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

New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott. Scott was really Walsh's choice?

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

  • New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott. Scott was really Walsh's choice?

    In it Byron Scott said he thought he had the Pacers coaching job. That it was his understanding that Donnie Walsh wanted him and Mel/Herb wanted Isiah Thomas. I guess we know who won that argument. First time I had heard this. You can listen at Pacers dot com.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-20-2009, 04:04 PM.
    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

  • #2
    Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

    Originally posted by aceace View Post
    In it Byron Scott said he thought he had the Pacers coaching job. That it was his understanding that Donnie Walsh wanted him and Mel/Herb wanted Isiah Thomas. I guess we know who won that argument. First time I had heard this. You can listen at Pacers dot com.
    That is very interesting - haven't listened to the podcast yet. It was reported that DW had his man earlier in the year (Isiah) of course it is possible that Donnie never really wanted him and was only getting isiah on the request of the Simons. I doubt that though.

    If you don't mind I am going to add something to the thread title, because I think this is an interesting topic.

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/multimedia/podcast.html

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

      Wow, that is interesting indeed. If it is true, it's clear to me that

      a) Byron Scott would have been an epic hire, and

      b) Owners should really let their team managers make the decisions on personnel. Isn't that what they're there for?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

        Originally posted by D23 View Post
        Wow, that is interesting indeed. If it is true, it's clear to me that

        a) Byron Scott would have been an epic hire, and

        b) Owners should really let their team managers make the decisions on personnel. Isn't that what they're there for?
        It was widely reported that the Simons went hard for Pitino in the summer of 1993 (for coach and GM) and if they could have gotten him Walsh would have been out right then. Pitino fell through and Walsh had to really convince the Simons to take Larry Brown.

        My source on this was Brunner's book that he wrote after the 1994 season

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott. Scott was really Walsh's choice?

          As much as I wanted Byron at the time, in retrospect, coming here probably would have ruined his career.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            It was widely reported that the Simons went hard for Pitino in the summer of 1993 (for coach and GM) and if they could have gotten him Walsh would have been out right then. Pitino fell through and Walsh had to really convince the Simons to take Larry Brown.

            My source on this was Brunner's book that he wrote after the 1994 season

            This creates a totally different view I had of the Simons. I "assumed" they really didn't get involved in the running of the team. They would have dumped Walsh for Pitino is a complete surprise.

            Anyone have any info revelations on the Simons and Bird?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott. Scott was really Walsh's choice?

              Figures, two out of three chance to get it right and we ended up with Isiah. Good God.
              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott. Scott was really Walsh's choice?

                Yeah but... What are the odds Walsh lied to Scott?
                "I'd really love to hire you but... ummmm.... you see.... but... uhhhh.... the Simons... Yeah, the Simons... They want Isiah... Yeah, they want Isiah! Yeah, that's the ticket! Sorry Byron. If it was my call... you'd be the man"

                Who knows? Over the years there have been little leaks that seemed to signal the Simons weren't as hands off as we'd been led to believe all these years.

                But then when they needed to be more hands on, they waited.

                And when it was clear Isiah needed fired... Walsh didn't do it. Even when it was more than clear Isiah needed fired Walsh didn't do it- "I'm not going to fire Isiah"

                In any case, whoever was to blame, they ended up hiring the worst coach in Pacers history. I would take Versace over Isiah. Irvine? Sure. How you follow a finals appearance with Isiah is a question that should haunt Pacer fans forever.
                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


                • #9
                  Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  It was widely reported that the Simons went hard for Pitino in the summer of 1993 (for coach and GM) and if they could have gotten him Walsh would have been out right then. Pitino fell through and Walsh had to really convince the Simons to take Larry Brown.

                  My source on this was Brunner's book that he wrote after the 1994 season
                  Pitino and Zeke? That doesn't give me much optimism in the Simons' personnel evaluation abilities.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    This creates a totally different view I had of the Simons. I "assumed" they really didn't get involved in the running of the team. They would have dumped Walsh for Pitino is a complete surprise.

                    Anyone have any info revelations on the Simons and Bird?

                    Well lookwho "replaced" Donnie and now has a firm hand in the franchise. I'd say they came out of the closet.
                    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

                      Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                      Well lookwho "replaced" Donnie and now has a firm hand in the franchise. I'd say they came out of the closet.

                      But do you KNOW this to be a fact?

                      My impression has always been Walsh couldn't/wouldn't fire Isiah for whatever reason. He needed someone that would and Bird and Isiah had history, so he hired Bird to do the dirty work he wouldn't or couldn't do. This was Larry Legend an Indiana icon.

                      Let's face it Bird had no managerial background. Red wouldn't give him a job in the Celtics organization. My impression was Red thought Bird was a great player, but didn't have what it took to be in management. So why would Walsh hire Bird other than Larry Legend PR for the Pacers? To get rid of Isiah for him. I always felt Walsh didn't like having to admit his mistake of hiring Isiah, so maybe indeed there is validity about the Simons wanting Isiah. If this is true, Walsh was pretty shrewd having Bird fire Isiah, b/c Walsh after taking over the Knicks replaced Isiah as coach.


