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

Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

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

  • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

    Originally posted by Kraft View Post
    Well, those are his only years as a head coach. I'm not sure what you're expecting.

    This babysitter notion is nonsense. Do people really think they made the Finals with a do-nothing coach? Do people think he won 66 games and was COY by doing nothing in 2008-09?

    It was all LeBron? Really?
    I realize Brown was not their coach this past season, but have you compared Cleveland's record with James vs. their record this year?

    Yeah, he was responsible for a lot of that difference.

    I don't think Mike Brown is a top-five coach by any means, but to discount a guy because he had a star player is ludicrous ... especially when supporting a guy who hasn't coached a full NBA season.

    I like Vogel and Brown, and can understand arguments for both.
    I don't have a problem with Brown, per se. I am curious about what sort of offense and defense he would want to run without a player of James' ability. I seriously have no idea what his philosophies would be.

    Comment


    • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

      Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
      George/Dahntay on Rose wasn't a 'brilliant' decision and more of a 'common sense' one?
      Based on size and defensive abilities, I'd say yes.

      Comment


      • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        If Vogel's only going to get a one year deal, it tells me Bird isn't entirely convinced. If that turns out to be the case, part of the deal needs to be contingent on Vogel hiring an experienced assistant capable of stepping in when things go south.

        If he gets a one year deal, he might as well just keep the interim tag.
        It also could indicate that, while the Pacers need to have a head coach, the organization, from Simon on down to Bird, are not certain what the CBA and lockout will bring, what opportunities and obstacles might arise, and what that might mean to the overall future of the franchise from an ownership standpoint.

        I suspect that, under the circumstances, Vogel would not feel slighted by a one year deal, and might actually appreciate the flexibility and opportunities that might open up for him in the event that

        1) there is a season next year

        and

        2) the Pacers develop further and get additional talent that take them to the next level.

        Comment


        • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

          I really don't think a 1 year deal says anything about Vogel. I think it says more about JOB and the CBA. Also I kind of hope that this is more of the beginning of a trend in the NBA where coaches are only guaranteed one season at a time.

          Comment


          • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

            I'd actually love if the Pacers could get Rick Adelman. I've always felt very highly of him. I hope he's at least interviewed.

            Comment


            • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              I really don't think a 1 year deal says anything about Vogel. I think it says more about JOB and the CBA. Also I kind of hope that this is more of the beginning of a trend in the NBA where coaches are only guaranteed one season at a time.
              I don't follow. How does it say anything about JOB?

              Comment


              • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                I'll be pissed if they give him only a one year deal. If that is all the confidence they have in Vogel they should hire someone else.

                they might as well keep the interim tag then.

                I would put that in the top 3 dumest things the pacers organization has ever done.

                stupid

                Comment


                • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I'll be pissed if they give him only a one year deal. If that is all the confidence they have in Vogel they should hire someone else.

                  they might as well keep the interim tag then.

                  I would put that in the top 3 dumest things the pacers organization has ever done.

                  stupid
                  Exactly. Don't put your toe in the water. Don't be a pansy. Be assertive and call the shots. Don't half commit.

                  Vogel never half commited. Either sign Vogel to a three year deal or sign Mike Brown to a three year deal. Don't sign a freaking one year deal.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I'll be pissed if they give him only a one year deal. If that is all the confidence they have in Vogel they should hire someone else.

                    they might as well keep the interim tag then
                    That's exactly what I said. If Vogel is the guy, he needs a multi-year deal. If he isn't worthy of that, then he isn't worthy of the job. Giving him a one year contract sends a terrible message.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I'll be pissed if they give him only a one year deal. If that is all the confidence they have in Vogel they should hire someone else.

                      they might as well keep the interim tag then.

                      I would put that in the top 3 dumest things the pacers organization has ever done.

                      stupid
                      I wouldn't be angry, but I agree with your thoughts in general. Why bother if you only have enough faith to give him a 1 year deal? Just get Mike Brown and be done with it if that's how you feel.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        I wouldn't be angry, but I agree with your thoughts in general. Why bother if you only have enough faith to give him a 1 year deal? Just get Mike Brown and be done with it if that's how you feel.

