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 Handoverfist View Post
    I'd rather see Ellis come off the bench than George Hill. It'll never happen though.
    I agree. Ellis has always been a great option for a 6th man. Hill is now a better player than the post injury Ellis but even now Ellis makes the better instant offense.

    Comment


    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Did he say that in a newer interview? I don't think that he said anything like that in the Vogel interview but it's possible that I've missed it.
      Last press conference he said he would like the coach hired in time to help with those decisions.



      I see. Fair enough about the fans and the community. Still, that doesn't mean that the FO ascribes to the same attitude. Bird has not faced any repercussions by his employers over his recent screw-ups. Where's the accountability for Bird?
      You see, you don't know the plan. Example, if Bird told Simon, "Hey, Hibbert is done, we need to rebuild. I think I can get that done in a sesason and in the meantime we'll be a dangerous playoff team next year," then he is doing exactly what he said. I mean, if he rebuilds this team in a year its incredible. We had 20 million dollars invested in guys that are washed up just a year ago.


      Is Pritchard's role really that big? I don't see him mentioned that often in articles that focus on our FO. Those articles tend to be 90% about Bird even when they're written by the local press.
      You can believe Pritchard gets paid to do nothing, but that's stupid.

      Vogel wasn't perfect but he's probably better at his job than Bird is.
      Bird as a GM has been just as successful as Vogel, but long. Bird as a coach went to the finals.

      Don't tell that to me. Tell that to Bird. Vogel was let go during of a rebuild year.
      You are reading, I said GMs and coaches aren't fired because of a rebuild year. Vogel's was re-signed for many reasons, no just this season.


      And I'm gonna ask once again. Who's gonna fire Bird? We know for sure that Simon ain't gonna do it. Bird will stay with the Pacers until he decides to step down himself. Whether we sink or swim during that period is anyone's guess.
      If he messes up this coming season he may be fired. Knowing the Pacers, Pritchard is being groomed to take over.

      I never said that Bird should give a rat's *** about what you and I think. I only mentioned because you brought up the whole "Indiana community doesn't see him as a Hoosier legend" thing.
      Then whats your point here? You've had several posts about Bird not caring about the fans.

      [quote]Would he have his career as a GM and coach if he wasn't a legendary player, though? He's playing career jumpstarted everything else.[quote]

      Lol, most every coach (except Lawrence Frank) had some sort of career in basketball as player before coaching, GM, etc.

      Once again, I'm not clamoring for Bird to be fired. I'm clamoring for him to reconsider a plan that I consider to be extremely shortsighted and potentially harmful for the future of the team. That's all.
      I explained the history of a class organization to illustrate that Bird must be listening to the other people who work there.

      We really won't know the plan until this coming season, so I don't know what's not to like yet.


      I didn't make any claims. I only said that I don't know if he still doesn't. Not knowing whether he does or not is not the same with claiming that he doesn't.

      Facts can only be presented when they exist. Neither one of us can know what Bird does and doesn't do. Neither one of us can know what he thinks. Therefore, neither one of us has any facts to support their position. We're both just expressing our opinion.
      You've said several times that you don't think Bird listens to his scouts or anyone else he works with, I'm just giving you facts that make your opinion illogical.

      You believe in Bird and that's completely fine. You have every right to do so. I don't believe in Bird and I have every right to do so as well. In the end, it's Bird's moves themselves that will prove one of us right and the other wrong.
      Saying I believe in Bird might be strong, I'm basically giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's earned with Pacers until I see his plan.

      Comment


      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        Last press conference he said he would like the coach hired in time to help with those decisions.
        I probably missed that then. Fair enough.

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        You see, you don't know the plan. Example, if Bird told Simon, "Hey, Hibbert is done, we need to rebuild. I think I can get that done in a sesason and in the meantime we'll be a dangerous playoff team next year," then he is doing exactly what he said. I mean, if he rebuilds this team in a year its incredible. We had 20 million dollars invested in guys that are washed up just a year ago.
        I never said that I know the plan. I don't think that anyone other than Bird does.

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        You can believe Pritchard gets paid to do nothing, but that's stupid.
        It's not that I believe that he does nothing. I just don't know how much of the stuff that he does actually matter.

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        Bird as a GM has been just as successful as Vogel, but long. Bird as a coach went to the finals.
        Bird has had the longer and more successful overall résumé but I don't think that Bird has done better than Frank lately. Of course, that's just my opinion.

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        You are reading, I said GMs and coaches aren't fired because of a rebuild year. Vogel's was re-signed for many reasons, no just this season.
        It is possible that Vogel was not re-signed for reasons unbeknownst to us, yes. McMillan's hiring complicates things.


        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        If he messes up this coming season he may be fired. Knowing the Pacers, Pritchard is being groomed to take over.
        By whom, though? You're still not answering this question.


