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

So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

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

    So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

    Not that it really matters anymore, but it is an interesting thing to discuss.

    To quickly review, Isiah had lost the team towards the end of the 2003 season - a team that I contend was the most talented Indiana Pacers NBA team ever. I thought it was obvious that Isiah had to go, Walsh was extremely quiet after the season in fact he didn't speak until the Friday before Memorial day weekend when he held a press conference - saying that Isiah was staying (that was when PFFL went off and lost it) What was Walsh thinking, what was going on.

    I think almost 5 years later - I have decided that Walsh didn't fire Isiah for two reasons. First his grandaughter had just tragically died and by Memorial day Walsh knew that Bird was getting set to come aboard. Walsh was in a frame of mind that he wanted to step aside a little, let Bird take over the more day-to-day operations. So it would only make sense that Walsh would let Bird fire Isiah. I am 100% convinced that Walsh recommended to Bird that Isiah needed to go. But Walsh wanted to make sure Bird agreed, plus Walsh I don't believe was in the correct frame of mind to fire anyone.

    But I am convinced that Walsh knew Isiah had to go.

    This column out of NY brought all this back to mind

    http://www.newsday.com/sports/basket...06,print.story

    Newsday.com
    Knicks' players would welcome Isiah's return
    BY ALAN HAHN

    alan.hahn@newsday.com

    March 28, 2008

    TORONTO - Isiah Thomas' return in any capacity next season may not be a popular scenario among Knicks fans, but one player said it would be welcome news in the locker room.

    "Basically, there are some people who are upset with the way things went this year and, yeah, some mistakes were made," the player said. "But when it all comes down to it, we would have Isiah over someone new."

    The player agreed to speak under the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation and the Garden media policy that forbids players from talking with members of the media without a public-relations official present. The player, who admittedly has had issues with Thomas during his two seasons as coach, is concerned that Thomas' standing among the players isn't being presented accurately.

    Amid the speculation about Donnie Walsh's expected arrival after the season to take over the franchise and the great unknown that is Thomas' future with the team, the players know only what they read and hear in media reports. "I think we know less than you do right now," David Lee said after Wednesday's win over the Heat.

    Walsh remains employed by the Pacers, despite the announcement Monday that he will leave the franchise after the season. Reports by ESPN and Sports Illustrated suggested a deal is already in place with the Knicks, but the Pacers denied it. The Garden has maintained a consistent no-comment stance on the Walsh reports, but persons with knowledge of the situation have said the Knicks plan to hand the reins over to him after the season.

    Newsday reported yesterday that Walsh's arrival doesn't quite mean Thomas is certain to be fired. It is believed that Garden chairman James Dolan would prefer to keep Thomas in some capacity, even as coach. Walsh would have to agree to it, and a person close to Walsh said it is not a given he would be against Isiah's return. Walsh hired Thomas to coach the Pacers from 2000-03 before Walsh's appointed successor, Larry Bird, fired him in favor of Rick Carlisle.

    Though it was Bird's decision, Walsh was on board and told confidants at the time that he realized hiring Thomas was a mistake. But not everyone with the Pacers thought so. Former All-Star Jermaine O'Neal regularly praises his former coach and said Wednesday that he believed Walsh could help Thomas.

    "Donnie understands him as a person and as a coach," O'Neal said, "and it will give him an opportunity to concentrate strictly on X's and O's, strictly on what happens on the basketball court and not the business part of it."

    Perhaps that has emerged as this season's built-in excuse for Thomas. Last season the team failed to make the playoffs because of key injuries down the stretch. This season it was the distraction of the sexual harassment trial and then the public feud with former protégé Stephon Marbury that derailed the Knicks' season.

    If Thomas does return, it is unlikely Marbury will be with the team. "No," the player said. "They can't be together again."

    One of the major issues surrounding Thomas and Marbury was the game after Marbury went AWOL in Phoenix Nov. 12 after being told he was no longer starting. Marbury returned to play against the Clippers in Los Angeles two nights later. Yahoo Sports reported that Thomas played Marbury against the wishes of the team, which, according to the report, voted against Marbury being allowed to play after deserting.

    "There wasn't a vote, honestly," the player told Newsday. "People had their own thoughts, but it wasn't a vote straight up ... Some guys talked; Isiah wasn't there."

    There have been other issues, from verbal altercations during games with Quentin Richardson and Zach Randolph to veterans taking issue with what appears to be Thomas' intention to tank games. Thomas has not worked the team hard in practice and has allowed a lackadaisical attitude to take over the game preparation.

    But apparently all of this might not be enough to convince Dolan - and some players - that a change is needed.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-28-2008, 10:02 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

    The first sentence got it right. It doesn't matter any more.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

      One of these people is still in place making decisions for the team, so it certainly is still relevent. If you are trying to guess at the FUTURE, then you look to past actions. Unfortunately that means that until we get a few years into "Bird only" we are forced to still try to sift out who did what the past 4-5 years.


      Buck, I think you've been around when I said my theory. I thought Walsh intentionally brought in Bird to kill 2 birds with one stone.

      1) Get rid of Zeke.
      Why Walsh couldn't - JO negotiation/interaction, friends with Zeke, frame of mind due to tragedy
      Why Bird could - history of not getting along, didn't promise JO anything

      2) Bring back Rick.
      Why Walsh couldn't - left Rick hanging without an answer when he clearly wanted Isiah and had to wait on the CBA thing to clear up. The right thing to do would be to tell Rick that and risk him working for another team, but I think DW was holding him around just in case Isiah couldn't get clear of the CBA (in time at least).
      Why Bird could - Rick is his friend and who he recommended when he initially left, not only could he but you knew for certain that he would.

