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 - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

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

  • #31
    Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

    Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
    I just have a tough time seeing it this way. As competitive as Larry is, as much as he wants to win it all and seeing as this is pretty much a team that he assembled ---- I just don't see him NOT saying something to the players in an 'energetic' way.
    And if he isn't, he should be.

    In all reality, I think the media stories coincide with his expressions to the team. He talks to the team/coach, reporters get wind of it, and the story comes out because it isn't a usual event. I don't think it's that Larry says nothing to nobody and the players react when his opinions hit the papers, nor is it that he says something to the coach and players but they pooh-pooh it until it comes out in the media.
    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


    • #32
      Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

      "I'm sort of going to Frank's side because he's had so much success by staying positive,'' Bird said. "We do have to stay the course. But I also think he's got to start going after guys when they're not doing what they're supposed to do. And stay on them, whether you've got to take them out of the game when they're not doing what they're supposed to do or limit their minutes. I will say, he hasn't done that enough."
      I like this part. Especially the "but..."

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

        I don't blame him for being disappointed but Larry brought in all these guys so he can't absolve himself of the blame. The Danny Granger for Evan Turner trade is looking pretty bad right now. It's really messed up the defense of the team more than it has effected the offense or the locker room. From ESPN:

        Research Notes
        The Pacers acquired Evan Turner and Lavoy Allen at the trade deadline in exchange for Danny Granger. Turner is averaging 9.1 points and 22.9 minutes in a small 8-game sample with the team, right around what Danny Granger averaged this season in Indiana (8.3 PPG, 22.5 minutes). But in 653 minutes with Granger on the floor this season, the Pacers outscored their opponents by 8.5 points per 48 minutes. For context, that's 2.1 points better than Indiana's season average and the Clippers lead the NBA in that category at +7.0. Since Turner's first game, Indiana has been outscored by 7.4 points per 48 minutes with him on the court. In 202 minutes with Turner off the floor during that span, the Pacers have a points differential of 0.
        [+]
        Ouch! I like Evan Turner but he's brought some bad defensive habits from the Philly with him to Indy. I think it's also had a negative effect on Lance on the offensive end. Lance is no longer looking to set up his teammates when he's out there with the bench and he's running more Isolation plays for himself.

        I think things will work themselves out eventually but the trade put a lot more pressure on Frank and the coaching staff because they now have to work out a scheme to make up for Evan's defensive weaknesses. Thankfully they have an easier schedule and more days off for practice and by the time they get to the final 15 games they should be able a cohesive team again.

        Reasons for optimism - Look at the Golden State Warriors, Chicago Bulls, and Dallas Mavericks. Not too long ago those teams were in a free-fall but they've bounced back and now look like they could at least give the top teams a run for their money in the playoffs.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

          Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
          I don't blame him for being disappointed but Larry brought in all these guys so he can't absolve himself of the blame. The Danny Granger for Evan Turner trade is looking pretty bad right now. It's really messed up the defense of the team more than it has effected the offense or the locker room. From ESPN:



          Ouch! I like Evan Turner but he's brought some bad defensive habits from the Philly with him to Indy. I think it's also had a negative effect on Lance on the offensive end. Lance is no longer looking to set up his teammates when he's out there with the bench and he's running more Isolation plays for himself.

          I think things will work themselves out eventually but the trade put a lot more pressure on Frank and the coaching staff because they now have to work out a scheme to make up for Evan's defensive weaknesses. Thankfully they have an easier schedule and more days off for practice and by the time they get to the final 15 games they should be able a cohesive team again.

          Reasons for optimism - Look at the Golden State Warriors, Chicago Bulls, and Dallas Mavericks. Not too long ago those teams were in a free-fall but they've bounced back and now look like they could at least give the top teams a run for their money in the playoffs.
          That some pretty damning statistics. Get rid of a guy who can play D and knows all the defensive schemes and bring in a guy who hasn't played a lick of defense all year. This is why I say Bird got the GM ***** when he heard Turners name come up. It was on name recognition only. Granger suffered from the what have you done for me lately syndrome. Well he only held his opponents to sub 30% shooting and a 9 PER. That point differential might even a bit as the season goes on and the Pacers make some adjustments, but for sure we probably can not be the same typeof defensive team we were before the deadline.

          As for Lance, I think he stopped looking for his teammates ever since he was in the conversation for the allstar game. Some might say he stopped looking for teammates because they couldn't shoot the ball well. Others might say they couldn't' shoot the ball well because they never got quality shot opportunities from Lance.
          Last edited by graphic-er; 03-12-2014, 12:37 PM.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

            Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
            I don't blame him for being disappointed but Larry brought in all these guys so he can't absolve himself of the blame. The Danny Granger for Evan Turner trade is looking pretty bad right now. It's really messed up the defense of the team more than it has effected the offense or the locker room. From ESPN:



            Ouch! I like Evan Turner but he's brought some bad defensive habits from the Philly with him to Indy. I think it's also had a negative effect on Lance on the offensive end. Lance is no longer looking to set up his teammates when he's out there with the bench and he's running more Isolation plays for himself.