                        I disagree a bit.

                        I think it could very well be "we like what we saw, but we want to give you a chance to really prove yourself"

                        At the end of the day, it's a good deal for the Pacers because Vogel is cheap and we don't know how this year is going to go. (Wouldn't want to pay an expensive coach at a time when we don't know if there will even be a season next year) And we get a better look at Vogel, who deserved that opportunity.

                        Vogel meanwhile gets an entire season to show what he can do. If he's successful, he gets another contract. If not, he got his fair shot.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                          I'd have Vogel on a two year contract, then he's not a "lame duck". Then you can still send him packing after a year, if need be. I think you'll be able to sign a "Mike Brown" caliber guy then, if need be.

                          Look its not like you have a once in a life time coaching candidate knocking on your door here. I like Mike Brown quite a bit, but I'm not thinking he's a no brainer by any stretch.

                          I'm glad to see this, this morning, at least they are going to weigh their options.


                          http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...hould-pick-up/

                          by Mike Wells

                          The newness of Pacers president Larry Bird and owner Herb Simon’s handshake agreement has worn off.

                          Now it’s time for the Pacers to turn their attention to the coaching search (and the predraft camp in Chicago) this week.

                          Bird is expected to talk to the media about his decision to return for another season and likely answer some coaching questions Tuesday.

                          Frank Vogel, who led the Pacers to a 20-18 record and the playoffs, is still the likely frontrunner for the job.

                          Bird said last month that Vogel will get the first and last interview during the process. He also said he wants to “talk to a few (other) people” before making a decision.

                          The Pacers have yet to contact potential candidates Mike Brown, Dwane Casey or Chuck Person, according to sources. Expect the Pacers to start reaching out to them.

                          Brown (Golden State), Casey (Houston and Golden State) and Person (Golden Sate and Lakers) are all in the running for other jobs around the league, according to reports.

                          Vogel: He earned a lot of respect from many of his peers around the league for being able to turn what looked like a disastrous season into the Pacers’ first playoff berth since 2006.

                          Simon is a big supporter of Vogel because he got the players to play hard, something that wasn’t always the case with Jim O’Brien. But it’s Bird’s call on who he wants to be the coach.

                          Vogel helped his chances when the Pacers competed in four of their five games against the Bulls.

                          Vogel will have to tighten things up with the players. Practices were too loose at times. That’s not good for a team that has a lot of young players.

                          Vogel doesn’t need to become an O’Brien clone, just make sure the players are focused when they need to be.

                          Person: He has a history with the Pacers. He was drafted by them, worked in the front office for them and was in charge of the defense as an assistant coach under former coach Rick Carlisle.

                          The Pacers finished in the top 10 defensively under Person during the 2006-07 season.

                          Person coached the Lakers defense this season. They finished fifth in the league in field goal defense, eighth in points allowed and third in 3-point field goal defense.

                          Person, who interviewed for the Chicago Bulls job in 2008, also worked closely with center Andrew Bynum, Ron Artest and Kobe Bryant.

                          Brown: He spent two seasons as Carlisle’s associate head coach before heading to Cleveland to coach LeBron James and Co.

                          The Cavaliers went to the NBA Finals in 2007.

                          Brown is known for his defense, a problem area for the Pacers (not one player received an all-defensive team vote).

                          Casey: He’s been waiting for a second shot after being let go by Minnesota halfway through his second season. The T’Wolves were 20-20 when Casey was fired. They went 12-30 the rest of the season.

                          Casey missed out on jobs with the Clippers and the Hawks last summer.

                          Like Brown and Person, Casey is in charge of the Mavericks defense under Carlisle. The Mavericks, who will play Oklahoma City in the Western Conference Finals, finished eighth in the league in field goal defense.