      Now Rick is Mr. Nice Guy so MAYBE he didn't care, but you can see how a guy might not have liked how that went down even if publically he spins positive (when doesn't he?). Maybe DW had no problems firing Zeke, but it sure was a massive swing if that's the case. Supporting him then dumping him.

      And also think about this, when did this stuff start to go down, before or AFTER RICK GOT FIRED? Isn't it odd that Bird had to come in to help shortly after Rick was let go (if I recall the timing right)?


      My theory means that in a way DW made a deal with the devil, he got all the GM stuff done he wanted to via Bird, and was able to step away a bit which he also needed.

      Then he didn't need those things anymore and wanted to be THE GM...but Bird's still in place and waiting for him to leave in fact.

      So does he go to NY for money, to be nice to Larry, or some other reason? It's just not clear yet. Maybe some day it will be.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-28-2008, 11:10 AM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

        Doesn't matter to me who was responsible for firing Zeke. I remain of the opinion that Zeke's firing was more personal than poor performance.

        Zeke's last year was when all the injuries initially started creeping up with this team. I was one of the few who felt he deserved to finish out the last year of his contract because most of the problems the team had in his final year were all issues beyond his control. So, I don't think it was him, but unfortunate circumstances that lead to the team's poor record that year. The team's record w/3 consecutive season hovering around .500 was merely an excuse to give him the can.

        Don't get me wrong. I'm not a staunce Isiah Thomas supporter. I just think it was wrong to release him when it wasn't his fault things went so bad his last year here.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

          Bird might have pulled the trigger, but Walsh loaded the gun, put it in Bird's hand, pointed Bird's arm at Isiah, took the safety off, and then slapped Bird on the back.
          You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
          All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

          - Jimmy Buffett

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

            Originally posted by Doug View Post
            Bird might have pulled the trigger, but Walsh loaded the gun, put it in Bird's hand, pointed Bird's arm at Isiah, took the safety off, and then slapped Bird on the back.
            END OF STORY. QFT!

            Second line.
            “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

              Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
              I just think it was wrong to release him when it wasn't his fault things went so bad his last year here.
              What was wrong was waiting until Zeke was out of the country and then firing him with Larry questioning his work ethic. Of course, he wasn't on vacation, but he'd asked Larry Brown if he could observe his practices with USA Basketball. One of the biggest chicken **** moves I've ever seen.
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                What was wrong was waiting until Zeke was out of the country and then firing him with Larry questioning his work ethic. Of course, he wasn't on vacation, but he'd asked Larry Brown if he could observe his practices with USA Basketball. One of the biggest chicken **** moves I've ever seen.
                But only after waiting to make sure the ink dried on Jermaine's contract.
                This space for rent.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

                  Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                  What was wrong was waiting until Zeke was out of the country and then firing him with Larry questioning his work ethic. Of course, he wasn't on vacation, but he'd asked Larry Brown if he could observe his practices with USA Basketball. One of the biggest chicken **** moves I've ever seen.
                  "Amazingly" they are questioning his work ethic in NY now, saying he is arriving later and later before games (he's blaming it on traffic) and conducting 18 minute shoot arounds. But I still remember an article that came out in April of Isiah's first year as Pacers coach questioning his work ethic - quotes from Pacers players - Croshere, saying thr team isn't prepared, doesn't prepare.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    But only after waiting to make sure the ink dried on Jermaine's contract.
                    Wasn't that a huge mistake

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

                      From a personal story related to me from someone who would know, Walsh agreed with Bird (and a few others) that it was time to let Thomas go, but he was also torn up about it and really felt bad about the situation at the time. He also demanded that he do the actual "firing" himself, and as far as I know, he was the one that told him he was gone.

                      The real irony here is that Thomas became a FAR wealthier man after leaving the Pacers. So he really shouldn't be upset about the scenario.

                      It has also been related to me that IT would have been gone well before then if it weren't for Jermaine's contract being up. If that problem weren't there, then IT would have been shown the door early to allow for a hot-and-heavy courting of Jeff Van Gundy.

                      Jeff Van Gundy had signed with the Rockets well before the Jermaine contract was completed, closing that door. Another door opened when Carlisle was unceremoniously booted after an ECF appearance in Detroit.
                      Last edited by Los Angeles; 03-28-2008, 03:15 PM.
                      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

                        I hate to take this thread in a different direction. But I understand
                        that at the Naismith HOF, there's a small display depicting IT's 'quick'
                        offense.

                        Thing is though, since it perishable, they have to have a dog come
                        in and drop a fresh pile every other day...!

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

                          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                          What was wrong was waiting until Zeke was out of the country and then firing him with Larry questioning his work ethic. Of course, he wasn't on vacation, but he'd asked Larry Brown if he could observe his practices with USA Basketball. One of the biggest chicken **** moves I've ever seen.
                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          But only after waiting to make sure the ink dried on Jermaine's contract.
                          The above is why I will NEVER change my opinion of that (obscenity ladened tirade withheld) Larry Bird.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

                            I don't really cared who fired him last time, I'm just happy Walsh gets to fire his worthless @ss again.
                            "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: So was it Bird or Walsh who actually fired Isiah back in 2003

                              I wonder if our 2-headed monster is what drove Stan VanRon JeremyGundy away.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X