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

A closer look at the coaching prospects

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

  • #16
    Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
    I think my short list would be

    Tom Thibodeau

    Marc Iavaroni

    Tim Grgurich
    My short list:

    1. Mark Jackson - problem is he doesn't want the Indiana job. And thats a problem.
    2. Byron Scott - has coached well wherever he has coached. Would be a fan favorite. problem is he is content now in nawlins.
    3. (Dont shoot me) Bill Laimbeer - He knows the game, has won, has played and won, has won in the wnba, he will command respect from the players. if JO stays, I think Bill could show him a few things. Problem is, the first chance he can go back to detroit, he splits.
    4. Iavaroni - Problem is - gotta wait until after the nba finals to talk to him, and then we would be competing against the rising raptors. which team would you coach.
    5. Rick Adelman - lots of experience, has won alot, knows the game. would be a good transition coach through the next couple years.
    6. Mitchell - not the sexy pick, but would bring a new attitude and respect to the position, and hes the most available. Its obvious that colangelo is waiting on iavaroni and not re-signing sam.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

      Originally posted by Mal View Post
      Welcome back!
      Thank you.

      Can Rick A. coach get his team to play good D?
      You know, that's one of the biggest misconceptions around...that Adelman can't coach defensively.

      During 1999-2002, it was our offense that drew most public attention because we focused on offense. Who doesn't remember the flashy passes Jason Williams made to Chris Webber (or occasionally the guy in the third row of seats)? What a lot of people may have forgotten is Doug Christie and his defensive capabilities. Adelman helped bring those out and focused Doug more than he had ever been focused before... or since.

      The main thing Adelman brings to a team is respect, both from the coach to the players and back. And with respect, you have a better team. We saw the painful result of not having respect this season - luckily Musselman was an experiment that only lasted one season.

      Under Adelman's tutelage, players seem to dig deeper and do better. And when you have someone like Larry Bird around to help acquire the right pieces in the first place, I think you'd be looking at a very successful combination.

      The Maloofs used the "we want to focus on defense" excuse to cover the fact they just didn't have faith in Adelman, who isn't into flash and isn't distracted by bright lights and shiny objects. Don't get me wrong; I'm very happy for what the Maloofs have brought to the Kings. I just wish sincerely they would have let Petrie do his job and not stepped in and decided to "go in another direction."

      They got what they wished for...we went in another direction. Dooooooooooooooown.

      So, back to your question? Adelman can coach defense but, more importantly, he coaches rounded teams that can be productive on both ends of the court provided he's given at least something to work with. You can't expect miracles when you're dealing with guys like Mateen Cleaves, Greg Ostertag, Kenny Thomas or some of the other detritus he had the last couple of years.
      NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

        Originally posted by BoomBaby33 View Post
        My short list:

        1. Mark Jackson - problem is he doesn't want the Indiana job. And thats a problem.
        2. Byron Scott - has coached well wherever he has coached. Would be a fan favorite. problem is he is content now in nawlins.
        3. (Dont shoot me) Bill Laimbeer - He knows the game, has won, has played and won, has won in the wnba, he will command respect from the players. if JO stays, I think Bill could show him a few things. Problem is, the first chance he can go back to detroit, he splits.
        4. Iavaroni - Problem is - gotta wait until after the nba finals to talk to him, and then we would be competing against the rising raptors. which team would you coach.
        5. Rick Adelman - lots of experience, has won alot, knows the game. would be a good transition coach through the next couple years.
        6. Mitchell - not the sexy pick, but would bring a new attitude and respect to the position, and hes the most available. Its obvious that colangelo is waiting on iavaroni and not re-signing sam.
        unfortunately i highly doubt laimbeer would have any interest either (or vice versa) a lot of bad blood between celtics/pistons PLUS the way isiah was fired. that being said, he'd be an interesting choice for a team like us in transition. he has proven he can coach (albeit in the WNBA where egos and money aren't as big of issues) and not only that, but he's a big and we have a couple of bigs that could use some development (can you imagine Ike, Jeff and Harrison after camp Laimbeer / Mahorn??? that'd be crazy). and that is not to underestimate how highly entertaining he would be. i bet press conferences would be more interesting than rick's and not only that, he'd be the first coach since jeff van gundy to dive into the middle of a brawl.

        like i said, won't happen but i would be most entertained and still somewhat optimistic about that type of hire. certainly would be a shake-up within the pacers.
        This is the darkest timeline.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

          That is a great post Jose. Lots of good info in there.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

            Here is the first time I've seen Adelman mentioned as a possible candidate

            http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart


            Now that Raptors out, coach hunts will heat up
            By Mike Wells
            mike.wells@indystar.com
            May 6, 2007


            What have been relatively quiet coaching searches around the league may get more interesting now that the Toronto Raptors have been eliminated from the playoffs.

