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 to only get 1 year contract?

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

  • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

    Lots of good points in this thread - lots of nonsense too.

    Bottom line - the 1 year thing was a blurb by some hack. I don't believe it for a second.

    Frank got this team to play after JOB had totally screwed up the mentality of just about everyone on the team. They played hard, they played smart - alas, they played young. They'll grow up. So will Frank.

    I don't think there's a better choice out there.

    Comment


    • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Maybe it's ideal for us, but it's insulting to him.
      As Kid Minny says, this isn't a guy that was doing the Pacers a favor by taking over. It was a lottery shot to end up as the HC even for a few months. The team was down and there wasn't a ton of promise that this would go somewhere.

      He parlayed that into a longer shot to prove himself. If he comes through in reasonable fashion he'll have another paper to sign long before the season ends.

      And it's only insulting if it's way out of context with the other offers he's getting...and if he's not getting ANY offers then it's actually rather complementary for the Pacers to make an offer at all.


      You guys act like he proved something like Pop, Sloan or even Carlisle in the turnaround.

      DICK VERSACE
      BOB HILL

      These are guys that made similar short term improvements. Should the Pacers have given them longer deals or would it have been better to "insult" them instead?

      There is precedent here and it doesn't favor Frank's 3 month window. No one is telling him to hit the bricks, they are only saying "we're giving you the chance to keep making a rep for yourself".

      What if he does so well that he demands more money on the open market than the Pacers could lock him up for now? Is that also an insult to Frank? Oh no, now he has to get paid by the Nets way more than the Pacers can afford all thanks to how unfair the Pacers were to him.




      And for the record, I think Frank is very capable of improving his coaching status and building a very nice career. I don't expect failure. Maybe that's why the offer doesn't bother me so much. Ultimately it doesn't change much for his overall HC career unless he surprises me and underperforms or loses the team.


      Originally posted by KSutton
      Why is that so hard to understand that Vogel is more the exception than the rule? Given his previous lack of coaching background, the fact that other Teams are even THINKING about him is unprecedented.
      Bingo. A 1 year offer at this point sounds like a fairy tale if you ask someone last December even. 6 months from zip to potential long term HC, and people are wound up about it?

      Hopefully Frank is far less prone to look a gift horse in the mouth like this. If he doesn't want the one year shot then give it to me. I'm more than happy to bust my butt and try to prove something while getting paid to do something I'd love doing.

      At WORST he returns to his prior status which wasn't too shabby a career.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-19-2011, 10:31 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

        I also want the Pacers to sign all their first round draft choices to only 1 year deals, afterall none are proven. If they won't sign 1 year deals then we don't need them, I'm sure we can find rookies who will be glad to have a 1 year contract.
        I don't think you are intentionally muddling the debate, but you are definitely MIXING 2 separate points.

        It's not "insulting" to offer the first round pick only 1 year, it's just RISKY. What if he is great, then you want him signed to 20 years at $1m a year. You're a genius.

        Or you sign him to AC, Bender, Tinsley, JO, Dunleavy, Murphy money and you are 100% F******.


        Either way, that's not the same point/issue as how a person should receive a potential 1 year offer to continue being a HC when just 6 months ago that idea was anything but on the near horizon.

        The "draft" scenario that fits Vogel is more like we call up some nobody from the CBA and he plays 2 solid months. Not all-star, but solid in a way that you'd like him to stay with the team.

        No other teams are willing to sign him, he's not done that well, but a few do bring him in for tryouts.

        And to you, not offering that CBA, no other deals pending player anything less than 2-3 years of NBA contract is insulting.

        It's not the same as telling a top 10 pick that 29 other teams would sign the instant you didn't that you only want him for 1 year and then "we will see". Not even remotely the same thing.

        And as I said, even then it's less about insulting Blake Griffin and more about just flat-out losing him when his 1 year runs out. If we sign Vogel for 1 year and at the end of that he signs with the Nets then the gamble was a bust. If he kind of struggles and we replace him with Sloan next year then the gamble was brilliant. Neither involves anyone being insulted.

        Comment


        • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

          Originally posted by Buck
          I mention the first three because they were 100% completely unproven as they had never been an NBA head coach before. (Vogel has)
          Well you've jumped the shark again, just when I thought you were past all your JOB ways.

          You are going to equate the STATURE Tom T had in the NBA with Vogel.

          Seriously, get a grip. Tom T had made a strong case as a top assistant and had been so high in the rumor mill that many of us at PD were asking for him to be hired.

          Vogel wouldn't have even been your choice had JOB kept his job this season, and even at the time of JOB's firing most of us had no idea just who would take over that role.

          In other words, a guy like Tom T is breathing down Doc's back for a few years. One misstep and he's out for Tom to take over. No one was saying "boy with Vogel waiting in the wings JOB better keep this team winning". Hell, it was just LESTER CONNOR that was breathing down JOB's back and many of us suspected that this was why he was let go.


          And you throw in Del Negro which is an epic fail in the "let's make a case for why it's good to sign unproven guys for multiple seasons".


          Maybe Bird said "hmm, I don't really see a lot of teams winning 3 years later with the unproven guys" and decides to not follow that path to failure.

