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

Pacers fire Big Smooth

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

    Originally posted by pristinecollector View Post
    I'm just sayin. If you've ever spoken with him in person....not far off from his post. I don't think that's the professionalism they were looking for from someone with the title of VICE PRESIDENT. Maybe I'm wrong, could be proof of nothing....but?
    I have spoken with Sam Perkins numerous times. I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with your assessment.
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Cost-cutting move
      I agree. But another way to save money is to not hand out extensions to JOB or Foster way before you need to (um, the Hawks had a pretty good year with a "lame duck" coach) or hiring Luther Head right before the start of the season when you didn't really need him and the coach wasn't going to use him by the end of the year.

      D Jones and Luther Head were both specific examples of moves that playoff teams make but cost-cutting teams don't.


      Holding onto Troy for something better is something you can afford to do when you aren't cost cutting, trading him for a pick and a 4 month buyout is what teams do to show a savings to the CIB (or whomever).


      If he wasn't good at his job, okay, but it comes across as odd AND it's on the heels of the Daniels thing last year which we know was specifically due to his opinions of how the team was being run/coached, not "communication".


      Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
      I have spoken with Sam Perkins numerous times. I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with your assessment.
      Same here.

      Maybe we just caught him on his good English days.
      So a big part of the problem is the MIXED messages, not that they want to cut costs at this point.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-02-2010, 09:23 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
        What if the FO believes that with the present talent level it doesn't much matter who is coaching the team?

        More likely it's probably that they just don't want to pay another guy millions to do absolutely nothing--see tinsley and ford.
        A) no extension

        B) hire a cheaper, first-time coach, maybe from the NCAA


        Save money, maybe you strike gold with this new kid, if not you can blame his coaching instead of the crap players just like we do with JOB.

        JOB DID NOT deserve or need that extension, period. No one outside of PS&E thinks it was warranted. Ryan Russillo (NBA Today) was making fun of this move even, that's a national view of it not a grumpy local fan.



        By the way, let's flip that "they won't play for a lame duck coach" thing on its head. What's the big problem with NBA players by our view, thanks to Tinsley types especially?

        Guaranteed contracts. No motivation to prove themselves.

        Why not force JOB to EARN his extension and coach his butt off? Oh, because the players wouldn't play for him? Yes, that IS what I call an endorsement of his coaching ability.

        If the players don't RESPECT the coach then just how good can he be at his job? PS&E have tried to spin this into some view that if he doesn't kiss their butt they'd tune him out, but plenty of players just want to win and will play hard for a tough, unpleasant coach if it means winning.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

          This is from way back in the thread, but I'll say it:

          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
          Strange that a guy with a communications degree who used to host his own radio show was judged to not be a "good communicator."

          Having a communications degree means you've heard of David Sarnoff. Having your own radio show means you've got strong lungs and an iron bladder. I don't think either of those qualifications makes a person trustworthy or efficacious.

          I don't care one way or another how he expresses himself on his Facebook page, FWIW.




          .
          Last edited by Putnam; 05-02-2010, 09:50 AM.
          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


          • #65
            Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

            I didn't see anything wrong with his facebook update. I don't think there's any sort of rule saying everybody has to use proper grammar and punctuation at all times. I thought the actual content was rather professional - no hard feelings, etc.


            I'm really having a hard time getting worked up at all about this. I just don't think it matters at all in the grand scheme of things.
            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


            • #66
              Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

              Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
              Sentiment aside, is there any chance that Daniels and Perkins weren't really that good at the job itself?

              On my part there is no sentiment, as I could care less about either one, but it just sounds like to me those with possible different views from those in the FO that are in charge aren't considered "company people."

              With sentiment aside for Larry Legend, is there any chance that Bird and O'Brien aren't really that good at their jobs?

              As of late, I keep feeling more and more that both are just pawns being used by Simon to get this team in mode for change in the summer of 011. If not a sale, then a change in leadership and coaching. I'm presently leaning more to Simon selling the Pacers.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                On my part there is no sentiment, as I could care less about either one, but it just sounds like to me those with possible different views from those in the FO that are in charge aren't considered "company people."

                With sentiment aside for Larry Legend, is there any chance that Bird and O'Brien aren't really that good at their jobs?

                As of late, I keep feeling more and more that both are just pawns being used by Simon to get this team in mode for change in the summer of 011. If not a sale, then a change in leadership and coaching. I'm presently leaning more to Simon selling the Pacers.
                Reading the above Facebook page post it did give props to Bird but didn't mention Simon.

                One reason or the other Simon has the team on the path to a sale. Whether it's intentional or not is the only question. It's either intentional or else it's ineptness that has alienated the fanbase to the point that apathy has set in so bad nobody cares any longer. I know my opinion is that if this is as good as they get, if they think O'Brien deserved to be picked up for year 4 and that his 'coaching' is what this team needs, then I"ll help them pack.

                I've always believed fans would accept a rebuild.... but this is not a rebuild. There is no 3 year plan. Most of the 2000's have been 1 questionable move after another. If we were pointing to 2011 and salary flexibility why have we been trying to make the playoffs and win every game we can with a less than stellar product instead of developing talent and grabbing high draft picks for a time when these assets could pay dividends?

