to the Pacers, PLEASE let him go to the Celtics!
                                Dear Lord does he pray at the idol of Red Auerbach.... pssss Larry, Auerbach's dead and coached even before you played as a pro. Want some advice, lay off the Red love and open your eyes and ears.
                                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....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X