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:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

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

  • Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

    Mike Wells

    Indystar.com

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...me-Pacers-woes

    TORONTO -- Indiana Pacers president Larry Bird is not blaming his team's problems during the past three weeks on Frank Vogel.

    Bird said Thursday he stands by the interim coach.

    The reasons behind the Pacers' 3-9 record in the past 12 games stem from ongoing internal problems with the players, Bird said.

    "We started off pretty strong with Frank, then they hit a lull. They had some problems internally and it took the wind out of them. That has nothing to do with Frank, that's on the players. The last 10-12 games, the guys haven't reacted the way you do as professionals,"
    said Bird, who was on hand to witness the lackluster 26-point loss at Minnesota on Wednesday.

    Team chemistry has been a concern all season due to the abundance of younger players and the absence of a leader.

    The Pacers jumped to a 7-1 start under Vogel, capitalizing on a soft portion of the schedule.

    Bird said strong starts are not uncommon when a coach is fired during the season.

    Things came to a head, however, during and after last weekend's loss at Houston.

    Veterans Danny Granger and Dahntay Jones took exception to comments made to them during the game by rookie Lance Stephenson. Jones had to be restrained from going after Stephenson in the huddle during a second-half timeout.

    Things carried over to the locker room after the game when a number of other players were involved in a heated argument.

    Stephenson, the team's second-round draft pick, is talented. But there are questions about the 20-year-old's maturity on and off the court.

    One of the Pacers' problems is the absence of a player who can mentor Stephenson and help him grow.

    "Our problem is internally," Bird said. "I see what's going on inside the locker room. I've seen a lot of it all year. I tried to address it with different people at the trade deadline."

    Bird was unable to move T.J. Ford, Solomon Jones, Brandon Rush or Josh McRoberts, who has not been a locker room disruption, before the trade deadline last month.

    Chemistry is not the only issue the Pacers face.

    They have failed to break away from other struggling Eastern Conference teams in the battle for the final playoff spot. The Pacers, who play at Toronto tonight, hold the No. 8 seed by one game over Charlotte, which lost its sixth consecutive game Wednesday.

    Player professionalism is being questioned. Some players have begun arriving for practice just before the scheduled start time. Others constantly joke around during workouts.

    The lack of commitment in practice is showing up in games. The Pacers have lost by at least 10 points in five of their past seven defeats.

    "You have to have the players behind you and they have to be willing to work hard," Bird said. "I know what's going on; the players know what's going on. We're just not getting the effort."

    Vogel, who has no previous head coaching experience, talks to Bird daily for advice on how to handle everything from defensive strategies to dealing with players.

    "Larry is more involved with our players and understands what we're trying to do," Vogel said. "I lean on him. We understand there's tough stretches on the schedule and there's easy stretches. You just have to stay together and try to improve your team when you're not winning games.
    didn't see this posted anywhere.

    Some interesting quotes in here.

  • #2
    Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

    Glad to see Larry realizes that the guys aren't acting like professionals.

    It's embarrassing really.
    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

      Originally posted by Larry Bird
      I know what's going on; the players know what's going on.
      I sure wish I knew what the hell was going on.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

        Originally posted by Psyren View Post
        Glad to see Larry realizes that the guys aren't acting like professionals.

        It's embarrassing really.
        I agree, and I believe the Pacers need to take some disciplinary actions against those who aren't being professionals.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

          You have to wonder if the comment by Lance is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to chemistry problems on the Team. Obviously, we have no clue as to what Lance said....but if there is a huge Locker Room problem ( at least one that is big enough for other FO to be talking about it...according to cherokee )....I can't see some comment by a rookie being the sole problem....some bigger issue is going on that no one is talking about.

          But this comment:

          "Our problem is internally," Bird said. "I see what's going on inside the locker room. I've seen a lot of it all year. I tried to address it with different people at the trade deadline."

          Bird was unable to move T.J. Ford, Solomon Jones, Brandon Rush or Josh McRoberts, who has not been a locker room disruption, before the trade deadline last month.
          Is the most puzzling. Obviously.....TJ, Solo, BRush and McBob were on the block....and even seconds from being moved....but if Wells mentions that they were not any real Locker Room disruption...and Bird indicated that he was trying "address it with different people before the trade deadline"....does that mean that he was trying to "address the issue" by trying to move someone else ( outside of TJ, Solo, BRush and McBob ) to improve locker room chemistry?

          or

          Does he mean that before the trade deadline he addressed it with the Team ( as in spoke to the Team about the issue ) before the Trade deadline?

          If it's a trade...maybe it was Inferno? We know that he's an emotional guy. Didn't he have some issues with other Players ( or was it JO'B? ) over the last year or two?
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

            This article really makes me sick to my stomach
            GO PACERS!!!

            Twitter: @Circlecity3318

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              I agree, and I believe the Pacers need to take some disciplinary actions against those who aren't being professionals.
              Well, Bird said that he's seen it "all year". Does "all year" mean just this season...as in just since the start of this season in November?

