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

Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

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

  • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Sollozo by lucky I mean how Roy Hibbert is working out nobody expected him to be this great, by lucky I mean taking a risk on a guy that just had surgery and him playing all the games, I don't think the Pacers got lucky to be in the ECF I don't know where you got that from.

    And nope I don't think that blue print is so easy to follow many teams have tried and failed.
    Misinterpreted what you said a bit I guess. True, we took a bit of a risk on West, but he's hardly the first guy to ever successfully return from surgery. But that risk is why the contract was so short.

    But is any ECF blueprint "easy" to follow? By definition, most teams will fail at become elite. I still think the Pacers' way is far more realistic than hoping that you can gut your cap and land Lebron, or banking on getting a Durant/Westbrook combo in back to back years, or banking on getting a Tim Duncan followed by a Parker and Manu (late first rounder and second rounder), or hoping that you get a D-Rose when you have 1.7% odds at winning the lottery. Many teams have certainly failed by trying the "tank year after year and hope we strike gold in the lottery" approach.

    The Pacers did their homework and drafted well with double digit draft picks (George, Hibbert), traded away a pick in a week draft for Hill, gambled on a second rounder with Stephenson, and took a bit of a risk on a guy coming back from surgery (West), which ultimately paid off. Nothing about it seems too unreasonable. Sure a lot of teams will fail, but that's because only a select few can ever become elite.
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-08-2013, 12:48 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      Lance was a mistake.
      I don't think that any second rounder could ever be classified as a "mistake". At best, you strike gold like we have at Lance. At worst, they never play significant minutes, which is what happens to most of them. But the cost is always minimal. It's not like gambling on someone with a lottery pick. If a second rounder doesn't work out, then you cut them and move on, which is what happens most of the time. Splitting hairs maybe, but I would have never classified Lance as a "mistake', even if he would have never played a significant minute.

      I agree with most of what you say though....

      Comment


      • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
        I think Bird made a lot of good decisions. Roy Hibbert, Paul George, George Hill, Darren Collison, David West. He cleaned up the francise etc..

        But probably more importantly, he had lucked out on his mistakes. JOB was a mistake. Holding on to players too long was a mistake. Lance was a mistake.

        But keeping JOB too long is the sole reason we have Frank. And if that's not luck, I don't know what Luck is.
        Holding onto a few players too long...led us to getting Paul George.
        Lance Stephenson. No one would have picked him. With the history of players liked that, no one should have picked him. But it clearly worked out well.

        When the worst thing your decision led to is Tyler Hansbrough...who is our backup PF. Was projected to be a good backup/solid starter..and ended up being mediocre backup. That's not too bad.

        Are you forgetting Foster or just brushing it aside?

        Comment


        • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          Are you forgetting Foster or just brushing it aside?
          I agreed with the decision. Because I like loyalty to players like Foster. And once again, even if you consider that a mistake..in the grand scheme of things...really..if all you can complain about is Tyler and Foster..he did a good job.

          I think Lance was a mistake considering the circumstances, and the job that had to be done. And it wasn't just drafting him, but sticking by him that first year too. By mistake, I simply mean "logical move." The Spurs for instance, probably would have waived him at some point during that year.

          But once again, it worked out quite well for the Pacers. Good for Lance, good for Larry, and good for anyone else that helped out Lance. But honestly, the likelihood of Lance being anything but detrimental to the team was pretty slim. He had a lot of off court and on court issues. Most players under those circumstances end up being a cancer causing teammate who never learns to play in a team concept nor do they accept a role playing role. Lance has done all of the above. I honestly don't know of any other player that has though. And I'm not attacking Lance here. He deserves all the credit in the world for beating the odds. But it's just most successful sports franchises play by the odds and take calculated risks.

          And I agree, that the benefits probably outweighed the harm with Lance, if Larry was willing to part with Lance. But like JOB, I just have a feeling if it wasn't working out, it would have been a similar situation.

          But I do think Lance has to go under the classification of "Larry Bird got lucky." Because of how small the odds were.
          Last edited by Sookie; 06-08-2013, 12:49 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            This thread from just three years ago is a pretty interesting read......

            http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ttle-more-time
            I miss cordobes.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
              I think Bird made a lot of good decisions. Roy Hibbert, Paul George, George Hill, Darren Collison, David West. He cleaned up the francise etc..

              But probably more importantly, he had lucked out on his mistakes. JOB was a mistake. Holding on to players too long was a mistake. Lance was a mistake.

              But keeping JOB too long is the sole reason we have Frank. And if that's not luck, I don't know what Luck is.
              Holding onto a few players too long...led us to getting Paul George.
              Lance Stephenson. No one would have picked him. With the history of players liked that, no one should have picked him. But it clearly worked out well.

              When the worst thing your decision led to is Tyler Hansbrough...who is our backup PF. Was projected to be a good backup/solid starter..and ended up being mediocre backup. That's not too bad.
              i dont understand who pacer fans wanted sooner to replace obrien. not like any big name coaches were gonna give us a consideration until the contracts were expired.

