Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

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

  • #76
    Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    Disagree 100%.

    Unclebuck is right, look around the league. The stability of this franchise is something we should appreciate. Bird is not a miracle worker, and he's made mistakes, but looking at the overall body of work I'm impressed. People want instant results and can't appreciate the long game.
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been a fan of this team for 30 years, so I know all about the "long game."

    I've been supportive of Bird this whole time, even when I haven't always agreed with each of his moves. But starting with the 2015 offseason I had serious concerns, and post-Vogel-firing (and hiring Nate as the "new voice" without even interviewing any other coaches) my concerns have only deepened.

    I'm now of the opinion that it's time to move on from Bird. No, the team isn't in "terrible" shape, and no, not all of his moves have been bad (we drafted Turner after all), but that doesn't mean we couldn't do better under different leadership. (FWIW I don't expect Bird to get fired, but I do hope he realizes he should consider retiring soon). I just don't see moves that are improving the team over time.

    I'm trying to imagine this team contending in 2-3 years under Bird and I just don't see it with the current trajectory.

    EDIT: Bird tried to make PG a power forward. I rest my case.
    Last edited by rabid; 02-24-2017, 11:33 AM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      PG kind of disagrees with all of this if you listen to his comments.
      I'm not saying we are there, I'm acknowledging it isn't easy to get "there". Given the circumstances, Bird has done much better at his job than at least 3/4 of the league.

      People expect miracles, nobody out there is going to deliver you a miracle, be realistic. It ain't easy to build a contender in small market Indiana. This organization has done a very good job for 25 years and has been close many times, you can't ask for much more than that.

      The grass isn't always greener folks.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        Granger was completely toast as a player at that point. Turner was 5 years younger and producing. From a basketball standpoint, it was a no brainier given that a weak bench was why we lost the 2013 ECF's. From an emotional standpoint, it's a different argument I suppose.

        That team had issues that went far beyond keeping Granger around, I.e. Hibbert basically completely collapsed as a player.
        Yet from a basketball stand point Granger played better for the Pacers that season than Turner did. Anyone who was willing to look beyond the PPG number had serious doubts about the trade from the very beginning.


        Anyways back on topic, like the Colts I am ready to see new blood in the front office to take this team in a new direction.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          You can disagree but you're wrong. The discussion about whether or not Bird needs to go has been going on for a while now. So either you don't know those conversations have been happening or you're ignoring them in order to paint those who you disagree with as reactionary. You can disagree without purposefully distorting the other side and the longevity of the position.
          What's reactionary is the fact that this discussion is about the trade deadline. Be real.

          No Deal > Bad Deal
          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

          - ilive4sports

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

            CLOSED POLL??? NOW WE RIOT


            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

              It was cowardly and unprofessional for the front office to not make any statement yesterday after the sort of turmoil they stirred up for the team and the fan base. To me, that is the final straw, regardless of how you think the Pacers should have handled trading PG (I'm team keep PG, but understand the appeal of the Boston package), for Bird to not speak AT ALL yesterday, is ridiculous and he is a coward.


              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                I'm not saying we are there, I'm acknowledging it isn't easy to get "there". Given the circumstances, Bird has done much better at his job than at least 3/4 of the league.

                People expect miracles, nobody out there is going to deliver you a miracle, be realistic. It ain't easy to build a contender in small market Indiana. This organization has done a very good job for 25 years and has been close many times, you can't ask for much more than that.

                The grass isn't always greener folks.


                I think you are missing the point, the point here is that if the Pacers don't build a contender soon and instead keep dragging their feet PG will leave.


                I mean PG has been nice to let the Pacers know that if they don't build a contender he is gone, in other words PG doesn't give a f*** how decent the Pacers have been in past years.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  It was cowardly and unprofessional for the front office to not make any statement yesterday after the sort of turmoil they stirred up for the team and the fan base. To me, that is the final straw, regardless of how you think the Pacers should have handled trading PG (I'm team keep PG, but understand the appeal of the Boston package), for Bird to not speak AT ALL yesterday, is ridiculous and he is a coward.
                  He became Phil Jackson.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                    Originally posted by rabid View Post
                    I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been a fan of this team for 30 years, so I know all about the "long game."

                    I've been supportive of Bird this whole time, even when I haven't always agreed with each of his moves. But starting with the 2015 offseason I had serious concerns, and post-Vogel-firing (and hiring Nate as the "new voice" without even interviewing any other coaches) my concerns have only deepened.

