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

ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...kie&id=2688755

    Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?
    By Jackie MacMullan
    Special to ESPN.com

    Larry Bird turns 50 years old Thursday, over 20 years since he and the Boston Celtics won their last championship. In retirement, Bird returned home and aligned himself with the Indiana Pacers, and when he signed on in July 2003 to join president and CEO Donnie Walsh in the front office, Bird figured he'd hang around "seven or eight years, tops."

    Now he knows better.

    "This job gets in your blood," Bird said. "I can't even describe it. When you get a call about something bad happening to one of your players, it's like it happened to one of your kids. You die over it.

    "Now you do that realizing they don't feel the same way about you. That's understood. But you can't help but be involved. Donnie and I are so happy when we win, and so down when we lose. When we play horrible, we're both sick about it."

    "What we do is not a job," Walsh said. "It's an obsession."

    Bird and Walsh have shared this obsession for the past three-plus seasons, the most tumultuous period in Pacers history.

    Both were on the job when their team and the Detroit Pistons engaged in the infamous brawl -- on Nov. 19, 2004, at the Palace in Auburn Hills, Mich. -- that spilled over into the stands and produced the stiffest NBA penalties ever. When Jermaine O'Neal was slapped with a 25-game suspension (later reduced to 15 games), Stephen Jackson a 30-game suspension and Ron Artest a suspension for the remainder of the season, it decimated a Pacers roster that had aspirations of winning it all that June.

    Indiana has yet to recover. The Pacers haven't made it out of the conference semifinals since then and were bounced by New Jersey in the first round last April. The franchise is at a crossroads, with Artest long gone, Jackson all but untradable and O'Neal wondering aloud what the future holds for him in Indianapolis.

    He's not the only one pondering what's next.

    Walsh is celebrating his 20th year with the Pacers and adorns the cover of the team's media guide, unusual for a team executive. But will this be his final season? Rumors of his impending retirement -- and Bird's elevation to president as his successor -- have been swirling throughout the league for months.

    Walsh's contract expires in July, and he said he has not discussed drawing up a new one with longtime owners Herb and Mel Simon.

    "With everything that has gone on the past two years, I wouldn't dream of asking them about an extension," Walsh said. "Besides, I'm not sure it's healthy for one person to stay with the same organization for 20 years. If you do, the same things tend to permeate. It's important for a franchise to get new ideas."

    Bird, who has been Walsh's attentive understudy, has his own thoughts on how to turn it around in Indianapolis. Yet, Walsh concedes, he's never sure if the Hall of Famer defers to his boss in personnel matters or presents his honest assessment.

    "If Larry wants to do something he knows I wouldn't do, I don't want him to think I'm looking over his shoulder," Walsh explained. "Larry would never say it, but I think that happens sometimes. "I really believe Larry is going to be great at this job. But as long as I'm here, it isn't his deal. I want him to have his shot."

    When Walsh assumed the role of Pacers general manager in 1986, the team had been to the postseason once in its 10 NBA seasons. (The Pacers won three ABA titles in nine seasons.) He drafted future All-Stars Reggie Miller and Rik Smits, traded Herb Williams for Detlef Schrempf and later acquired O'Neal and Joe Kleine for veteran Dale Davis. Beginning in 1990, Indiana made the playoffs 16 times in 17 seasons.

    In February 2002, Walsh made an acquisition he must profoundly regret, bringing the talented but combustible Artest to Indiana. Artest's role as instigator in the brawl and his insubordination the following season when he returned to the team destroyed the team's blueprint. He was traded last January to Sacramento.

    Both Bird and Walsh strongly and publicly backed Artest following the debacle in Auburn Hills, a decision that was roundly criticized throughout the league. Artest's subsequent behavior proved to be, in Bird's words, "one of the most disappointing things that happened to me in basketball.''

    When Bird retired as a player, he swore the one job he would never consider was coaching. In fact, he rebuffed offers from half a dozen teams before Walsh convinced him to coach his franchise in 1997. Bird said the opportunity to work with the Pacers' president is what changed his mind.

    Bird submitted a 147-67 record in three seasons, taking the Pacers to the Eastern Conference finals three years in a row, including the franchise's lone appearance in the NBA Finals, in 2000 against the Los Angeles Lakers. He insisted he would coach only three seasons and kept his word, stepping down following his team's loss to the Lakers in six games.

    When Bird's friend and former teammate Rick Carlisle was passed over as his successor, Bird declined to stay on in the front office. Walsh lured him back three years later, and Larry Legend's first official act was to sack coach (and former Bird nemesis) Isiah Thomas and replace him with Carlisle.

    The off-the-court issues that have plagued the Pacers (including Jackson's recent late-night gunplay incident outside a nightclub) have been embarrassing both to Bird and Walsh. Their team takes a 9-10 record into Wednesday's game against Orlando, and Bird confirmed recently, "We're all feeling some heat."

    Late last week the Simon family, respected within the NBA as model owners who rarely meddle, continued to express strong support for Walsh.