              Bird may have got "lucky" with Coach Vogel but i do have a strong believe Shaw was his target all along. I like Vogel, and I like Shaw, wish we could keep both.

              i dont think any GM is ever going to be perfect but to take this Franchise back to the ECF and challenge the Heat without Danny Granger, i would say there was more than luck involved.

              but then again, im sure Phil Jackson would have evven been willing to come in and replace JOB.

              Birds biggest blunder was not finding a point gaurd. letting Jack go. passing on Lawson for Hansbrough. Rondo who knows if he woulda been the same player if not for the 3 HOF's around him and a great coach.

              Bird did get us GH3 so cant be too dissapointed but im sure that was just luck!

              Comment


              • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post

                i dont think any GM is ever going to be perfect but to take this Franchise back to the ECF and challenge the Heat without Danny Granger, i would say there was more than luck involved.
                Well said. From 08 on, he added Hibbert (08), West (11), PG (10), Lance (10), and Hill (11). You can't attribute those five guys to "luck". At some point, you have to admit that there's a pattern of strong GM work. Four of our five starters this season were added in the 2010 and 2011 off-seasons.

                Thank God Walsh left in 2008, or else Bird may never have been able to show his true GM ability.

                Comment


                • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  i dont understand who pacer fans wanted sooner to replace obrien.
                  I was ready for a Pacemate, a random fan selected as coach for each game, a beer vendor, or my dog.... IOW, anybody by O'Brien!
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    I was ready for a Pacemate, a random fan selected as coach for each game, a beer vendor, or my dog.... IOW, anybody by O'Brien!
                    i disliked.. okay loathed JOB.. he made Isaiah look like a good coach. SVG turned this Franchise down. this team wasnt any good anyways when Obrien took the helm. Bird was establishing more an idenity with a hard nosed coach. by identity i mean clean image. lest you forget the brawl era Bird and the 3 year plan which has led to ECF 7 without Granger.

                    the continuinous nagging regarding Bird re-upping Obrien one year is overdone. Bird saved 10M dollars for this Franchise in the JO trade. he made a kind gesture to Obrien for the strong year 2 surge at the end of the season and he didnt have to be a lame duck coach. so it cost the pacers an extra 1.5. doesnt come close to the 10M saved with Nestoarivich from Toronto.

                    Bird had a 3 year plan... which was basically his way of saying it will take 3 years to fix this cluster**** resulting from the brawl. he shot it to us straight. we had to put up with Obrien for two years under a team that could have had Phil Jackson as the coach and we still woulda sucked.


                    i dont even know if Red Auerbach could have led the pacers into the playoffs with the murphleavys and other misfits excluding Danny Granger.


                    enlighten me. your Larry Bird with a team of bloody rubbish +Granger. ya think 10M for Doc Rivers or phil Jackson would have made any difference prior to murphleavy expiring.

                    lets hear it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

                      Originally posted by PacersPride View Post

                      lets hear it.
                      Lester Conner would've been promoted long before JOB got another season guaranteed... If it was up to me. IMHO O'Brien simply had to go and it didn't matter who filled the interim seat.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • Re: Report: Larry Bird meeting with Kings, wants $5 million per year and maybe partial ownership

                        [QUOTE=Sookie;1668546]I agreed with the decision. Because I like loyalty to players like Foster. And once again, even if you consider that a mistake..in the grand scheme of things...really..if all you can complain about is Tyler and Foster..he did a good job. /QUOTE]


                        1st off I never complained about Tyler... YOU SAID it was a mistake.

                        In your words, you think Foster and Tyler were the only mistakes. Where have you been during the Bird years? Go back and look at the timing of when Foster was given his 2 year contract, and when Bird picked up Jimmy's 4th year team option. Don't even get me started on Jimmy or losing Jack. I get so frustrated at those that refuse to admit Bird make mistakes, and just shrug them off as nothing. People try to make is mistakes into positives by getting Vogel and drafting Paul George. The only way both are here is b/c of Bird's blunders. Yes, they are positives, but they still came from Bird's blunders. Both times he fell in a pile of **** coming out smelling like a rose from making blunders, yet people act like it was some part of Bird's master plan. How's that saying goes "sometimes its best to be lucky than good." Great description of Bird as a GM.

                        Now, before I get roasted... I like the team Bird has assembled, but blunders and luck played an important part in it's making. It wasn't all scripted in the 3 year master plan by the Ex of the Year by any stretch of the imagination. Blunders and dumb luck played an important part and Bird wasn't Mr. Perfect Decision Guy. In some ways, I can now appreciate Bird's blunders when the make up of this team almost made it too the finals. Believe me Miami knows the Pacers team is for real even if the media doesn't, and aren't looking forward to having to battle us again for the EFC championship. Bird left his mark on this team both by good decisions, and luck from blunders.

                        Sookie, you talk about loyalty. Did Hibbert sign an offer sheet from Portland out of loyalty to the Pacers? Loyalty means very little in the NBA. Foster got paid for playing about a 3rd of those last 3 years he got paid. Where was his loyalty? Out of loyalty how much money did he give back to Herb for not being able to play. Loyalty seems to be a one way street.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X