            I think things will work themselves out eventually but the trade put a lot more pressure on Frank and the coaching staff because they now have to work out a scheme to make up for Evan's defensive weaknesses. Thankfully they have an easier schedule and more days off for practice and by the time they get to the final 15 games they should be able a cohesive team again.

            Reasons for optimism - Look at the Golden State Warriors, Chicago Bulls, and Dallas Mavericks. Not too long ago those teams were in a free-fall but they've bounced back and now look like they could at least give the top teams a run for their money in the playoffs.

            It is still too early to say, 8 games could easily be just an anomaly outside of Turner's control, but those are some pretty damning numbers.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

              IndyStar tip:

              Chrome: Incognito Mode
              Internet Explorer: InPrivate Browsing


              @Pacers24Colts12

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                It is still too early to say, 8 games could easily be just an anomaly outside of Turner's control, but those are some pretty damning numbers.
                Lance shouldn't be out there with the bench in the first place.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

                  The main reason why we outscored opponents with Granger instead of Turner is simply to me; 3-point shooting and floor spacing. Who on our second unit can shoot the three? No one, especially without Watson healthy. That's why Vogel's stubborn *** needs to be playing one of either Copeland or Butler a lot more. They haven't been overly big liabilities in my mind defensively to offset the fact we need their shooting. Hell, every time Copeland's on the floor he's hustling and working his tail off defensively and almost always comes and drains a few shots. I still don't get it.
                  Dear P_George,
                  You have received an infraction at Pacers Digest.

                  Reason: Unacceptable Comment and/or Content

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

                    Originally posted by P_George View Post
                    The main reason why we outscored opponents with Granger instead of Turner is simply to me; 3-point shooting and floor spacing. Who on our second unit can shoot the three? No one, especially without Watson healthy. That's why Vogel's stubborn *** needs to be playing one of either Copeland or Butler a lot more. They haven't been overly big liabilities in my mind defensively to offset the fact we need their shooting. Hell, every time Copeland's on the floor he's hustling and working his tail off defensively and almost always comes and drains a few shots. I still don't get it.


                    It looks like Frank is moving to a ten man rotation. Last night's unit of course will feature Watson instead of Sloan. But I'd like to see Copeland and Butler instead of Scola.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      It looks like Frank is moving to a ten man rotation. Last night's unit of course will feature Watson instead of Sloan. But I'd like to see Copeland and Butler instead of Scola.
                      An word on Watson, I thought I read somewhere that he is expected back on Friday...
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

                        What is the chance that one of the guys Bird thought Frank needed to get on is Lance? Frank has done a nice job of getting Lance to buy into the team concept using positive reinforcement to get him to tone down parts of his game. But the end of the season is fast approaching and 'getting better but not quite there yet' is rapidly becoming not good enough.

                        Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                        I busted it into paragraphs for easier reading.

                        Bob Kravitz, The Indystar:

                        . . . "I'm sort of going to Frank's side because he's had so much success by staying positive,'' Bird said. "We do have to stay the course. But I also think he's got to start going after guys when they're not doing what they're supposed to do. And stay on them, whether you've got to take them out of the game when they're not doing what they're supposed to do or limit their minutes. I will say, he hasn't done that enough.


                        . . . Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or email bob.kravitz@indystar.com. Follow him on Twitter: @BKravitz.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

                          Gotta take off the kid gloves.

                          Last night when Paul continued jacking up three's and Lance forgot a play and ruined a possession would have been perfect times to set an example.
                          Last edited by CJ Jones; 03-20-2014, 07:17 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

                            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                            It looks like Frank is moving to a ten man rotation. Last night's unit of course will feature Watson instead of Sloan. But I'd like to see Copeland and Butler instead of Scola.
                            What has Cope done that has people so enamored? Yes Scola has been awful, but Cope looked no better against NY.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Kravitz - Bird: I'm not mad I am disappointed. Bird critical of Vogel?

                              Originally posted by P_George View Post
                              The main reason why we outscored opponents with Granger instead of Turner is simply to me; 3-point shooting and floor spacing. Who on our second unit can shoot the three? No one, especially without Watson healthy. That's why Vogel's stubborn *** needs to be playing one of either Copeland or Butler a lot more. They haven't been overly big liabilities in my mind defensively to offset the fact we need their shooting. Hell, every time Copeland's on the floor he's hustling and working his tail off defensively and almost always comes and drains a few shots. I still don't get it.
                              Granger is 8-27 from 3 since arriving in LA. That is less that 30% and a continuation of his bad shooting in Indy. Evan Turner is 6-13 since arriving in Indy. That is nearly 50%. Now who is more effective from 3? Lance Stephenson is shooting better from 3 too.

                              Seriously, people are living in the past. I know Danny used to be able to shoot...but he's not doing that well in 2014.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X