        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        Then whats your point here? You've had several posts about Bird not caring about the fans.
        I only said that Bird doesn't care about the fans in response to this post of yours:

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post

        But Bird is not infallible in the Indiana community. People question him all the time. This idea that Bird is a Hoosier hero that people expect to never be fired is false. I don't know how much more I could be submerged in the community and the Pacers as a STH amongst other things, and I can tell you it is not the feeling in Indy.
        The point I was trying to make was that Bird doesn't care if he's considered infallible in the Indiana community. His job doesn't rely on any kind of backlash he gets from the fans. That's where this whole "Bird doesn't care about the fans" comes from. I never said that he should care about us.

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        Lol, most every coach (except Lawrence Frank) had some sort of career in basketball as player before coaching, GM, etc.
        Fair enough. I do believe that his status as a basketball legend got him a longer leash, though.

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        I explained the history of a class organization to illustrate that Bird must be listening to the other people who work there.

        We really won't know the plan until this coming season, so I don't know what's not to like yet.
        True, we won't know the plan. I don't think that the first signs are encouraging, though.


        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        You've said several times that you don't think Bird listens to his scouts or anyone else he works with, I'm just giving you facts that make your opinion illogical.
        And I explained that listening is not the same with actually taking their words into consideration. No one can prove whether Bird does that or not.

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        Saying I believe in Bird might be strong, I'm basically giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's earned with Pacers until I see his plan.
        Fair enough.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

          I waited for today to vote in this poll...
          ...Still "flying casual"
          @roaminggnome74

          Comment


          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

            Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
            I waited for today to vote in this poll...
            Wise move.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

              Fire Larry Bird.

              Thanks for the memories. I'll always respect your contributions here, big time.

              But it's time.

              Comment


              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                Vote of confidence for Larry Bird.

                Very funny.

                Comment


                • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                  I'm seriously wondering if Bird has lost his damn mind.
                  "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                  "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                    Anyone up for a new poll now that a coach has been selected?
                    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                      I think Bird has been proven to be right. We did have a team that very well could have made it to the ECF's.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                        Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                        I waited for today to vote in this poll...
                        Me too. But I ended up with yes. Some other choices would have resulted in no. But I actually think Nate is pretty safe, as close to a continuation of the Vogel era as possible.

                        Originally posted by sav View Post
                        I think Bird has been proven to be right. We did have a team that very well could have made it to the ECF's.
                        Uh, what? Did I miss something?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          Uh, what? Did I miss something?
                          Well, since we were actually better than the Raptors even though we lost, it follows we are better than any team the Raptors have beaten. So we are actually better than the Raptors AND the Heat.

                          Playing the games is a formality.
                          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
                            Well, since we were actually better than the Raptors even though we lost, it follows we are better than any team the Raptors have beaten. So we are actually better than the Raptors AND the Heat.

                            Playing the games is a formality.

                            Bird has made the statement that he thought this team had a chance to make it to the ECF's. I think pretty much everyone on the forum believes that we should have beaten the Raptors. It was just some questionable calls (or missed calls) from the officials and some questionable coaching moves.

                            Had we beaten the Raptors, we would have played the Heat, who we almost always play competitively. There is no question we COULD have beaten the Heat especially since they were without Bosh and Whiteside.

                            Bird did not say we SHOULD have made the ECF's, just that we COULD have. The fact that Toronto is in the ECF's proves that he was correct. This roster was good enough to make it to the ECF's.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                              Originally posted by sav View Post
                              Bird has made the statement that he thought this team had a chance to make it to the ECF's. I think pretty much everyone on the forum believes that we should have beaten the Raptors. It was just some questionable calls (or missed calls) from the officials and some questionable coaching moves.

                              Had we beaten the Raptors, we would have played the Heat, who we almost always play competitively. There is no question we COULD have beaten the Heat especially since they were without Bosh and Whiteside.

                              Bird did not say we SHOULD have made the ECF's, just that we COULD have. The fact that Toronto is in the ECF's proves that he was correct. This roster was good enough to make it to the ECF's.
                              This reasoning thoroughly ignores that our head coach might have have something to do with making the Toronto series so close, or that he might have been responsible for previous years when we played the Heat competitively. No way at all...

                              It's like some of you have forgotten what a plus Vogel has been to the franchise these past 5+ years. He's made mistakes for sure, but on the whole his positives greatly outweigh the negatives.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                This reasoning thoroughly ignores that our head coach might have have something to do with making the Toronto series so close, or that he might have been responsible for previous years when we played the Heat competitively. No way at all...

                                It's like some of you have forgotten what a plus Vogel has been to the franchise these past 5+ years. He's made mistakes for sure, but on the whole his positives greatly outweigh the negatives.
                                This post is not about Frank, it is about our roster. I am just stating what I recall Bird saying about us having a chance at the ECF's and backing it with facts. We should have won the Toronto series. The officials made some bad calls and missed calls at key times. Vogel also made some questionable coaching moves in the series.

                                The bottom line is this roster was good enough to make it to the ECF's. Many on this board would like to see a nearly complete overhaul of the roster. We don't need that, we just need a couple of tweaks.

                                Whether or not we should have let Frank walk is being discussed in another thread.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X