    "I don't want to own a franchise without Donnie Walsh involved," Herb Simon declared. "If he wants to stay in basketball, I want him with us."

    Simon conceded that Walsh has given him "mixed signals" about his future; the owner said he has spoken to Walsh about his desire to hand his duties to Bird when the time is right.

    So is this the time?

    "Honestly? I don't know," Walsh answered.

    Bird insists he is neither impatient nor hankering for additional responsibilities. He also said he's amused by unsubstantiated reports that there is friction between him and his boss.

    "I laugh when I read that stuff," Bird said. "There are times when we are talking about a player, or I bring up an idea about a deal, and we don't agree. But there's never any arguing or yelling about it. That's not our relationship."

    Asked how he and Walsh split their duties, Bird answered, "Look, I'm smart enough to know who my boss is. Donnie is the boss. He has the final say. He should. He knows this league inside out. He sees things before they're coming."

    Bird said Walsh has been the man who has made most of the trades happen the past three seasons.

    "Truthfully, I'm not all that up on the NBA guys," Bird said. "Once the college season starts, I don't have a lot of hands-on contact with the day-to-day workings of the team. I'm out scouting the college kids."

    Bird said there is no master plan for him to take Walsh's place once Walsh's current contract expires.

    "My whole objective by getting back into this was I wanted help these guys get back to the Finals," Bird said. "I had no idea how long that would take. I still don't. If it takes another five years, will I still want to do this? Ten years? I don't know.

    "Look, financially, neither Donnie or I need this. We're doing this because we love it. I don't want Donnie to quit. This is his baby. I'd worry about him if he left. This is his life.

    "I don't want him thinking at all about my situation."

    Walsh can't help it. He has maintained a close relationship with the Simon family for two decades and wonders aloud whether that has colored their ability to make a sound business decision on his future. After all, they have been shelling out two hefty front office contracts to Bird and Walsh for three seasons now with minimal results.

    Walsh said if this is his final season, he will leave with few regrets and a debt of gratitude to the franchise that has been his home for two decades. If Walsh does walk, he would not likely work for another NBA franchise for at least one season. But if the right job came along after that, he wouldn't rule it out.

    "I'd have to see," he said. "It's hard to walk away from something you love.

    "I'll tell you this: you can't be mentally healthy and do what we do."

    Bird knows. He is 50 years old and his players drive him crazy, but he can't wait to show up to work every day to try to make them winners. He's convinced Walsh still feels the same way.

    "If he's not sure [about leaving], then he should stay," Bird said. "Then we can be sick about this stuff together."

    Jackie MacMullan of The Boston Globe is an NBA columnist for ESPN.com.
    --------

    From reading this I think Walsh will be back. The Simon's don't want him to leave and neither does Larry Bird. So why leave?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

    This answers a lot of questions about division of responsibility between DW and Bird. It also makes me wonder about the "too many chiefs" analogy, given our current mix of players.

    Also, I'll say this: if we were going to bring in someone to be little more than a scout, we should have moved Isiah Thomas into Bird's job, since I've never seen a better evaluator of talent than IT.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

      Leave it to a Boston reporter to finally get somewhere on this issue. Although, there's enough wiggle room in what's said that I don't think you'll find two people who take away the same thing from this article.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

        "I don't want to own a franchise without Donnie Walsh involved," Herb Simon declared. "If he wants to stay in basketball, I want him with us."
        Does this quote bother anyone else even slightly?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          Does this quote bother anyone else even slightly?
          Could just mean he'll turn it over to David, which, yes, may be something to be worried about depending on who you listen to.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

            I read that quote and it scared me a little as well.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              Does this quote bother anyone else even slightly?
              Not really. I read it as Herb Simon's way of giving DW a nice "tip of the hat".

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

                Yes, I do think it is time for Bird to take over and put his stamp on the Pacers. It is time for the two headed monster to die. Let Larry sink or swim.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

                  Not sure who that JO person is, but Joe Kleine was an absolute steal.
                  "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                  ----------------- Reggie Miller

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

                    Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                    Not really. I read it as Herb Simon's way of giving DW a nice "tip of the hat".
                    I read it as DW being the Wizard of Oz.........specifically.....Bird maybe the big talking Head with DW lurking behind the curtain pulling all the strings.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

                      Good read. I can't believe Larry is 50.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

                        Is it time for Bird to take over? I don't know, but it's time to end the GM by committee approach and make this team over in one vision with... (Dare I say it?).... One goal.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          (Dare I say it?).... One goal.
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

                            Enjoyable article, how come the best articles on the Pacers always come from Boston writers

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN} Is it time for Larry Bird to take over the Pacers?

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Enjoyable article, how come the best articles on the Pacers always come from Boston writers
                              I think Jackie is a pretty solid journalist. I find that most of the time I really enjoy her views on events.

                              I like hearing about the emotional involvement DW and Larry have with the team.

                              Right now Baston is making Larry look pretty smart.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X