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

Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

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

  • #31
    Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

    Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
    I get your point, but then I see someone like DeAndre Jordan , and he is still relevant
    Well, he's a pretty athletic center though. I was thinking more like the Hibberts, Jefferson, Monroe, Mosgovs, and Boguts of the world.


    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

      Originally posted by I Love P View Post
      Also, we don't get Teague unless a 3rd team got in on the deal, & that being Utah.

      George Hill for Jeff Teague was not a fair deal. Atlanta turned that down several times before...Utah got in with trading Atlanta the 12th pick & the deal was made.
      It was a fair deal. Hawks just didn't need George. They planned to promote Schroeder. To starting PG. Jazz needed to stabilize their point guard position. Besides, even if they had used Hill to back up Dennis or played him at shooting guard. There's no way the Hawks would've been able to afford a payroll of Dwight Howard, George Hill, Paul Milsap, Kent Bazemore, and then the emerging Tim Hardaway Jr. Not to mention Schroeder's extension.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

        The Pacers of today? Well yeah he played a significant role but I can't say he was the worst thing to ever happen to the Pacers either considering our only NBA Finals appearance he was our coach(maybe he should do that again I know he won't but honestly he might be an improvement)

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

          Originally posted by PaulGeorgeHill View Post
          Dumb article...that Russian dude RUINED the Nets. Birds hand was forced, and we could be a lot worse off

          Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
          eh... forced? Change was needed, when it came to Hibbert. But nothing else was forced. He wasn't forced to fire Vogel and hire McMillan. He wasn't forced to sign Monta, Stuckey and Jefferson. Larry did this himself really.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            eh... forced? Change was needed, when it came to Hibbert. But nothing else was forced. He wasn't forced to fire Vogel and hire McMillan. He wasn't forced to sign Monta, Stuckey and Jefferson. Larry did this himself really.
            I am not mad at Larry for Monta and Stuckey. Monta had a terrific few years in Dallas. The problem in Indiana was Monta was/is playing shooting guard. He needs to be your point guard, or de-facto point guard. We brought Monta off the bench here in Indy as the point guard twice this season. Once during the 7 game win streak, and then for the last few games of the season. He averaged double-digits both times. Now we have him back at shooting guard again in the starting lineup, and it's been a disaster. Not sure if Nate is just dull, or if he literally has no other personnel to work with. Which is another reason why we should've signed Poythress for the rest of the season. We could've started him at the 3 and slid Paul to the SG until GR3 got healthy. If we had signed Alex Poythress during our big losing streak earlier in the season he would've been acclimated and up to speed by now.

            Not saying Alex Poythress is a world beater. We really don't know what he is or can become yet. But in his time with the Sixers he has shown an ability to space the floor by shooting the 3. He also is 6'7. Meaning he can play as your SF or SG. He's also young and athletic. A great body to use against the older Cavaliers. Far better size, athleticism and youth to use as our starting SG than the smaller, shorter, and older Monta. Plus it allows Teague to be your primary ball-handler which is where a point guard, excels the most.

            As for Stuckey, after the amazing season he had on a 1 year deal. Larry did right by him. Too bad his body couldn't hold up. But Stuckey's style of play is also at fault. You can't be a human bowling ball forever.
            Last edited by Grimp; 04-19-2017, 08:24 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

              Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
              eh... forced? Change was needed, when it came to Hibbert. But nothing else was forced. He wasn't forced to fire Vogel and hire McMillan. He wasn't forced to sign Monta, Stuckey and Jefferson. Larry did this himself really.
              Did Larry snap PG's leg in half? Did he make Hibbert become irrelevant almost over night? He made West quit on this team and then opt out? He made Lance turn down guaranteed money to "bet on himself"? You're telling me that you think he would have broke up this team anyway, even if none of this stuff happened? Sorry but I don't buy it. Of coarse there would be change, but nothing to the degree of what we've seen. Sometimes **** happens.

              Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                The article does not mention the loss of Manhimi, which arguably has proven to be the major missing link this year, particularly in the playoffs.

                Larry's hand was probably forced to let Manhimi go. But his mistake was in not looking for a solid replacement, even just for a few minutes a game, particularly down the stretch. Was there not a vet who could have filled this void? Vets Stuckey, Ellis, and Jefferson did not address it at all.

                I am comfortable with Teague, even with his defensive liabilities, as he truly can create and he is clutch down the stretch. Unfortunately Bird did not predict how much of a liability Turner would become on both ends of the floor, and did nothing at mid-season to address it.
                Last edited by McKeyFan; 04-19-2017, 09:00 PM.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                  Larry has made some mistakes over the last couple years. Some of the signings were either bad or mind boggling. But prior to that and even with the Myles Turner signing, he made decent decisions.

                  Personally, I am on the fence with him. I wonder if he lost whatever he once had. Maybe we should have known when he hung onto JOb way too long.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    The article does not mention the loss of Manhimi, which arguably has proven to be the major missing link this year, particularly in the playoffs.

                    Larry's hand was probably forced to let Manhimi go. But his mistake was in not looking for a solid replacement, even just for a few minutes a game, particularly down the stretch. Was there not a vet who could have filled this void? Vets Stuckey, Ellis, and Jefferson did not address it at all.

