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's Flaws Showing?

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

  • #61
    Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    I was thinking the same thing. I hope it doesn't get as bad as back then.
    Especially since that whole team ended up just tuning him out completely.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

      Could it be that this Pacers team just isn't that talented offensively. When I judge a team's halfcourt offense I look for players who can score even when they are well defended.

      How many players do we have that can score even when well defended? Roy cannot, Hill cannot, Lance cannot yet. Lance takes advantage of what the defense gives up especially in the open court, but in the halfcourt he can be defended and stopped.

      So that leaves us West and PG. Both players can score when well defended fairly well. West is the best passer we have in the starting five (yes better than lance) and that is why a lot of our offense runs through West. PG is capable of getting hot and can score seemingly at will, but I think teams are focusing their defense on him and giving him a lot of trouble.

      I think our offensive talent is average at best among the playff teams. And I don't think that has anything to do with coaching or offensive system. We are limited offensively especially for an elite team. Coaches IMO are maximizing our offensive talent.

      OK, let me list the teams starting with the top teams. I think all these teams have more offensive talent than we have.

      Heat
      Spurs
      Thunder
      Clippers
      Rockets
      Blazers

      I think clearly without question those teams are better offensively and if you switch coaching staffs with any of those teams it wouldn't change that.

      I think you could make the argument that Mavs, Warriors, Suns and even T-Wolves are better offensively than we are and once again it isn't because of coaching. And I have not mentioned any other eastern conference teams.

      I just think we need to be realistic with what we have. We need to be the best defensive team or we have no chance to win anything.
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-07-2014, 09:35 AM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

        One thing I'll mention here. If the Pacers and the Heat end the regular season in a tie. And if you assume the two teams split their two remaining head to heads. The next tie breaker is conference record and the Pacers are 3 full games up on the Heat (3 in loss and 3 in win columns).

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Could it be that this Pacers team just isn't that talented offensively. When I judge a team's halfcourt offense I look for players who can score even when they are well defended.

          How many players do we have that can score even when well defended? Roy cannot, Hill cannot, Lance cannot yet. Lance takes advantage of what the defense gives up especially in the open court, but in the halfcourt he can be defended and stopped.
          That's the argument I've been using for years as to why we need a more structured offense that is more precisely executed. Players who aren't very good when well defended - and that means passing as well as shooting - need help to get open AND need help for other players to get open to receive passes.

          What I have been noticing is a fatal hesitation by every player when the ball changes hands. No one is quite sure what to do next, which gives defenses a chance to adjust to what happened. It doesn't do any good to pass to the open man if he just stands there until the defense shifts. It doesn't do any good to pass the ball to Roy if he has to wait for the baseline cutter anyway (have I ranted today about that play?) and there's a delay before the cutter moves.

          Some of these guys are best at free-flowing, so I don't think we want a Rick Carlisle "look over here every play and I'll tell you what to do". When we're slumping on the offense, though, we need 3 or even 4 plays with very limited options that are run in every possible practice and walkthrough so that the players on the floor can execute them in their sleep with precise timing. It really doesn't look like there's anything resembling such a thing for this team right now.
          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


          • #65
            Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Could it be that this Pacers team just isn't that talented offensively. When I judge a team's halfcourt offense I look for players who can score even when they are well defended.

            How many players do we have that can score even when well defended? Roy cannot, Hill cannot, Lance cannot yet. Lance takes advantage of what the defense gives up especially in the open court, but in the halfcourt he can be defended and stopped.

            So that leaves us West and PG. Both players can score when well defended fairly well. West is the best passer we have in the starting five (yes better than lance) and that is why a lot of our offense runs through West. PG is capable of getting hot and can score seemingly at will, but I think teams are focusing their defense on him and giving him a lot of trouble.

            I think our offensive talent is average at best among the playff teams. And I don't think that has anything to do with coaching or offensive system. We are limited offensively especially for an elite team. Coaches IMO are maximizing our offensive talent.

            OK, let me list the teams starting with the top teams. I think all these teams have more offensive talent than we have.

            Heat
            Spurs
            Thunder
            Clippers
            Rockets
            Blazers

            I think clearly without question those teams are better offensively and if you switch coaching staffs with any of those teams it wouldn't change that.

            I think you could make the argument that Mavs, Warriors, Suns and even T-Wolves are better offensively than we are and once again it isn't because of coaching. And I have not mentioned any other eastern conference teams.

            I just think we need to be realistic with what we have. We need to be the best defensive team or we have no chance to win anything.
            I would say Hill is more consistently able to score when well defended than Paul, although at his best Paul is much better than Hill. He just doesn't assert himself enough.

            If you have a system designed for scoring 1v1 or 2v2 yeah that is important, but you don't need a system based on a singular talent or a duo doing all the work. You have 5 players to take advantage of. If you have 6 players who are all more than capable of averaging 16+ppg there is no lack of offensive talent, and you should be able to design an effective and very efficient offense. If they had more ball movement and player movement we would have one of the best offenses in the league.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

              Would this team be better offensively with a more structured offense? Maybe. I mean some players would be. Roy would be. Lance would be both better and worse at the same time. I just don'tt think the problem with our offense is the system. I've seen this team run the offense well, but too often lately they don't pass the ball enough, don't move enough. Now is that the system's fault or the players. I think the players

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Could it be that this Pacers team just isn't that talented offensively. When I judge a team's halfcourt offense I look for players who can score even when they are well defended.

                How many players do we have that can score even when well defended? Roy cannot, Hill cannot, Lance cannot yet. Lance takes advantage of what the defense gives up especially in the open court, but in the halfcourt he can be defended and stopped.