                          Bird has always liked Rick Adelman, who has reportedly been linked as a candidate for the Lakers job. It’ll be interesting to see if Bird reaches out to the former Houston Rockets coach.

                          Don’t be shocked if Bird decides to talk to somebody who isn’t on many people’s radar. He’s done that in the past – O’Brien.
                          Last edited by Speed; 05-16-2011, 07:54 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                            I see nothing wrong with a 1-year deal. Of course Vogel has to prove himself. I get kind of tired of seeing professional sports teams feeling forced to throw multi-year deals at unproven commodities, because "that's just what teams do these days" and "we gotta show that we're not pansies." That mentality is what got the NBA in the trouble that it's in right now, the reason for those ridiculous contracts. It's no guarantee that you stay there, ask JOB. A 1-year has a lot of motivational factors behind it... it tells the candidate "look, we think you've got promise, but you have to show it for this next year, and then depending upon performance, we'll revisit this deal next year." It sets that bar of performance higher going forward. It's not like you're disrespecting the candidate ---- he's not very old, he's never head coached a full season and there is still a lot of question marks. And he still stands to land himself a dream contract if he performs up to par.

                            As much as I like Vogel, and as good as I *think* he could be... you have to make smart business decisions. Bender showed a lot of promise early, got himself a nice contract --- bad business decision. There's no guarantee that someone is going to meet expectations. I think Vogel shows a TON of coaching promise.... but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. I see nothing wrong with making him work for a real contract this next year.

                            You might consider a 3-year if you really think the competition for said candidate is that high, but I don't get the feeling there's that many teams that are prepared to throw Vogel 3 years at this point in time. Not that he isn't worth it at some point, but because he's not a completely well-known entity at this point in time. No one really knows what this guy is going to do. He's not like Lawrence Frank or Adelman or Brown, who everyone is generally familiar with and you know what you're going to get.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 05-16-2011, 12:01 PM.
                            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


                            • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                              I think with a young team you have to have some consistency somewhere. Dropping Vogel after a year if he doesn't work out delays getting these guys a coach who can take them to the next level.

                              If you don't think Vogel is that coach, hire someone else and let another team give him the "trial" deal.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post

                                I see nothing wrong with a 1-year deal. Of course Vogel has to prove himself. I get kind of tired of seeing professional sports teams feeling forced to throw multi-year deals at unproven commodities, because "that's just what teams do these days" and "we gotta show that we're not pansies." That mentality is what got the NBA in the trouble that it's in right now, the reason for those ridiculous contracts. It's no guarantee that you stay there, ask JOB. A 1-year has a lot of motivational factors behind it... it tells the candidate "look, we think you've got promise, but you have to show it for this next year, and then depending upon performance, we'll revisit this deal next year." It sets that bar of performance higher going forward. It's not like you're disrespecting the candidate ---- he's not very old, he's never head coached a full season and there is still a lot of question marks. And he still stands to land himself a dream contract if he performs up to par.

                                As much as I like Vogel, and as good as I *think* he could be... you have to make smart business decisions. Bender showed a lot of promise early, got himself a nice contract --- bad business decision. There's no guarantee that someone is going to meet expectations. I think Vogel shows a TON of coaching promise.... but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. I see nothing wrong with making him work for a real contract this next year.

                                You might consider a 3-year if you really think the competition for said candidate is that high, but I don't get the feeling there's that many teams that are prepared to throw Vogel 3 years at this point in time. Not that he isn't worth it at some point, but because he's not a completely well-known entity at this point in time. No one really knows what this guy is going to do. He's not like Lawrence Frank or Adelman or Brown, who everyone is generally familiar with and you know what you're going to get.

                                Why not do like teams do with rookie players? Give a 4 year contract with the 1st 2 years guaranteed and years 3 & 4 as a team option? Do the same with a rookie coach which is basically what Vogel is.

                                Two years isn't that hard to live with if things don't workout. Not to mention with a cheap salary, he could be replaced w/o causing a big problem money wise.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X