                      I never believed Walsh had ever thought of Bird truly as his replacement. For the better part of 2 years, Walsh had Bird scouting over in Europe. For someone that was to be his replacement, why have him do that? To me it was to get him out of his way. Why else? What other NBA team sends their heir apparent to scout Europe for 2 years? That's what they have scouts for. Who is doing it now for the Pacers? It isn't an heir apparent.

                      I made a comment recently in a post that the reason Walsh started grooming Bird as his successor was to make himself look better after he retired/left. My impression of Bird is he can't balance his checkbook let alone has the managerial abilities to run a sports franchise. Does anyone really think another NBA franchise would hire Bird as their GM? There is a reason the Simons have David Morway in the position he occupies. My firm belief is Bird is just here to change the image of the Pacers and get them back on solid footing. After that, he's history. Who really believes that Bird has what it takes to get the Pacers a championship?

                      Who was it a few years ago on this board that claimed to know that Bird had it in place to buy the Pacers when the Simons decided to sell the Pacers? To me that is Bird's down deep goal/dream, to be an owner of a NBA team. JMOAA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott. Scott was really Walsh's choice?

                        I think the Simons are still more hands-off than a lot of owners, but when their bottom line started suffering it seems like they paniced a little. I totally agree with the previous comment that you have to let your VP or GM do their job. The Colts are the perfect example of that. You let the coach coach, you let the GM handle player movement and aquisition, and the owner handles the financials. Of course there are instances where each will add their thoughts and opinions, but the final say should go to the guy who is in charge of that aspect of the franchise. That's an easy formula to follow when you're winning. But when you start losing and the revenue starts to dry up, there's bound to be a little panic and uncertainty.
                        Turn out the lights, this party's over!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          But do you KNOW this to be a fact?

                          My impression has always been Walsh couldn't/wouldn't fire Isiah for whatever reason. He needed someone that would and Bird and Isiah had history, so he hired Bird to do the dirty work he wouldn't or couldn't do. This was Larry Legend an Indiana icon.

                          Let's face it Bird had no managerial background. Red wouldn't give him a job in the Celtics organization. My impression was Red thought Bird was a great player, but didn't have what it took to be in management. So why would Walsh hire Bird other than Larry Legend PR for the Pacers? To get rid of Isiah for him. I always felt Walsh didn't like having to admit his mistake of hiring Isiah, so maybe indeed there is validity about the Simons wanting Isiah. If this is true, Walsh was pretty shrewd having Bird fire Isiah, b/c Walsh after taking over the Knicks replaced Isiah as coach.


                          I never believed Walsh had ever thought of Bird truly as his replacement. For the better part of 2 years, Walsh had Bird scouting over in Europe. For someone that was to be his replacement, why have him do that? To me it was to get him out of his way. Why else? What other NBA team sends their heir apparent to scout Europe for 2 years? That's what they have scouts for. Who is doing it now for the Pacers? It isn't an heir apparent.

                          I made a comment recently in a post that the reason Walsh started grooming Bird as his successor was to make himself look better after he retired/left. My impression of Bird is he can't balance his checkbook let alone has the managerial abilities to run a sports franchise. Does anyone really think another NBA franchise would hire Bird as their GM? There is a reason the Simons have David Morway in the position he occupies. My firm belief is Bird is just here to change the image of the Pacers and get them back on solid footing. After that, he's history. Who really believes that Bird has what it takes to get the Pacers a championship?

                          Who was it a few years ago on this board that claimed to know that Bird had it in place to buy the Pacers when the Simons decided to sell the Pacers? To me that is Bird's down deep goal/dream, to be an owner of a NBA team. JMOAA
                          Don't scheet yourself, Bird is not as stupid as you have portrayed him in your post. Bird is a proven winner, something that should not be so easily discounted.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott. Scott was really Walsh's choice?

                            Bird worked with Donnie and was his head coach for 3 years. Then received on the job training from Donnie for another 4 years. Played for some great coaches at Boston all the while Red was running the franchise. I will take that over a college degree any day. The only way you learn to coach/GM is by playing/being around the best. Bird is qualified IMHO.
                            "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                            Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: New Pacer podcast Boyle/B.Scott

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post

                              Who was it a few years ago on this board that claimed to know that Bird had it in place to buy the Pacers when the Simons decided to sell the Pacers? To me that is Bird's down deep goal/dream, to be an owner of a NBA team. JMOAA
                              Honestly, when you connect the dots... This is not a far off probability.
                              • David Simon is pretty much on record as saying, he isn't interested in taking on the Pacers from his father.
                              • The Simon's are getting pretty long in the tooth. Combine that with David Simon...
                              • I'm sure that the Simon's would want local ownership. With Microsoft and the City of Seattle agreeing to terms from the NBA. Seattle will have a place to play and would be seeking a team after a new facility is built with the OKC settlement money.
                              • Larry Bird put an ownership group together in the past. He finished second to a local interest with a larger wallet in Bob Johnson down in Charlotte. Also, the NBA wasn't going to turn down the chance to allow sports first minority owner.
                              • Bird's big money partner is available, once again. Steve Belkin is out in Atlanta from that ownership fiasco a few years ago.
                              • Say what you will about Bird, he is as close to being local ownership as it gets.
                              ...Still "flying casual"
                              @roaminggnome74

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X