                The firing of Big Smooth doesn't matter to me one way or the other except when I consider the ultimate in ineptness is still drawing Pacer PS&E checks. Of course now I'm not sure exactly who is the ULTIMATE in ineptness.... I think there are several people who could apply for that title...starting with O'Brien. And Simon might not be far from it himself.
                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


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  A) no extension

                  B) hire a cheaper, first-time coach, maybe from the NCAA


                  Save money, maybe you strike gold with this new kid, if not you can blame his coaching instead of the crap players just like we do with JOB.

                  JOB DID NOT deserve or need that extension, period. No one outside of PS&E thinks it was warranted. Ryan Russillo (NBA Today) was making fun of this move even, that's a national view of it not a grumpy local fan.



                  By the way, let's flip that "they won't play for a lame duck coach" thing on its head. What's the big problem with NBA players by our view, thanks to Tinsley types especially?

                  Guaranteed contracts. No motivation to prove themselves.

                  Why not force JOB to EARN his extension and coach his butt off? Oh, because the players wouldn't play for him? Yes, that IS what I call an endorsement of his coaching ability.

                  If the players don't RESPECT the coach then just how good can he be at his job? PS&E have tried to spin this into some view that if he doesn't kiss their butt they'd tune him out, but plenty of players just want to win and will play hard for a tough, unpleasant coach if it means winning.
                  You can't just hire a new coach, ncaa, or otherwise and not make a commitment to that individual for 2-3 years. They wanted a coach they could dispose of whenever they wanted.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                    First there is a world of difference in being laid off and being fired! Being laid off is used if they have a lack of work for you or your current position or department is being dropped by the company for cost cutting purposes. Being laid off is not related to performance where as being fired is performance related. The Pacers even give a reason for the firing as being a poor communicator. Sam was fired and not part of any cost cutting. Second this is the last year for both Bird and JOB because I am now sure that Simon is going to sell the team after the new labor agreement. It is the perfect time to do it because they will have zero front office or coaching staff and the payroll will be as low as any in the NBA. The request to have the city pick up the tab is also part of this because it will make the team very profitable after the new labor agreement because player salaries will be cut way down so even after the black eye that basketball will receive after the labor agreement the pacers will still be an attractive buy. I also see the new owner pulling a Seattle and moving the Pacers.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                      Originally posted by pristinecollector View Post
                      If anyone saw Sam's facebook post about the firing you'll understand EXACTLY why the Pacers would say he cannot communicate. Getto. If you didn't see it:

                      "Yo peeps good news!! As of yesterday i got cut (basketball term) in corporate world (terminated) from the Pacers.In all seriousness its a relief but thank Bird for the opportunity to come help the fellas...no arrest right? hmmm.No bitterness met a ton of good people Big respect for Larry Bird-on da real take this exper...ience and apply it next!! Karma yo! working with the NBA itself so all good! na i mean!! Be Smoov"

                      I'm just sayin...Yo, peeps, fellas, on da, yo, na, smoov......Not real profressional talk.
                      What difference does it make that he doesn't spell correctly on his Facebook page. last time i checked no one does anyways. i bet you don't... and i am sure you have a 9 to 5 job. Or wait maybe you don't if your this ignorant. I know Sam very well and know he is the last thing from ghetto. He may have a New York accent but that's about it. He is very professional and intellectual. His firing wasn't because he wasn't professional and he talked ghetto (which he didn't) it was about Morway getting what he wanted. Larry loved Sam, and they both have much respect for each other.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                        Originally posted by farfrmordnary446 View Post
                        His firing wasn't because he wasn't professional and he talked ghetto (which he didn't) it was about Morway getting what he wanted. Larry loved Sam, and they both have much respect for each other.

                        This was my first thought when I read Sam's Facebook post. I think he said more with his omissions.

                        If I'm reading this correctly, this is now the second grumbling towards Morway. Plus if you include the very negative comments from Vescey's column (I rarely believe Vescey's columns, but believed the parts about Morway), it's starting to sound like quite the political battle in the front office.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                          Mel wasnt fired for his opinion, he was fired for the manner in which he expressed it.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                            This was my first thought when I read Sam's Facebook post. I think he said more with his omissions.

                            If I'm reading this correctly, this is now the second grumbling towards Morway. Plus if you include the very negative comments from Vescey's column (I rarely believe Vescey's columns, but believed the parts about Morway), it's starting to sound like quite the political battle in the front office.
                            So you just believe what you want to believe? If you are going to downplay his value as a source of information (which I don't have a problem with--Vecsey sucks), then it really doesn't make much sense to agree with this one part just because it caters to your argument, no?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                              Originally posted by will567 View Post
                              I also see the new owner pulling a Seattle and moving the Pacers.
                              I've been thinking that too. Part of me thinks they'd move Seattle and become the Sonics. But I still see a team like the Kings moving to Vegas more than the Pacers moving.


                              I guess we'll find out June 30th.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                                Originally posted by Day-V View Post
                                I've been thinking that too. Part of me thinks they'd move Seattle and become the Sonics. But I still see a team like the Kings moving to Vegas more than the Pacers moving.


                                I guess we'll find out June 30th.
                                No team will move to Seattle before they get a new arena plan. That is and has been the issue with them since the Sonics moved. Besides, I think that Simon would make it a point to sell to an owner committed to keeping the team in Indianapolis long-term. And don't even begin to tell me Howard Schultz had that plan when he sold the Sonics to Clay Bennett, because no one buys it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X