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

Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

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

  • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    What the hell is happening in this thread? Cole Aldrich?
    Worst start to a summer in years. It seems people have lost their marbles.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

      Some news, sort of. Zach Lowe rumor:

      http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15...-draft-lottery

      Speaking again of the Raptors: Nick Nurse, one of Dwane Casey's lead assistant coaches, might get a look from the Pacers for a leading offense-focused assistant spot alongside Nate McMillan, sources say. (Dan Burke would run the defense as usual, assuming the Pacers bring him back). Whether Nurse would view that as a lateral move worth taking is unclear.
      Nurse has a good rep.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        Some news, sort of. Zach Lowe rumor:

        http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15...-draft-lottery



        Nurse has a good rep.
        Just read up on him. Apparently he was offered spot or considered for spot on Kerr's staff with Warriors.

        For those that think an upset was unthinkable, Lowe questioning if lateral move instead of a step back is interesting considering we were a 7th seed and they were the 2 seed....

        But this would be awesome from what I've read about him, and I see why he do it. If Pacers turnaround an offense that's been at the bottom for years he'll be rewarded with a head coaching job.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          But this would be awesome from what I've read about him, and I see why he do it. If Pacers turnaround an offense that's been at the bottom for years he'll be rewarded with a head coaching job.
          Wait, I thought Nate is the one who's going to turn around our offense? I dunno, hold your horses until the guy is hired at least.

          "Lateral move" is because he's an assistant on the Raptors and he'll be an assistant here. Pacers can trump that by offering him the associate head coach title (Nate's old post) and corresponding money. Something like $1m used to be good money for assistants, I don't know if that's still the case.

          Regardless, I like his background and think that he would be a great addition to the staff. Pity we didn't get him during Vogel's tenure.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            Wait, I thought Nate is the one who's going to turn around our offense? I dunno, hold your horses until the guy is hired at least.
            The more people on board to help improve the offense the better I would think...

            "Lateral move" is because he's an assistant on the Raptors and he'll be an assistant here. Pacers can trump that by offering him the associate head coach title (Nate's old post) and corresponding money. Something like $1m used to be good money for assistants, I don't know if that's still the case.
            The article I read had him as an option to be assistant coach for the Warriors as if it would be a step up, which is why I referred to that in my post.

            Regardless, I like his background and think that he would be a great addition to the staff. Pity we didn't get him during Vogel's tenure.
            Did they team any offensive guys with Vogel besides Nate? I know Candace said Nate gets to pick assistant coaches, so maybe Vogel did too.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              The article I read had him as an option to be assistant coach for the Warriors as if it would be a step up, which is why I referred to that in my post.
              I can't speak about that article, but in the usual terminology moving to the Warriors as an assistant would also be considered a lateral move, though obviously it's a team in a better situation.

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              Did they team any offensive guys with Vogel besides Nate? I know Candace said Nate gets to pick assistant coaches, so maybe Vogel did too.
              Bird always said Vogel gets to choose his assistants. Though I sort of wonder about that since it's turned up that McMillan got his assistant job by contacting Pritchard. Of course it could be nothing more than asking Pritchard to vouch for him for Vogel.

              Our coaching staff the past 3 years: Nate McMillan (lead), Dan Burke (defense), and Popeye Jones (big man coach). Despite the labels, since we have a relatively small staff everyone has had to do a bit of everything. In Frank's first full season, the staff was Brian Shaw (lead), Dan Burke (defense), and Jim Boylen (big man coach). There's some indication that Boylen was underused in his time here. He jump shipped to the Spurs in a "lateral move" and recently was hired to be Hoiberg's associate head coach.

              No idea if any of those guys are offensively gifted.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                It's not really a lateral move because it comes with a guarantee of becoming the head coach in three years.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                  Originally posted by LG33 View Post
                  It's not really a lateral move because it comes with a guarantee of becoming the head coach in three years.
                  Ha! I kinda hope this trend continues now that you posted this.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    Wait, I thought Nate is the one who's going to turn around our offense?
                    You are right, and he should use every available avenue to do that.

                    One such avenue is hiring the proper assistants. Looks like he is trying to do that.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                      My mistake, Koufas was signed before we had enough cap room from Hib trade. So no Koufas to save the day.
                      Yep, because in your world players wouldn't wait a few days on a team to create cap space if said team offered said player a better contract. Players would refuse waiting, and would sign lesser contracts, just to get it taken care of.

                      You're right. The only FA big man that the Pacers even had the chance at signing was Jordan Hill. No other player would have signed with the Pacers.

                      Larry Bird, and his team without enough big men, is a victim of circumstances rather than a victim of his small ball philosophy.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Yep, because in your world players wouldn't wait a few days on a team to create cap space if said team offered said player a better contract. Players would refuse waiting, and would sign lesser contracts, just to get it taken care of.
                        I know you can't do that kind of verbal "we'll get you a better contract once we clear space" guarantee with guys on your own team. I don't know if you can do that with players on other teams. And if there is no guarantee, might as well take the bird in the hand.
                        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: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                          If there's a free agent out there you want, but don't have the cap space available at that moment in time to sign them and you tell them you need a couple days to work out a deal to free up cap space, they'll wait to sign with you until you do have the cap space.

                          Waiting a couple days isn't going to make or break deals. They might sign with another team offering them the same contract, but if you offer them a better contract than their other options, that few days isn't going to be a sticking point.

                          EDIT: Isn't this exact scenario what happened with Ellis this past summer? The first reports Monta agreed to terms was on July 2, but didn't sign the contract until July 14th. Roy was traded July 12th. Free agents were able to sign with teams July 9.
                          Last edited by Since86; 05-19-2016, 12:10 PM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                            Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                            You are right, and he should use every available avenue to do that.

                            One such avenue is hiring the proper assistants. Looks like he is trying to do that.
                            Context is everything. As I said, I'm in favor and wish it had happened earlier... but I was responding to a post already crediting the guy when the Pacers' interest is only a rumor at this point.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              If there's a free agent out there you want, but don't have the cap space available at that moment in time to sign them and you tell them you need a couple days to work out a deal to free up cap space, they'll wait to sign with you until you do have the cap space.

                              Waiting a couple days isn't going to make or break deals. They might sign with another team offering them the same contract, but if you offer them a better contract than their other options, that few days isn't going to be a sticking point.

                              EDIT: Isn't this exact scenario what happened with Ellis this past summer? The first reports Monta agreed to terms was on July 2, but didn't sign the contract until July 14th. Roy was traded July 12th. Free agents were able to sign with teams July 9.
                              I don't really agree with this, especially in the context of the first few days of free agency. You can ask a free agent to wait while you clear cap space, but what is he going to do if it turns out that you can't? His other offers may be gone by then. It's a huge risk for the free agent, and I can understand taking the deal on the table rather than hoping for a better one down the road. Waiting is what amateurs do (like... Lance) and generally it doesn't produce great results.

                              The deal with Roy was especially tricky, because the only reason the Lakers took him was because they struck out on all the other free agents that they want. That means any free agents we signed afterwards, were rejected by the bottom-dwelling Lakers (hello Stuckey and JHill). So it was a pretty difficult situation to sign quality players.

                              Regarding Monta, the actual date he signed the contract wasn't relevant, because unless your name is DeAndre Jordan the verbal deal agreed upon on July 2 is treated as binding by both parties.
                              Last edited by wintermute; 05-19-2016, 01:00 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers set to promote Nate McMillan to Head Coach

                                It's funny to think a bottom barrel free agent would ever "wait a few days" to sign a contract. Wait a few days could mean the market dries up and you aren't making as much.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X