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

Bird's 3 year plan working?

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

  • Bird's 3 year plan working?

    Hey guys,

    I'm new to the board. Seems like everyone one here pretty much hates the moves and decisions Bird has made. I'm on the other side of things. I think we are in a great position. This year will be another tough year and we will not make the playoffs. However, if things go the way I think and hope they will. Here are the reasons we are in a great position.

    1. We have good young talent, that is developing and will continue to develop.

    2. Fringe superstar in Granger

    3. Hella cap room next year to sign hopefully 2 stars. ( I know everyone believes the class is weak)

    4. Not being in the market this year will save us from WAY over spending, like the other teams are doing now.

    Moves we need to make.

    1. Not sign a stopgap at pg this year. Let TJ play the point and let the dude score and score. This will help trade the guy at the deadline. We are not going to make the playoffs anyway, so why put him on the bench and destroy his value? No need to sign farmer, lowery, or whoever just to increase their value in a way that wont help us.

    3. Play our other young players and let them develp and play together (George, Stevenson, Rush, etc...)

    4. Fire OB this year and bring in a new coach who can start to coach our young talent. Not sure who I would like. But sure M. Jackson would help to bring a buzz back to the pacers.


    What do you guys think? I'm sure some of you stat guys will destroy my opinions

  • #2
    Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

    First of all, to the Digest! Awesome place to discuss Pacers and basketball in general, get a few laughs, and it's a great way to stay in shape!

    To your post, I'd generally agree, actually. Firing Obie is about the only thing that everyone on this board agrees on. I'd like to get Ford moved before the season starts, along with Murphy, but you're probably right that we need to let him play and score and raise his value somewhat beyond just being an expiring contract.

    I love that we have what appears to be a solid, if not spectacular group of young players that will hopefully develop and join Danny Granger in making a playoff push in the next couple years. The cap space we'll have (if we keep those contracts) will be an amazing way to put the Pacers in contention sooner than later.

    I think the one thing I'd disagree with is Farmar. I've liked Farmar since he declared for the draft and I hoped we would draft him. Now that he's looking for a starting job, I think we've got a great situation here for him and I believe he would be worth it. But, it does sort of depend on what we can do with Ford.

    Again, welcome to the board, enjoy your stay. Call me for pizza, Peck for emergencies, and UncleBuck for hookers

    --pizza
    It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

      I like what you have on this post, minus letting Ford play :P
      I do like our youth a lot, but I just wish they'd actually get playing time.
      Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

        Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
        . Firing Obie is about the only thing that everyone on this board agrees on.

        --pizza
        Somewhere Unclebuck just teared up...
        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


        • #5
          Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

          Yeah, I should add that whatever topic everyone agrees on, UB will probably be the apologist.

          --pizza
          It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

            Originally posted by indy05colts View Post
            Hey guys,

            I'm new to the board. Seems like everyone one here pretty much hates the moves and decisions Bird has made. I'm on the other side of things. I think we are in a great position. This year will be another tough year and we will not make the playoffs. However, if things go the way I think and hope they will. Here are the reasons we are in a great position.

            1. We have good young talent, that is developing and will continue to develop.

            2. Fringe superstar in Granger

            3. Hella cap room next year to sign hopefully 2 stars. ( I know everyone believes the class is weak)

            4. Not being in the market this year will save us from WAY over spending, like the other teams are doing now.

            Moves we need to make.

            1. Not sign a stopgap at pg this year. Let TJ play the point and let the dude score and score. This will help trade the guy at the deadline. We are not going to make the playoffs anyway, so why put him on the bench and destroy his value? No need to sign farmer, lowery, or whoever just to increase their value in a way that wont help us.

            3. Play our other young players and let them develp and play together (George, Stevenson, Rush, etc...)

            4. Fire OB this year and bring in a new coach who can start to coach our young talent. Not sure who I would like. But sure M. Jackson would help to bring a buzz back to the pacers.


            What do you guys think? I'm sure some of you stat guys will destroy my opinions
            I agree with you! You are not alone!

            I think there have been a few missteps here and there, but in the overall picture I don't believe there's really anything Bird could have done to have us in a better situation going into 10-11. Three years ago (well, actually two), the term "three year plan" was chosen for a reason. There were a number of things that had to happen in order for us to get back into contention...and it was well recognized at the start of this "plan" that some of the most important steps were almost certainly NOT going to happen until, yeah, three years later. As much as everyone else wishes otherwise, we weren't going to trade Dunleavy and Murphy for Kobe Bryant.

            I do think that in hindsight O'Brien hasn't been the ideal coach for this team, and enough emphasis hasn't been put on player development and instead goes towards playing veterans and more reliable players. But behind the initial hiring choice Bird made, those decisions are the territory of the coach. He's here to win as many games as possible, while developing players as he does so. That's what he was hired to do, and for the last couple of years that hasn't really helped our situation any.