              Either way....if it was a major issue to be concerned about....why take this long to address it?
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

                Originally posted by CircleCity3318 View Post
                This article really makes me sick to my stomach
                Yeah...no kidding....finally when we get to see some bright light at the end of the tunnel ( after JO'B was let go and we had a nice honeymoon with Vogel AGAINST a nice cushy schedule playing against sub .500 Teams )....we run into this garbage.

                You really have to wonder if we are simply cursed.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

                  Originally posted by CircleCity3318 View Post
                  This article really makes me sick to my stomach
                  same here. just when i thought finally things are gonna get better this made me lose all the hope.

                  i hope we get rid of all the players responsible for this even if it's danny. and yes i'm totally done with him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

                    ...Could be someone else was on the block and learned it and has been disenchanted by it. Thinking one moment they were a building block for the team's future and learning in another they were and are on the trading block.

                    Or maybe somebody was hoping/expecting to be traded and found themselves "stuck" here afterall?

                    Too many pieces of the puzzle missing to figure this one out. We need more direction from the press or some insiders.

                    It's still odd to think that a team that was thinking playoffs carved out time in the lineup for a rookie that had not played all year 2/3rds of the way thru the season when it still seemed like we had some good mojo going our way with the existing lineup. Especially a rookie that it would seem now isn't particularly liked or respected by (some of?) his teammates.

                    That could all be coincidental.. or just another piece of the puzzle.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      ...Could be someone else was on the block and learned it and has been disenchanted by it. Thinking one moment they were a building block for the team's future and learning in another they were and are on the trading block.

                      Or maybe somebody was hoping/expecting to be traded and found themselves "stuck" here afterall?

                      Too many pieces of the puzzle missing to figure this one out. We need more direction from the press or some insiders.

                      It's still odd to think that a team that was thinking playoffs carved out time in the lineup for a rookie that had not played all year 2/3rds of the way thru the season when it still seemed like we had some good mojo going our way with the existing lineup. Especially a rookie that it would seem now isn't particularly liked or respected by (some of?) his teammates.

                      That could all be coincidental.. or just another piece of the puzzle.
                      What on Earth can Lance say that would cause such a huge disruption?

                      I really think that the issue with Lance is just "1 piece" of the puzzle and whatever Locker Room issues we have now is probably much bigger and widespread then we are aware of.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

                        I'd say at best Lance is just a symptom of a bigger problem... not the problem...
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

                          Sad sad sad

                          What can you really say about stuff like this. It's fricken basketball, you don't have to like your teammates to play with them.

                          If Granger wants to be the man he needs lead or get out of the way. The only player we have with much seniority is Foster and he's toward the end of his career.

                          If Lance is running his mouth during timeouts he's needs to be put in check. He hasn't earned the right.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            What on Earth can Lance say that would cause such a huge disruption?

                            I really think that the issue with Lance is just "1 piece" of the puzzle and whatever Locker Room issues we have now is probably much bigger and widespread then we are aware of.
                            Agreed.

                            And as Bball said, I think Lance may have "pushed the issue over the top" perhaps, but I don't think he is "the issue".

                            I have a feeling there's been problems all year, and he may have just so happened to be the guy who pushed things overboard. I don't, however, believe he is the problem.

                            In my opinion, it all stems to Dahntay probably, and that's not (necessarily) a bad thing. Dahntay has a strong personality, and is the most likely to speak up and say something. Chances are he was frustrated with JOB, probably is a bit frustrated with Lance, and all the other circumstances. He probably brought the issues to surface and, in my opinion, strong words were thrown towards Danny, DC, Roy and the other "leaders" of this team. I don't know who would have said them, but I think that's got to have something to do with Danny, Roy, and DC's lackluster performance.

                            1. I just don't think Danny wants to hear that someone has something negative to say.

                            2. Roy takes things too hard. I love the guy, but he seems to let his emotions, good or bad, get to him.

                            3. DC is still a young guy. He's "in charge" of a struggling team, and I think once the ball of struggle got rolling, he can't find a way to stop it, and the criticism from his teammates isn't helping.

                            Oh, and I don't think this is a Frank issue. I think Frank continues to do fine under the circumstances. Not saying he should be back or shouldn't be, but I think he's doing alright given what's going on.

                            Just my 2 cents. I don't know any of it for a fact, so don't take it that way.
                            Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bird:Players, not Vogel, to blame for Pacers' woes (Wells)

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Is the most puzzling. Obviously.....TJ, Solo, BRush and McBob were on the block....and even seconds from being moved....but if Wells mentions that they were not any real Locker Room disruption...and Bird indicated that he was trying "address it with different people before the trade deadline"....does that mean that he was trying to "address the issue" by trying to move someone else ( outside of TJ, Solo, BRush and McBob ) to improve locker room chemistry?

                              or

                              Does he mean that before the trade deadline he addressed it with the Team ( as in spoke to the Team about the issue ) before the Trade deadline?
                              Third logical possibility...he was hoping to pick up someone who could be a stabilizing influence.


                              [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X