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

How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

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

  • #31
    Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

    http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baske...th-pacers.html
    Here’s some potentially sobering news for the *refreshingly revived Bulls.

    If the Indiana Pacers players have their way, we’ve seen the last of “interim” head coach Frank Vogel.

    “We want that ‘interim’ taken off his title,” said forward Danny Granger, the team’s leading scorer.

    “Management usually asks for the players’ input on important decisions like this,” Granger said. “I expect [team president Larry Bird] to do so again. If he gives us who we want, he’ll make Vogel the full-time head coach — not interim. Vogel really improved our play overall. Of course, that’s a decision that management makes. And they don’t always make it the way the players want.”

    The bad news for the Bulls is that Vogel very well could be around to make the Pacers an even more formidable foe in the Eastern Conference in general and the Central Division in particular.

    Vogel, 37, an assistant for eight years, replaced fired predecessor Jim O’Brien when the Pacers were 17-27 and guided them to a 20-18 finish that resulted in the team’s first playoff appearance in five years.

    Two wins against Bulls

    Under Vogel, the Pacers proved especially menacing to the Bulls. If not for losing to the Pacers, the Bulls would have swept the Central Division 16-0 for the first time in team history and would have enjoyed a 4-0 sweep in the first round of the playoffs and gotten three extra days of rest.

    Because the Central Division was the weakest in the league, the Bulls ran away with it and finished with a 25-game lead over the Pacers, the second-place team in the division. Fattening up on Central opponents greatly helped the Bulls finish with a 62-20 record, the best in the league and the franchise’s best since the 1998 NBA-championship team.

    The Bulls still had a 47-19 record against the rest of the league. The Pacers were 0-3 against the Bulls before winning the last game of the teams’ regular-season series 115-108 in overtime and then played the Bulls tough in five playoff games, beating them once in their Eastern Conference quarterfinal series.

    Hansbrough, Hibbert agree

    “I want to see him back as head coach,” said starting forward *Tyler Hansbrough, who wasn’t *being given the playing time Bird believed O’Brien should have given him.

    “I definitely like playing for him. He gave me a shot. He let me play basketball, and we became a team under him. We gained an identity of being tough and physical —
    a scrappy team. That’s something we really haven’t developed in the past.”

    Center Roy Hibbert, whose confidence was believed to have been bruised by O’Brien’s public berating, also wants Vogel back full-time.

    “He gave us a lot more confidence as a team,” Hibbert said. “We felt we could compete with anyone — and we did.”

    Of course, I wouldn’t have expected Vogel to answer any differently when I asked him if Bird had given him any hope that he would be retained full-time.

    “Larry Bird’s doing the right thing,” Vogel said. “[He] told me when I took over that we would talk when the season ended after we have had time to evaluate everything, and that’s the plan.”

    Bird didn’t say anything about Vogel’s future in Thursday’s end-of-the-season news conference. But when he talks to his players, he’ll find them heavily supportive of Vogel.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      We lead by double digits in the 4th quarter twice...got beat once, and won once.
      Whatever it was, we had more than a chance to win the first 4 games and came away in a 3-1 hole.

      I'm not saying I wouldn't be happy with Frank. I think he's a fine coach. I don't think he's such a home run that there is no reason to even talk to anybody else.

      I don't think any other teams are beating down on Frank's door to hire him. He'll probably get a look by other teams, but I don't think we need to worry about someone else swooping in and stealing him out from under us while the front office does their job.

      This is a huge decision. No reason to rush it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

        Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
        Solo and TJ Ford said no way they would come back if Vogel does!

        Also, Posey said he wasn't interested in becoming President of Vogel's fan club.

        I want to say

        But really...Who cares what they want.

        And Posey if you want to play next season, lose 20 pounds. Condition to be a 3. If Grant Hill and Shane Battier can run around you can to. That is what you are being paid for.....So WORK for it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

          Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
          Solo and TJ Ford said no way they would come back if Vogel does!