                So that leaves us West and PG. Both players can score when well defended fairly well. West is the best passer we have in the starting five (yes better than lance) and that is why a lot of our offense runs through West. PG is capable of getting hot and can score seemingly at will, but I think teams are focusing their defense on him and giving him a lot of trouble.

                I think our offensive talent is average at best among the playff teams. And I don't think that has anything to do with coaching or offensive system. We are limited offensively especially for an elite team. Coaches IMO are maximizing our offensive talent.
                Interesting point and I definitely agree that West and George are our best 1-on-1 players. But OTOH, how many of those teams you listed have more than 2 such guys? Arguably, trying to juggle 3 scorers who all need the ball is as much of a problem as not having enough scorers.

                Is the problem the quality of our main scorers then? I remember that our offense looked amazing earlier in the season when Paul George was playing like a superstar on offense.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Would this team be better offensively with a more structured offense? Maybe. I mean some players would be. Roy would be. Lance would be both better and worse at the same time. I just don'tt think the problem with our offense is the system. I've seen this team run the offense well, but too often lately they don't pass the ball enough, don't move enough. Now is that the system's fault or the players. I think the players
                  That is the coach's and system's fault. A lack of ball and player movement falls on the coach first.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    Interesting point and I definitely agree that West and George are our best 1-on-1 players. But OTOH, how many of those teams you listed have more than 2 such guys? Arguably, trying to juggle 3 scorers who all need the ball is as much of a problem as not having enough scorers.

                    Is the problem the quality of our main scorers then? I remember that our offense looked amazing earlier in the season when Paul George was playing like a superstar on offense.

                    addressing your comment about earlier in the season. Defenses are more ready for us than earlier in the season. Defenses are generally better now than earlier in the season and so many teams start the season slow the Pacers were ready to start the season and were able to take advantage of teams early on. Early on our effort and physicalness was able to carry us to a lot of wins. But now teams are ready for it and more prepared to handle it.

                    Pacers were playing with late season intensity to start the season when most other teams were playing with November and December intensity. So we got a lot of wins banked. Good for us, but wins are tougher now. i expected it and that is one reason why I thought any discussion of 70 wins was absurd and not realistic.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                      It seemed like earlier in the year, and maybe this is just perception, but guys were making the extra pass. I've seen far too much dribbling and iso-ball.

                      I still think Frank's a good coach, and no one in their right mind should want to replace him right now.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                        Originally posted by MiaDragon View Post
                        The ship was under water at that point. It seems he has an issue seeing the warning signs indicating catastrophe is soon to follow unless he changes course. Its only when the game is all but lost does he make changes and even then its not a given.

                        I'm not a huge Vogal fan, I haven't been from the jump. These are the SAME flaws he's had from day one. Zero offensive structure, horrible substitutions and horrid use of time outs. I had hoped the more time he had under his coaching belt he would make adjustments but its just not happening. Unfortunately thats what winning will do, people get passes under "Hey but they're winning".
                        Yea, winning sure does suck, and is also an indicator of not being very good. He clearly needs to be removed, his .700 career winning percentage and reaching the playoffs every year of his career, and ability to manage egos and develop players are terrible.

                        On second thought, scratch that. This is a ridiculous post.
                        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


                        • #72
                          Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Yea, winning sure does suck, and is also an indicator of not being very good. He clearly needs to be removed, his .700 career winning percentage and reaching the playoffs every year of his career, and ability to manage egos and develop players are terrible.

                          On second thought, scratch that. This is a ridiculous post.
                          So you're saying Frank is perfect and he's the best coach it is possible for him to be?

                          Somehow this seems to be the pattern far too often. Someone wants to discuss a weakness in a player/coach/FO and it gets jumped on like they've claimed the person is the worst ever - or, conversely, someone wants to talk about a strength and it gets jumped on like they've declared the person God's gift to whatever they are doing.

                          There's a middle ground and everyone has room for improvement. If you don't agree that the flaws exist (or even just that they've been consistent flaws since Frank started), rebut them. Don't just act like he's been thrown under a bus.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            So you're saying Frank is perfect and he's the best coach it is possible for him to be?
                            Bill, you tell me. Is that what I said? Did I say he's perfect? Or perhaps, I'm saying he's pretty damn good, and no coach is perfect? Hold on to this guy; he's going to win a ring some day. This is the same thing I said about Carlisle, when everyone was *****ing about him and we pushed him on to Dallas, who enjoyed their championship.

                            The real "pattern", to me, is that any time there's a lull with this team, which *every* team goes through, people immediately start questioning Frank.
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-07-2014, 11:12 AM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              This is a ridiculous post.
                              KM, I suspect Bill is referring to this part of your post.
                              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


                              • #75
                                Re: Vogel's Flaws Showing?

                                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                                Bill, you tell me. Is that what I said? Did I say he's perfect? Or perhaps, I'm saying he's pretty damn good, and no coach is perfect? Hold on to this guy; he's going to win a ring some day. This is the same thing I said about Carlisle, when everyone was *****ing about him and we pushed him on to Dallas, who enjoyed their championship.
                                Well, no, you responded to a post by someone who listed his flaws (vehemently, but not everyone is going to love the coach) with the implication that it was a call for Vogel to be fired. Which was neither the point of the post nor the thread.

                                On topic, if he's pretty damn good and he's going to win a ring someday, what is seeming to stop that from happening right now? Do you think it's all on the players and he just needs to keep doing what he's doing? Does he need better players? Does he need to make any changes himself to get to that point?

                                I mean, there are lots of coaches in NBA history who have been great with the players and have great season records but never manage to win a ring. Do you think Vogel's flaws (whatever you think they might be) put him in that category? Why or why not?
                                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

                                Working...
                                X