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

Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2012...IndyStar.com|p

    I am telling Indiana Pacers coach Frank Vogel he should get serious consideration for NBA Coach of the Year.

    He smiles.

    "(The Bulls') Tom Thibodeau,'' he says quickly before the Pacers' memorable 112-104 comeback victory over the New York Knicks. "With team success comes all the individual stuff. Without Derrick Rose (who has missed time with injuries)?''

    He shakes his head.

    Yes, Tom Thibodeau. He's got to be the front-runner. And San Antonio's eternally excellent coach, Gregg Popovich, deserves a mention with the way he has massaged an aging and sometimes injured roster. Doug Collins in Philly has done a nice job, although his team is flailing.

    But Vogel has to be in the conversation. In the first paragraph of the conversation. Maybe the first or second sentence.

    Before Tuesday's game, Vogel forcefully made the point that he would not match New York's small lineup with a small lineup of his own. He would continue to go big with a post-up game and impose the Pacers' will (and size) on the smaller Knicks.

    Then the Knicks, playing small ball to near perfection, using Carmelo Anthony at the power forward, opened a 17-point third-quarter lead and led by 15 after three quarters.

    At which point, Vogel looked at his assistant coaches and said, "We've got to go small.''

    Nods all around.

    And so, the Pacers went small.

    And then they went nuts, with George Hill, Leandro Barbosa and Lou Amundson playing the entire quarter, with Danny Granger playing 11:49 and Paul George playing 9:16.

    The Pacers went on 14-0 run. A 20-2 run. A 27-4 run. A 40-17 fourth quarter. Bankers Life Fieldhouse came alive the way it did back in the days when Reggie Miller made his living in these kinds of fourth quarters.

    "A genius move,'' Granger said with a smile, referring to the decision to go small.

    Amundson, who was a monster in that fourth quarter, continually did what Roy Hibbert couldn't do the first three quarters: When the Knicks trapped off ball screens, he slipped the screen -- a "nail screen'' -- ran to the free throw line, got the ball there and found open shooters.

    That is, when he wasn't chasing down loose balls, tapping back offensive rebounds and generally making a nuisance of himself.

    "Give Frank a lot of credit,'' Amundson said. "There are a lot of coaches who are tempted to go back with their starters when they start to feel comfortable where the game is. But he stayed with us and let us rock.''

    It also doesn't hurt that Granger is playing his best basketball of the season these past two weeks. After a 32-point night at Houston, he had 27 points and seven rebounds against the Knicks and did a decent-enough job against Anthony in the fourth quarter. Granger has scored 25 points or more in six games.

    "He's playing his best ball of the season,'' Vogel said. "When your best player is dialed in like that, it elevates the play of everybody around him.''

    It wasn't Reggie-esque, but No. 31 would have been proud -- especially as it came against Spike Lee's Knicks. Granger hit all three of his 3-point tries and scored 14 points in that fourth quarter.

    Coach of the Year?

    Vogel's got a case.

    He's got an even stronger case to have that third year, now a team option, fully guaranteed by upper management. What else do they need to see? He has taken a wounded, defeated team and in a short time, first as an interim coach and then in a lockout-shortened year, established himself as the man for the job long term.

    In 91 games -- the last 38 of last season, the first 53 of this one -- Vogel's Pacers are 52-39.

    If the Pacers can go on a run here -- nine of their next 13 games are at home -- Vogel may get some play as a serious candidate for Coach of the Year.

    He came in as Dr. Feelgood, propping up a team that had been beaten down by Jim O'Brien's relentless negativity. And then, about three weeks into his interim season, he started bringing the hammer down. And players who wondered if he could be tough took notice.

    "Those first three weeks, absolutely, it was all 'It's OK. It's OK,' " Vogel said. "But then toward the end of the season, I became more of a hard-***. When the bottom line comes around, every day you've got to drill habits. Every day, we watch tape and call them out if they're not doing the right things. Every day, you've got to be a hard-*** about things.

    "But you've got to know when they need a hug and when they need somebody to come down hard on them.''

    Who has done more with his team than Vogel with these Pacers?

    The answer, best I can tell, is nobody.

    Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or email bob.kravitz@indystar.com. You can also follow Bob on Twitter at @bkravitz.
    what do you guys think? i definitely think he should win coach of the year.
    Last edited by adamscb; 04-05-2012, 01:46 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

    I think he should be in the discussion, but I'm guessing Popovich or Thibodeau will get it. Although, I think Larry Bird has a great chance of getting executive of the year.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

      Yeah, it's gotta go to Pop. He's done an incredible job getting the most out of his team even without its key players.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

        You need to include a link back to the article on IndyStar.com. Thanks.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

          I think in an 82 game season, Vogel would have more chance of winning. Without a massive personnel turnover, we are winning at a clip that would be at least 10-15 games better between years. But I think the shortened season will nullify the "record improvement" coach category. Going from 37 wins 1 season to say...40 wins the next won't look that impactful, even knowing the season was shortened 16 games.

          They'll be looking at the highest level of play or for who managed to win despite fielding numerous injuries.
          Time for a new sig.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

            Pop for coach of the year, Bird for exec. Pop's only won it once, he deserves more credit than that. Thibs will have plenty of time to win more, I think the voters will factor that in, since Thibs won it last year in his first season as a head coach.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

              I gotta love to have Vogel to win the COY. But the competition is very strong. I think Pops will win it. They are more depleted and at the same time older than the Bulls, yet they are the #2 team in the West and Top 5 overall. Bulls were not missing their main guys as much as the Spurs do so I favor the spurs more.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                You need to include a link back to the article on IndyStar.com. Thanks.
                my mistake, didn't know the rules about posting articles.

                thibodeau shouldn't win coach of the year. yes the bulls have the best record in the league...blah blah blah, but i personally like underdog stories. if thibs wins he might as well give the trophy to d-rose.

                vogel definitely deserves it. he single-handedly changed this ball club around, without the talent of san antonio and chicago.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

                  Really wish Rubio hadn't gone down and the T-Wolves had made the playoffs so Adelman could have had a chance at it.

                  (Am I from the future or just too lazy to reword my statement?)
                  You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

                    If Frank Vogel were to wake me up in the middle of the night, tell me to run through a wall, I'd do it. Twice.

                    I love that man. I'm totally biased, but he should win this award.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

                      Definitely worthy of the conversation, but my vote is for Popp. He's the man.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

                        Ya I agree his name deserves to be in the discussion.. But also think Thibs and Pop deserve it more and are going to get it.. I would go with Thibs because they are tops in the East and Rose has been out like half the year with injuries. That's a sign of a great coach.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

                          I think Popovich will win it this year but if the Pacers close out the season on a strong note - like beating the Thunder and Celtics this weekend (wishful thinking) - they'll catch more attention.

                          I think first year coaches get a lot of credit and there are a lot of first year coaches that have won the award in the past such as Bird, Doc Rivers in Orlando, Carlisle in Detroit, and Thibodeau last year to name a few.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

                            I think it comes down to Pop or Vogel. Pop's got the huge advantage.

                            Phil Collins was in competition, but the 76ers have taken a nosedive.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Kravitz: Vogel Coach of the Year?

                              Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                              I think it comes down to Pop or Vogel. Pop's got the huge advantage.

                              Phil Collins was in competition, but the 76ers have taken a nosedive.
                              Phil Collins?

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X