                    I am comfortable with Teague, even with his defensive liabilities, as he truly can create and he is clutch down the stretch. Unfortunately Bird did not predict how much of a liability Turner would become on both ends of the floor, and did nothing at mid-season to address it.
                    There was really nothing he could have done about Mahinmi. He was set for a big payday. Given the salary and his injuries this season, I say Bird dodged a bullet.
                    Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 04-19-2017, 09:43 PM.


                    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                      I mean, even if he did 'ruin' them, he clearly created them to begin with. So he ain't all bad.
                      Lifelong pacers fan

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                        Calling Ellis a "chucker" ruins this hack's credibility. He obviously has not watched any Pacer games. I love how these crappy bloggers look at a spreadsheet, and think they have figured everything out. What a loser
                        Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                          Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                          Calling Ellis a "chucker" ruins this hack's credibility. He obviously has not watched any Pacer games. I love how these crappy bloggers look at a spreadsheet, and think they have figured everything out. What a loser
                          Some games, I wish he was the vintage Ellis The Chucker, lol. He would never have a game with only 2 points.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                            To me, the Hill for Teague trade is essentially a wash. Yes, we sorely miss Hill's defense against the Cavs (especially on Irving), but we'd also miss Teague's offense and probably wouldn't have enough offensive firepower on a team that simply has PG, Hill, Lance, and Turner as it's 'big guns' to get in a battle with the Cavs 'Big 3' even with improved defense.

                            The Monta Ellis signing was bad. I think Bird was just trying to get PG some scoring help--having lost West in free agency. However, Ellis is a shell of his former self and simply hasn't aged well.

                            The Al Jefferson signing was also bad; however, many people in the media and on this board loved the signing when it was made compared to the money that was dished out to Mahinmi. Maybe Bird should've predicted that Jefferson was aging and would become a dinosaur in today's game, but he also could've been a low post scorer who could wear down some of the 'small ball' lineups that teams are throwing out there.

                            None of the other signings have really had a detrimental impact. CJ Miles is a streaky shooter. Stuckey was essentially replaced by Lance, so that signing hasn't really hurt us long-term.

                            At this point, I wouldn't mind if we packaged a first round pick to try to move Jefferson and/or Ellis's contract to try to make one last run with PG before the clock strikes midnight. Maybe we could sign Gordon Hayward.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                              Larry did a great job of putting together a great team and was recognized for it. Since 2014 he's done an overall poor job and has put together a dysfunctional team with a lot of holes and missing pieces with overpaid role players, a lack of shooters and horribly soft front court so he should be recognized for that. I don't agree with everything in the article, for starters the team isn't ruined yet but if we lose Paul George I think it would be fair to say this.
                              The bottom line is that it's Larry's job to put a team together to compete for a title. This is not an easy job but he's failing right now and there is no reason to make excuses for him. Larry has a rare player in Paul George that he should be able to build around. A coach that fails is usually held accountable and Larry should be as well.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Larry Bird Ruined The Indiana Pacers

                                I mean are we comparing the Larry Bird body of work from when he took over in 05 or are we just talking the past few years? I've always loved Bird's attitude of not accepting being a playoff team, I mean sure there are years when you just have to be happy to be there (this being one of those years). But overall I like the fact that he is always trying in some way to get back to the title games. His personality is hit and miss and depending on who you are you either love his no nonsense talk or you hate the fact that he doesn't filter what he thinks about players. There is good and bad there.

                                He has has a better than average, IMO, draft record. Typically we are drafting in the late teens or twenty's so he hasn't had a chance to hit or miss on a big time draft pick. However, again IMO, he has hit a couple of home runs drafting in the mid teens and hit the absolute jackpot the time he was able to draft in the top 10. His trades typically are middle of the road however he has had one real stinker of trade. Not talent wise per se but what it did to the team (again my opinion). I know that some people hated the Louis Scola for Gerald Green & Miles Plumlee but to me that was a (let's go for the title) type of trade that cost us just a couple of young players (neither of which figured into our long term plans) for a veteran who potentially could have made almost all of the difference in the world coming off of the bench.

                                However coaching has been a real sore subject. He hired Jim O'Brien after a phone conversation, not even meeting face to face. Then kept him on well past his expiration date and even when players and the media were questioning him openly he gave him an extension. That one will always baffle me. Then it's not like he went and did long interviews to find a replacement, he hired Frank because he asked Jim who should replace him and to Satan's credit he said Frank. Bird kind of by default gave Frank the job and then Frank did the one thing I don't thing Bird expected, he kept winning. Then he decides to not rehire Frank as the coach because he wanted a new direction. He then hires Nate, who was Franks assistant, without even interviewing anyone else.

                                Also while I'm at it there is this. For two of the three coach's Larry has said he wants to play faster and more uptempo only to give the coach's players who could not play this style if their life depended on it. He gave JOB Roy Hibbert and he has given Nate Al Jefferson. Do either of these scream up tempo to you? Me neither.

                                I would say this if you asked or even if you don't.

                                Larry Bird's tenure with the Pacers has mostly been positive with a few good to great seasons in there and a couple that we would all really rather just forget. However in the end his legacy I feel will be tied to Paul George. If Paul walks and we are left in shambles I think this will be the main memory people will have of Birds tenure here. Conversely if Paul stays and we bring in talent to compete I think almost all of any down years will be a faded memory.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X