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

It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

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

  • #16
    Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

    Originally posted by able View Post
    I agree with Kegboy here, the green hick has had 7 years so far and all he has to show for is a downward spiral and JoB as a coach

    his worst draft Rush ?? you serious ?? You really want the whole list of disasters?

    puhleaase

    Did Bird bring in Artest?

    Was it Bird's fault that JO became a hobbled diva?

    Was it Bird's fault that Tinsley was Tinsley?

    Walsh still had the final call from 03-07. I honestly don't see how anyone can say otherwise. When Bird took full control last year the franchise was a complete and utter mess from the mismanagement that took place for the 8 years prior. Pretty much all the problem players were guys that were brought in before Bird arrived. How exactly was he supposed to fix all of that in 2 years?

    What moves could Bird have made that he didn't? The only true asset he's ever had up to this point was JO and I'd say turning him into Hibbert was a damn good move. Since then, he has had ZERO ASSETS. We were hobbled by the contracts of Murphy, Dunleavy and Ford. Only now does he some have pieces to work with as those albatrosses have turned into assets. We'll see what Bird is made of as a GM by the way he plays those pieces.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

      I think its safe to say that the two-headed monster would have been ranked at about #398 on this list, so having Bird at #30 is certainly an improvement over that.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

        Yes, the Pacers were pretty loaded with talent by 1990.

        AND we had a ROY in year 3, and not the #1 pick either.

        AND they had 2 MAJOR injuries to promising players - Stipo and Kellogg


        Even looking at Bird’s draft history, his worst pick is seen as Brandon Rush
        WHAT?!?!

        Hmm, personally attending a Memphis game early in their season and falling in love with Shawne Williams seems just a bit worse than drafting one of the better perimeter defenders in the league. Add in going all out for James White which looks remarkably similar to going for Lance this year (Cincy, super talented, troublesome attitude concerns) makes me strongly doubt that he had the call on Shawne but not White. Even more so when this was the era of his Saras signing.

        Using Walsh as his cover story for that era is total BS. I'll give on the GSW deal from a "we just don't know" angle tied in with lip service in the press, but Williams/White/Saras were 100% Larry Bird IMO.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Using Walsh as his cover story for that era is total BS. I'll give on the GSW deal from a "we just don't know" angle tied in with lip service in the press, but Williams/White/Saras were 100% Larry Bird IMO.
          So you truly believe Walsh after building a team that was a contender for years, just sat back and let Bird make the decisions? That seems like an awfully large pill to swallow from a logical standpoint, presented by someone who likes to believe they generally are on the side of logic.

          Secondly, Walsh has said repeatedly after his hiring by the Knicks that his downfall in Indiana towards the end was "falling in love with talent alone", and not paying more attention to other things with players. If White and Williams don't fall into that category, I don't know who does.

          I have absolutely no idea why people think they can decipher who made what calls, and who didn't anytime before the summer of 2008.

          This isn't actually directed at Seth as much as a thing in general, but the "IMO" is the silliest thing I see on message boards. Guess what people, the text came from YOUR keyboard, so even without being prompted, I'm obviously going to understand that by the power of deduction, that yes, it probably is your opinion. I don't need the "IMO" to figure it out.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

            My only contribution to this whole discussion is:

            There is a reason that Larry Bird never made it up the ladder in the Celtics organization. As I understand it, in the late 90's he certainly aspired to but he was placed in the scouting department. Red Auerbach didn't deem him management material. And living myself in the shadow of Boston, Larry is still Legend in these parts.... so it wasn't for a lack of respect within the community.

            My point is, I think Larry was given opportunities with the Pacers initially in circumstances where he couldn't fail. The team he coached in the late 90's after Larry Brown might not even really have needed a coach. Then working under Donnie's wing, we don't know really who was in charge. But it certainly did boost up ticket sales didn't it?

            I think now as the clock continues to tick, we might just be seeing was Red Auerbach saw - not a lot of anything.
            "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

              What moves could Bird have made that he didn't? The only true asset he's ever had up to this point was JO and I'd say turning him into Hibbert was a damn good move. Since then, he has had ZERO ASSETS. We were hobbled by the contracts of Murphy, Dunleavy and Ford. Only now does he some have pieces to work with as those albatrosses have turned into assets. We'll see what Bird is made of as a GM by the way he plays those pieces.[/QUOTE]

              Ford was part of the trade that brought Hibbert, which ironically at that time was merley an afterthought as the 17th pick in the draft


              The trade was built around TJ, and also Raho (expiring)
              Sittin on top of the world!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                Did Bird bring in Artest?

                Was it Bird's fault that JO became a hobbled diva?

                Was it Bird's fault that Tinsley was Tinsley?