          This would be 100% different if over the last 2 years Vogel had developed quite a rep as a strong assistant...you know, like Mike Brown did under Rick. 3 months as HC where the #1 actions you take are all the things that PD and fans were begging JOB to do (play the youth, work inside, avoid being a d-bag for no apparent reason) is not the same as 24-36 months of consistent output as the key #2 coach on the staff of a winning squad.

          Comment


          • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

            BTW, the more I think about it the more I'M INSULTED THAT THE PACERS OFFERED ME A ZERO YEAR DEAL!!!

            I'm unproven and UB just made an outstanding case for why that shouldn't matter. It's staggering to me to think that they wouldn't offer me at least 60 days. The season won't even be started by then and I'll take a lot less than Vogel on a per day basis.



            BTW, again for an UB loss - how's that MULTI-YEAR SEASON TICKET PACK working out for you Buck?

            What's that, no faith? You refuse to pay the team for more than 1 season at a time? Hold on, almost no one is paying the team for more than 1 season at a time?

            WTF? Isn't this PD? Don't you people have faith? Some of you don't even buy tickets ahead of time and lock in for a full season of commitment? Don't you know how many Mavs, Bulls and even Knicks fans are season ticket holders? They are doing it, so why aren't you? You'll be sorry when there are no tickets to be had 3 years from now. I doubt the team will even offer you tickets again if you didn't even buy a 10 game package yet. They've got pride you know.

            Sadly the last I heard Buck was still insulting the Pacers by making them a 0 seasons ticket package offer. I expect the Pacers to move thanks to this.

            (some of this should be in green. but only some of it)

            Comment


            • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

              It has nothing to do with insults or risk assessment. It has to do with giving a coach the confidence to install a system that the players will buy in to, even if things get shaky and they drop a bunch of games in a row.

              I knew that professional sports had turned in to a "What have you done for me lately?" perma-hotseat, revolving door act for head coaches, but I never thought I'd see a 1 year contract.

              You can't keep throwing years away in the NBA to keep it safe. We got a lot of young guys right now. They need a plan. 1 year isn't a plan, its a holding pattern.

              Now someone go start a Tyler for MVP thread so Seth has something better to do than take shots at UB.

              Comment


              • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                I never got the buying into the system logic.

                If the players are having fun and like the coach, isnt the incentive for them to want to win so the coach gets a longer contract.

                I could kind of see where losing gets blown out of proportion and a coach is more likely to blame if he is a "lame duck", but I think that is extreme.

                Comment


                • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Vogel wouldn't have even been your choice had JOB kept his job this season, and even at the time of JOB's firing most of us had no idea just who would take over that role.
                  Boom...there's the million dollar comment that I was waiting for.

                  However, we all might as well to agree to disagree at this point.


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                    We're not judging Frank on what we thought of him before he became head coach.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                      Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                      I never got the buying into the system logic.

                      If the players are having fun and like the coach, isnt the incentive for them to want to win so the coach gets a longer contract.

                      I could kind of see where losing gets blown out of proportion and a coach is more likely to blame if he is a "lame duck", but I think that is extreme.
                      Maybe someone with coaching experience can chime in with how long it takes a group of players to learn how to execute a system very well.

                      You have the incentive correct when a team is gelling. But all teams go through rough patches, especially a young team without lights-out talent like the Pacers. The problem is how incentives line up when the team is struggling.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                        I was sort of on the fence before, but after this thread, I am 100% convinced we should act now and hire Mike Brown if we can. Vogel isn't the best coach available and this thread IMO proves it.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I was sort of on the fence before, but after this thread, I am 100% convinced we should act now and hire Mike Brown if we can. Vogel isn't the best coach available and this thread IMO proves it.
                          At some point, someone has to give him a chance to shine.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                            At some point, someone has to give him a chance to shine.
                            Sounds like the D-League is calling.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              I was sort of on the fence before, but after this thread, I am 100% convinced we should act now and hire Mike Brown if we can. Vogel isn't the best coach available and this thread IMO proves it.
                              Buck... you also advocated Jim O'Brien hardcore... see where I'm going with the first half of this 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


                              • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I have had a change of heart. I can see your point now.

                                I also want the Pacers to sign all their first round draft choices to only 1 year deals, afterall none are proven. If they won't sign 1 year deals then we don't need them, I'm sure we can find rookies who will be glad to have a 1 year contract.
                                You know a lot of teams would prefer that... it's why they sometimes trade out of the first round. Who wants to tie them to a rookie salary that may be overpaid rather than getting a 2nd round pick with their own salary structure...

                                I mean I don't know what you were trying to prove here but it's the exact logic for some teams to trade into the 2nd round. It's also why some Euros drop to the 2nd round so that they aren't limited by the rookie salary scale. It works both ways.

                                The only way this doesn't work out for the Pacers is if Vogel turns out into some kind of coaching genius- and I have yet to see that happen yet or have any evidence of that happening.

                                Why tie ourselves to the risk? As a small market franchise we are still in a position to be risk adverse- we will take on risk when we are contender- but as of right now we still need to do things right.

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                Buck... you also advocated Jim O'Brien hardcore... see where I'm going with the first half of this statement?
                                Irrelevant.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X