            No one was going to sacrifice wins for ping pong balls, and it would seem, for player development either. That's who the coach is, and that's who Bird is. I don't think either one was brought to the Pacers organization with the expectation that he'd want to do anything to the contrary.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

              get a new coach, find a young pg/pf with game (collison/okafor?), get rid of murphy, and then i will be buying season tickets again. but honestly, we're a lot closer to being competitive than where we were last year and the year before...unlike many, i think the only way we could have drafted better given our inability to tank is if we had gone after lawal in the 2nd. i absolutely love the george and stephenson picks and think the pacers finally have some hope because of it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

                Just never a good idea to suggest that "everyone" agrees on anything.

                On the 3 year question - get back with me in 15 months when the contracts have expired or have been traded.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

                  Welcome!

                  I don't understand the argument to stand pat at point guard. You allude to a "stopgap" point guard, but a couple of the people being considered are good enough to lead the team for years to come.

                  If the Pacers can get Farmar or Conley or a couple of the others being discussed, I think they ought to do it. And if they don't sign anyone new and AJ Price isn't healthy, then Earl Watson ought to run the show. NOT TJ.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Just never a good idea to suggest that "everyone" agrees on anything.

                    On the 3 year question - get back with me in 15 months when the contracts have expired or have been traded.
                    True, I'll put an asterisk by "everyone" if I use it again, and add a footnote clarifying that "everyone" excludes those who don't agree, UB in particular.

                    So in the case of Jim O'Brien, *everyone agrees he should be fired. And you're also right about waiting to see what happens with the expirings/cap space.

                    --pizza

                    *The term "everyone" in this case only means everyone who actually agrees and does not bind anyone who does not agree to the statement in which the term was used.
                    It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

                      Thanks for the warm welcome.

                      Putnam - My argument about stopgap point guard is very simple. I don't believe Farmer, Lowry, or Conley are good enough to be a starting pg for a championship team. Even if they are, Bird only wants to offer 1 year contracts. This will only allow that pg to play for himself and not for the team. If they turn out to be pretty good, they will be getting way better contracts next year and of course we would just let them walk.

                      UncleBuck - sorry for upsetting you with my use of "everyone" 15 months is is....

                      Bornready - my reason of Ford. Look at Tinsley. I know the situation is different, but if would would have handled that differently and played the guy for like 2 months and ran the O thru him. I'm sure Bird could have traded him and got something decent ouf of the deal, instead of paying a thug to tuck dollar bills and fire semi autos in the streets . So play Ford and make him look better then he really is. Let him dribble around and run the O thur him. Let him drive and score or dish. Then make the trade with someone looking for a point guard (injury to starting pg or back up, contender looking for spark off the bench to run the 2nd team)

                      Alright... everyone have a great 4th of July

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

                        I'm currently very pessimistic about winning any free agent wars next year. How's that working for New York?

                        The expiring contracts are worth most in a trade. Barring that, our next best option is to take salary back in a trade (aka Kirk Hinrich, Marcus Camby). If our plan is just "go out and sign lotsa free agents" I'm not hopeful.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          I'm currently very pessimistic about winning any free agent wars next year. How's that working for New York?

                          The expiring contracts are worth most in a trade. Barring that, our next best option is to take salary back in a trade (aka Kirk Hinrich, Marcus Camby). If our plan is just "go out and sign lotsa free agents" I'm not hopeful.
                          I'm with you on this one. Playing the FA market is a good way to overpay for someone to under-perform. And like you said, would we be able to draw anyone in if New York is having trouble?

                          You're more likely to get more equal value in a trade, and you have a wider selection of players to try to get than in FA. I do think this is the best way to go, but if Bird can't get something done in trades, then we're not totally up a creek because we'll have cap space.

                          Other than FAs, having that cap space will allow us to make deals for other draft picks as well next season, and maybe we add that way instead of signing someone. The odds of getting Melo or Durant are really slim, but if that's what you have to try to do, then at least we'll have money to try with.

                          --pizza
                          It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            I'm currently very pessimistic about winning any free agent wars next year. How's that working for New York?

                            The expiring contracts are worth most in a trade. Barring that, our next best option is to take salary back in a trade (aka Kirk Hinrich, Marcus Camby). If our plan is just "go out and sign lotsa free agents" I'm not hopeful.
                            I agree, if we wait we are more likley to end up overpaying like Detroit. Charlie V. and Ben Gordon yuck!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bird's 3 year plan working?

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              I'm currently very pessimistic about winning any free agent wars next year. How's that working for New York?

                              The expiring contracts are worth most in a trade. Barring that, our next best option is to take salary back in a trade (aka Kirk Hinrich, Marcus Camby). If our plan is just "go out and sign lotsa free agents" I'm not hopeful.
                              I was thinking about this earlier. How many teams will be far under the cap next year. This should be a indicator if the Pacers will overpay or not for a FA.

                              I have a feeling that FA's will not have that many options next year.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X