                Walsh still had the final call from 03-07. I honestly don't see how anyone can say otherwise. When Bird took full control last year the franchise was a complete and utter mess from the mismanagement that took place for the 8 years prior. Pretty much all the problem players were guys that were brought in before Bird arrived. How exactly was he supposed to fix all of that in 2 years?
                I think it is pretty obvious that Bird had a good amount of control. The is no way to say for sure how much, but to completely dismiss that he had any control is beyond idiotic. I seriously doubt Walsh went from being one of the best GM's in the league to one of the worst just a season or two after Bird joined the team. Afterall in the hierarchy of business Bird was the second man in charge after the Simons, so EVERYTHING had to go through Bird before it was approved. I'm sure the first season Bird sat back and let Walsh do his thing, maybe even in his second season, but no later than the third season Bird started making decisions.

                As far as Walsh's first eight years I can't help but notice that the team really took off the year that Smits and D^2 really broke out. Basketball has always and will always be a game that requires two excellent big men in order to be a successful team. They don't need to be the best players on the team, but until you have two good low post players it doesn't matter how good your PG and wings are you aren't going to get beyond the first round.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                  Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                  My point is, I think Larry was given opportunities with the Pacers initially in circumstances where he couldn't fail. The team he coached in the late 90's after Larry Brown might not even really have needed a coach. Then working under Donnie's wing, we don't know really who was in charge. But it certainly did boost up ticket sales didn't it?
                  From my understanding it was actually Carlisle that did most of the coaching with Bird doing more of the player management.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    So what was Donnie, his cheerleader? Donnie was his BOSS. Donnie made the decisions. Larry most certainly could give his input, but ultamately, Donnie was the one pulling the strings. This will be the 4th year of Larry making decisions.

                    We aren't privvy to the discussions between Donnie and Larry. For all we know, Larry toed the company line like a good little soldier and was just the PR mouth for Donnie.

                    There's no reason why Donnie even had a job, if Larry made the decisions. Simons would have been paying Donnie while Larry was the one in charge.

                    Does that seem business smart, especially for a franchise supposedly losing so much money they need the CIB to help them?

                    Your personal bias for the "green hick" is clouding your judgement.
                    Bull****. When Donnie left, he was replaced by 3 people. Larry continued as president of basketball operations, Jim Morris was brought in to be president of business operations, Rick Fuson was promoted to COO, and Herb was named CEO in Donnie's place.

                    Does Donnie deserve blame? Absolutely. But this pollyanna notion that Larry deserves none is ridiculous. If you really believe he was a "yes man" or even better, "Boomer for Adults", who's to say he isn't doing the same thing still, with Morway replacing Donnie as the brains and Herb as the decision maker.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                      I'd like to point out that if you're going to hold Bird responsible for decisions during the Bird/ Walsh era that you should hold Morway responsible for all the decisions in the Morway/Bird era.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        From my understanding it was actually Carlisle that did most of the coaching with Bird doing more of the player management.
                        agreed. my point exactly. can't really have an accident if someone else is driving, ya know?
                        "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                          Originally posted by Kaufman View Post
                          My only contribution to this whole discussion is:

                          There is a reason that Larry Bird never made it up the ladder in the Celtics organization. As I understand it, in the late 90's he certainly aspired to but he was placed in the scouting department. Red Auerbach didn't deem him management material. And living myself in the shadow of Boston, Larry is still Legend in these parts.... so it wasn't for a lack of respect within the community.
                          This is a lateral issue, but Red retired as a decision-maker the year Paul Gaston bought the team, 1993 I think. He had more of a Queen of England role from then on, especially during the Pitino era. Then he'd have a more prominent role, as an advisor, once Chris Wallace was promoted to GM. Those were the Gaston/ML Carr/Pitino/Volk years. Difficult to see how Bird could have done worse than them, regardless of how lousy he may be.
                          Last edited by cordobes; 07-26-2010, 06:30 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                            I'd like to point out that if you're going to hold Bird responsible for decisions during the Bird/ Walsh era that you should hold Morway responsible for all the decisions in the Morway/Bird era.
                            Absolutely. He is the GM after all.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                              Those were the Gaston/ML Carr/Pitino/Volk years.
                              Why can't the Green Guys go back to that? Those were some of the most enjoyable years of the NBA.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                                Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                                This is a lateral issue, but Red retired as a decision-maker the year Paul Gaston bought the team, 1993 I think. He had more of a Queen of England role from then on, especially during the Pitino era. Then he'd have a more prominent role, as an advisor, once Chris Wallace was promoted to GM. Those were the Gaston/ML Carr/Pitino/Volk years. Difficult to see how Bird could have done worse than them, regardless of how lousy he may be.
                                Thank you for engaging my post cordobes - I realized that there were some shakeups around this time with the Celtics and remember M.L. Carr as the guy who was doing a lot of the business on the surface but wasn't the undertone, the understood idea, that Red was running the squad behind the scenes?

                                I very vividly remember watching a Celts game in the late 90's on NBC where they caught Larry in a screenshot sitting in the stands and talking about his lowly role with the team, all thought to be due to circumstances related to Red's judgments about him. Is this not true?

                                As a native Hoosier, I felt bad about that situation when I heard it. Then a couple of years later, Larry surprisingly joins the Pacers and while that dangling thought was in my head, he wins Coach of the Year and then later leads a squad to the NBA Finals. Only more recently have the rumors related to Red re-surfaced in my mind.
                                "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X