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

Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

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

  • Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

    . . . the reason we did horribly the previous year?

    . . . the victim of injuries?

    . . . the victim of boneheads?

    . . . not allowed enough time to create chemistry?

    . . . lacking the services of Kareem Rush?


    This thread is a bit premature. I resisted until I saw the post where Rick Carlisle predicted the Pacers could do quite well next year if they avoid injuries (pretty mannish of him, really).

    But I do wonder what the assessment would be from PD if we were to do particularly well.

    (I don't know how to post a poll. If someone wants to turn this into a poll--and add any needed categories--feel free.)
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference


  • #2
    Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

    I dont think you could put the blame on Rick, I think it was a number of things...there were alot of factors on why the team did what they did. Was Rick to blame for some of it ? could very well have been but i dont think we can put all the blame on him.
    If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
    [/center]
    @thatguyjoe84

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

      I can't bring myself to go into this. It's just too early and premature.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

        I'm expecting a 20-page thesis from Naptown Seth on this topic coming anytime soon.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

          It's gracious of Hicks to say it is too early. But since I think Carlisle lasted two years too long, I don't feel any hesitancy to answer the question now.

          Rick Carlisle is a smart man, but a poor leader. He is a terrible, bumbling speaker. He is a failure at the necessary task of inspiring people to overcome obstacles and accomplish all they are capable of. The other possible explanations McKeyfan list in the OP are perfectly good excuses. But Carlisle has to accept that he failed to overcome those excuses.

          All successful leaders must overcome obstacles no less severe than those that Carlisle faced.

          Rick was a failure -- an utter, total failure -- at the job he was paid to do, which was to motivate and organize the Indiana Pacers. It can be argued, perhaps rightly, that it was an impossible task and that no one could have done it. What should not be disputed is that Rick accepted the job and failed at it. All the explanations in the world simply provide details of how he failed. There should be no debate (though, of course, there will be) over the fact that it was his job to overcome those obstacles, explanations and excuses, and that he failed to do that.
          Last edited by Putnam; 10-27-2007, 08:19 PM.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

            Suppose I find an old lamp while cleaning out my attic and as I'm polishing it, a genie appears and offers me one wish*. Then do I wish for . . .

            . . . world peace?

            . . . Jacoby Ellsbury to steal a base so I get a free taco?

            . . . a billion dollars?

            . . . to finally be able to Crank Dat Soulja Boy in perfect harmony?

            . . . Salma Hayek to show up at my door in only a sombrero?



            * He unfortunately remembered to include the "no wishing for more wishes clause." He's a pro.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

              I think Rick is a great NBA coach, and we have a 61 win season to show for it.

              However, it was time for a change, and Rick's style seemed to clash with the current roster. His style was perfect for a team full of strong 1-1 defenders like Artest, Oneal, Jackson, Foster... when that was the starting lineup, but ever since Artest and jackson were traded I'm thinking we need a new direction.

              I don't think its a slam on Rick to say we are going to be much better off with JOB. Look at the changes in the roster since Rick came on board. We tried the uptempo thing with Rick but it just didn't work... He reverted back to his old self.
              With Artest and Jackson gone, and Tinsley being a Key player, we need a coach that will bring out the best in Jammal. It was the right move to make given the circumstances.
              "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


              • #8
                Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

                The Pacers could finish 2-80 and I'd still say it was time for Rick to go. He is a good coach and was a victim of his own limitations.

                As far as wishes go, I'd just wish for a taco. Wishing for Ellsbury to steal a base is a round about way to go.
                "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

                  . . . the reason we did horribly the previous year?

                  As in he lost the team.

                  Although I'd have to see how they accomplished the goal. I mean if they are winning on the back of Quis then obviously it was his injury. If it's Rush or Diener making massive impacts then you don't fault Rick. If Mike drops 40% from 3 after being sub-30 for Rick, and before getting to Indy too (ie, not a RC created problem) then Rick is off the hook as well.

                  OTOH if it's Tinsley running point and taking names then I have no problem holding Rick accountable.


                  There's just one tiny problem in all this, they gotta get it done first. If they end up even at 36-38 wins, slightly more than RC and certainly better than the final 3 months, it won't make much of a statement. If anything it will prove they fixed something that wasn't a problem.

                  Frankly I'd say some people, be it players or other, have a serious rep hit riding on getting at the very least over .500. 35 wins makes the firing of Rick look pointless and verifies that some players aren't getting it done and that some management can't assemble a functional roster.


                  Health and other factors go BOTH WAYS, not just for Rick. 100% health lets Rick off the hook, at least most of the way depending on just how well they do. But JOB is off the hook if JO breaks his leg 2 weeks into the season and Tinsley gets a 3 month hit of sinusitis and the team only wins 20 games.

                  Ultimately, barring crazy situations, this is a debate that gets pretty solid resolution, at least from my POV. I don't stand for something just to stand for it, I back Rick because he has a better Win % than JOB and went to at least the 2nd round in 4 of 6 seasons with 4 moderately different mixes of starters (DET swapped in Rip, CB, then Indy, then Indy lost Ron and had hobbled Tins and traded Al for Jack).

                  I'll listen to the evidence. It's just that so far nothing very solid has come out proving RC to be a poor coach, but tons of results have suggested he's a great coach. Just like I think Reggie was a great 3pt shooter, seems like the data backs that up...but feel free to tell me the data lied as long as it lied about Reggie AND Rick.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    I'm expecting a 20-page thesis from Naptown Seth on this topic coming anytime soon.
                    Guess what Redd asked his genie for.



                    Personally I would have done this anyway. He shoulda gone with Selma, that's gotta be worth more than $1b in memories.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

                      If we make it deep into the playoffs with essentially the same roster, then of course it's an indictment of Rick's coaching the previous year. Just like Bird in '98 is an indictment of Brown in the year we do not discuss, where, even with the injury situation, no one could possibly argue Brown hadn't completely and totally lost the team.

                      However, IF such a thing were to happen, it doesn't mean in and by itself that Jimmy's a better coach than Rick, just like Bird is most definitely not a better coach than Brown. It would just be further proof that change for the sake of change can do wonders.

                      But, of course, it has to happen first.
                      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

                        That is just life in the NBA.

                        Look at Larry Brown's last season vs Bird's first.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

                          last season was completely Rick's fault with an assist from management. the seasons before that, not so much.
                          http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            That is just life in the NBA.

                            Look at Larry Brown's last season vs Bird's first.
                            how bout Bird's last season and Zeek's first?

                            Adleman's last season and Musselman's first?

                            to name a few...
                            http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Suppose we go deep into playoffs. Then Rick was . . .

                              Originally posted by denyfizle View Post
                              how bout Bird's last season and Zeek's first?

                              Well the team was changed drastically from Bird's last year to Isiah's first year
                              and IMO Isiah was a terrible coach.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X