          Also, Posey said he wasn't interested in becoming President of Vogel's fan club.
          Haha, Solo should feel fortunate if he stumbles onto a roster next year. Pretty much the last guy in the league that should be talking coaching preferences.

          I don't blame Posey, Vogel doesn't play him and JOB did. If he didn't have such a bloated contract we could trade him. Maybe he'll take a buyout...or maybe he'll sit on the bench and make $6.9 mil...I think I know which one he'll choose.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

            I'm going off 2 things:

            1) Results
            2) Gut feel

            His results were impressive. The only knock on him was his closing out of games. Even then, the few people still having lingering doubts about that particular aspect are forgetting that he's 37, and he was thrown into a sinking ship 40 games ago, and he was facing the "best team in the league". I'm willing to bet he figures out the "close-out" thing. He barely had time to install and gain experience in making those decision, and he strikes me as someone who will figure it out. Which leads me to my second point:

            Gut feel. I watch this guy, I listen to what he says, how he says it, and the feeling is there. He is very confident and good at what he does, and the things that he needs to work on, he'll figure it out. You can tell he's just one of those types of people. If he made a mistake, he's going to correct it. He makes good adjustments. He has the intelligence, he's willing to adjust, he communicates extremely well. I think he's going to be a very good HC in this league. I've not seen an interim coach come in with his demeanor maybe ever. His confidence and presense is overwhelmingly strong.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-29-2011, 11:02 AM.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

              I love how it's somehow considered valid criticism of a coach to knock him for 'only' getting his 37 win team to get a double digit lead in the 4th of two different games against a 62 win team, and in one case they lost the game (the road game), and that he lost 1-4. If that's the best knock you have on him, you don't really have a knock on him IMO. That series was far closer than it had any business being, and Vogel was a huge reason for that. Enough said on that.

              Now, that doesn't mean you can't necessarily find someone better, but a flimsy shot at Frank's coaching abilities doesn't validate that concept at all.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                Whatever it was, we had more than a chance to win the first 4 games and came away in a 3-1 hole.

                I'm not saying I wouldn't be happy with Frank. I think he's a fine coach. I don't think he's such a home run that there is no reason to even talk to anybody else.

                I don't think any other teams are beating down on Frank's door to hire him. He'll probably get a look by other teams, but I don't think we need to worry about someone else swooping in and stealing him out from under us while the front office does their job.

                This is a huge decision. No reason to rush it.
                There's a big difference though between leading by double digits in two games and splitting them and leading by double digits in 3 games and losing them all.

                Games 2 and 3 were toss ups. Games 1 and 4 were our games to win, we split them. Game 5 was a blow out.

                I agree we need to interview others, but I don't like Mike Brown as the guy to take us to the next level.


                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  If you aren't prepared to give him a 3 year deal, then he obviously is not the correct choice. If Bird thinks like you do, then he needs to pick someone else.
                  I don't agree with that at all. There's nothing wrong with making someone prove themselves. We didn't make JOB prove himself, and we ended up stuck with him for 3 years because Bird had to "show resolve and confidence in his decision" which I'm guessing is at the root of your thought process, which in hindsight, was a mistake in the long-term.

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  If I were in charge, I would care what the players publically say about Vogel, but I would put a ton of weight in what they say to me in private. So as a fan I don't put too much weight into that the players say in the media, the players generally have to support him in the media.

                  Just a thought - don't feel strongly about this, just throwing it out there - So I think the more perhaps meaningful thing from Kravitz column yesterday was that no one has voiced their support off the record for Frank.
                  Kravitz isn't a fly on every wall in the organization, he doesn't know for sure if no one has privately endorsed him. And there is plenty of instances where players have publically endorsed him, so right there Kravitz' claim isn't correct. Think you're reading into something that isn't there.