                    I'm now of the opinion that it's time to move on from Bird. No, the team isn't in "terrible" shape, and no, not all of his moves have been bad (we drafted Turner after all), but that doesn't mean we couldn't do better under different leadership. (FWIW I don't expect Bird to get fired, but I do hope he realizes he should consider retiring soon). I just don't see moves that are improving the team over time.

                    I'm trying to imagine this team contending in 2-3 years under Bird and I just don't see it with the current trajectory.
                    The problem lies within your last paragraph. Lower the expectations. Don't base our success on a Finals appearance. We've had one in our NBA history. And that's because we had to wait for Jordan to leave.

                    Simon plays for an ECF appearance. Wanting to be a contender isn't fair to Larry, the players, or the fans. We just need to compete for a shot at 2nd in the East.

                    PG's leg (back when PG was good), Lance's agent, and the funerals of West and Hibbert threw a wrench in there for a minute. We're still trying to recover. We're a small market so we have to be patient. This is why Larry is the man for the job until he says he doesn't want the job anymore. He knows how to work within a budget. And he knows do the complete opposite of what anyone on PD wants.

                    This season isn't working out the way we hoped. But even before the season, we were still one offseason away from the ECF. We have 4 starters + Al and some average talent. One more offseason gives us that 5th starter + Al and average talent. That 5th starter will make all the difference.

                    If Larry can get 2 starters and a pick for PG in June (or July), we're right where we want to be. Other than PD acting like PG when PG gets traded... PG acts like a middle school girl, by the way.

                    This is only an argument if our payroll is the same as the Top 10 teams in the league. As long as we're fighting an uphill battle, most of you need to take a step back and reevaluate what's really going on.

                    I'll end with an example from our last ECF team. Give Larry one more $10M player (remember when $10M was a lot?) and the entire situation changes. We might get by MIA one time. We might be able to slightly recover from PG's leg or Lance's agent.

                    The guy has clearly made some mistakes (here's looking at you Monta), but overall he's perfect for the Pacers. He wants what Simon cares about... the playoffs. I'm actually surprised he hasn't quit yet. It has to be frustrating to be so close with limited resources all the time and not be able to get that extra toy from your owner to push it to the next level.

                    Or maybe that's why he stays. He enjoys the fight with one hand tied behind his shoulder blade. And he likes hearing you people complain...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      I think you are missing the point, the point here is that if the Pacers don't build a contender soon and instead keep dragging their feet PG will leave.


                      I mean PG has been nice to let the Pacers know that if they don't build a contender he is gone, in other words PG doesn't give a f*** how decent the Pacers have been in past years.
                      Sure, the team needs to put something resembling a contender around George or he's going to leave, I think he's been pretty straight forward about that.

                      However, Paul George is not a free agent this offseason. I've already pointed out there are means to make major improvements this offseason given the cap situation, a draft pick, and at least one tradeable veteran player who isn't necessarily part of the core on a reasonable contract.

                      My larger point, folks, is that the trade deadline is SEVERELY overrated in terms of improving the team. Wait for the offseason.
                      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                      - ilive4sports

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        It was cowardly and unprofessional for the front office to not make any statement yesterday after the sort of turmoil they stirred up for the team and the fan base. To me, that is the final straw, regardless of how you think the Pacers should have handled trading PG (I'm team keep PG, but understand the appeal of the Boston package), for Bird to not speak AT ALL yesterday, is ridiculous and he is a coward.
                        I voted yes in the poll.

                        But you really think Bird is a coward, afraid to talk to the media? I don't think he cares.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                          Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                          What's reactionary is the fact that this discussion is about the trade deadline. Be real.

                          No Deal > Bad Deal
                          There isn't a single post in this thread that has said they've based their decision on yesterday. So run with that.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            It was cowardly and unprofessional for the front office to not make any statement yesterday after the sort of turmoil they stirred up for the team and the fan base. To me, that is the final straw, regardless of how you think the Pacers should have handled trading PG (I'm team keep PG, but understand the appeal of the Boston package), for Bird to not speak AT ALL yesterday, is ridiculous and he is a coward.
                            Nothing happened, in case you didn't notice. Seriously, look it up. No deal was made. Why in the hell would he have to say anything to anyone? Is it because PG cried? If so, that only gives Larry more fuel to stay quiet. Can't blame him.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                              Has Bird been a bad GM over the last 7 years would be a good poll, because I think that's a different question than should he be fired.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                                Am I wrong to suppose everyone is pissed that we didn't make a deadline deal? If we made *some* deal would everyone feel a little more gooey inside? This is a bad approach.
                                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                                - ilive4sports

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X