                  It's hard to imagine Granger saying publically, "We want that ‘interim’ taken off his title. If he gives us who we want, he’ll make Vogel the full-time head coach — not interim. Vogel really improved our play overall" and then turning around and going into Bird's office and saying "Larry, we gotta get rid of this joker." The bolded parts indicate Granger speaking on behalf of the entire team.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-29-2011, 11:17 AM.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I love how it's somehow considered valid criticism of a coach to knock him for 'only' getting his 37 win team to get a double digit lead in the 4th of two different games against a 62 win team, and in one case they lost the game (the road game), and that he lost 1-4. If that's the best knock you have on him, you don't really have a knock on him IMO. That series was far closer than it had any business being, and Vogel was a huge reason for that. Enough said on that.
                    It wasn't meant as criticism. I don't have a knock on him, and I definitely wasn't trying to knock him in fashion. I'm saying I don't believe that doing those things makes him the only candidate worthy of an interview.

                    Frank had a great start to his career. I wasn't trying to say anything differently. If the Pacers go in another direction, Frank will get other chances. If the Pacers decide to retain him, I'll be more than happy with that as well.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

                      Kravitz isn't a fly on every wall in the organization, he doesn't know for sure if no one has privately endorsed him. And there is plenty of instances where players have publically endorsed him, so right there Kravitz' claim isn't correct. Think you're reading into something that isn't there.
                      Kravitz knows everything that Mike Wells knows, that is where Kravy gets his information from. My only point here is that the net is a little wider than what Kravitz has heard, it also includes Wells

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                        Regardless, Kravitz said "on or off the court", and that wasn't true. There *have* been public endorsements by the players. So his statement is already half-way invalidated. And yet... you're taking it to heart. That's my point... I wouldn't read much into the statement.
                        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Regardless, Kravitz said "on or off the court", and that wasn't true. There *have* been public endorsements by the players. So his statement is already half-way invalidated. And yet... you're taking it to heart. That's my point... I wouldn't read much into the statement.

                          well we have no idea what has been said off the record, none at all. I might be willing to take Kravitz word on that part, but yes Kravy is wrong about the public part. So if you want to throw the whole thing out I have no problem

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                            I also think that the players would be inclined to make positive statements about Vogel in the press even if privately they weren't so sure about whether or not he should be their coach. They aren't going to throw him under the bus while everyone is talking about how the Pacers exceeded expectations in the media.

                            But if they were saying these things publicly just to avoid causing any issues in the media I would expect something more general and impersonal along the lines of "He did a really good job."

                            But what we are getting is some gushing like "Frank for coach of the year!" and strongly worded personalized statements from the de-facto leader of the team like "We want that ‘interim’ taken off his title. If he gives us who we want, he’ll make Vogel the full-time head coach — not interim," and blunt statements like "I want to see him back as head coach."

                            I think that difference is significant and that's why I don't feel comfortable simply dismissing this as "things players say in the press to toe the line."
                            Last edited by gummy; 04-29-2011, 02:40 PM.
                            "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                            "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                            "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                              Originally posted by Brinocerous View Post
                              I don't. I would consider the players opinion of their coach a very valuable part of the decision making process. Who would you work harder for: a guy who gets you believe your best interests are the team's best interests, or a guy who plays favorites and is in it for him self?

                              I've seen many a business run into the ground by management that ignored their most valuable employees opinions.
                              A guy that plays favorites and is in it for himself ? Is Jim O'Brien a
                              cantidate to be re-hired ?

                              I didn't think so.

                              As someone (coulda been Parcells, I forget) once said, owners own,
                              GM's, etc. manage, coach's coach and players play.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: How many players have publicly supported Frank coming back so far?

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                well we have no idea what has been said off the record, none at all. I might be willing to take Kravitz word on that part, but yes Kravy is wrong about the public part. So if you want to throw the whole thing out I have no problem
                                Kravitz has admitted that he can hardly work Twitter. I'm not surprised that he wouldn't know about these public remarks.
                                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X