            Raptors coach Sam Mitchell is believed to be the Indiana Pacers' top choice to replace the fired Rick Carlisle. The Raptors' season ended Friday when they lost to New Jersey in the playoffs.
            Pacers president Larry Bird, who is leading the search, hasn't commented since Carlisle was fired April 25. A team spokesman said the Pacers will not be commenting on the coaching search. Bird, who doesn't have a timetable for hiring a coach, is looking for someone who holds players accountable, something Mitchell is known for doing.

            The Pacers have to ask permission to speak to Mitchell since he is under contract with the Raptors until June 30. Charlotte reportedly also is interested in Mitchell, who won NBA Coach of the Year honors.

            Raptors president and general manager Bryan Colangelo, who has said in the past he wants to re-sign Mitchell, told Toronto reporters Saturday he's not sure he will give teams permission to talk to his coach.

            "I think it depends on how the conversations go out of the gate," Colangelo told reporters. "I need to have a preliminary conversation before I can answer that fairly. It's a good question and one that I'll have a better feel for once we have a firm and concrete and realistic conversation with (Mitchell's agent) Lonnie (Cooper)."

            Other candidates the Pacers are believed to have interest in include Phoenix assistant coach Marc Iavaroni, former Sacramento coach Rick Adelman and former Miami coach Stan Van Gundy. The Suns are still in the playoffs, and Van Gundy is under contract with the Heat until 2008.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

              Thanks for bringing that up, Unclebuck; I often skip reading the Star these days. I'm happy to read that; I think he'd be our best choice. Also good to see SVG on there too.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                Originally posted by VF21 View Post

                And when you have someone like Larry Bird around to help acquire the right pieces in the first place,
                You were doing quite well until that line. I guess you really haven't been around in awhile.

                Just kiddin' ya.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Here is the first time I've seen Adelman mentioned as a possible candidate

                  http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart


                  Now that Raptors out, coach hunts will heat up
                  By Mike Wells
                  mike.wells@indystar.com
                  May 6, 2007


                  What have been relatively quiet coaching searches around the league may get more interesting now that the Toronto Raptors have been eliminated from the playoffs.

                  Raptors coach Sam Mitchell is believed to be the Indiana Pacers' top choice to replace the fired Rick Carlisle. The Raptors' season ended Friday when they lost to New Jersey in the playoffs.
                  Pacers president Larry Bird, who is leading the search, hasn't commented since Carlisle was fired April 25. A team spokesman said the Pacers will not be commenting on the coaching search. Bird, who doesn't have a timetable for hiring a coach, is looking for someone who holds players accountable, something Mitchell is known for doing.

                  The Pacers have to ask permission to speak to Mitchell since he is under contract with the Raptors until June 30. Charlotte reportedly also is interested in Mitchell, who won NBA Coach of the Year honors.

                  Raptors president and general manager Bryan Colangelo, who has said in the past he wants to re-sign Mitchell, told Toronto reporters Saturday he's not sure he will give teams permission to talk to his coach.

                  "I think it depends on how the conversations go out of the gate," Colangelo told reporters. "I need to have a preliminary conversation before I can answer that fairly. It's a good question and one that I'll have a better feel for once we have a firm and concrete and realistic conversation with (Mitchell's agent) Lonnie (Cooper)."

                  Other candidates the Pacers are believed to have interest in include Phoenix assistant coach Marc Iavaroni, former Sacramento coach Rick Adelmanand former Miami coach Stan Van Gundy. The Suns are still in the playoffs, and Van Gundy is under contract with the Heat until 2008.
                  To me personally, this is the most important part of this article. Of course I also don't want Mitchell here at all. GET IAVARONI.
                  I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                    I'm hoping we get Ivaroni, Stan Van Gundy, or Rick Adelman.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                      Originally posted by Mal View Post
                      I'm hoping we get Ivaroni, Stan Van Gundy, or Rick Adelman.
                      My list also, with Mark Jackson also in the mix.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                        Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                        My list also, with Mark Jackson also in the mix.
                        If he doesn't want to be here, then I don't want him back. He's asking a lot as it is to expect a team to just hand him a head coaching job with no prior experience. And he doesn't have the legend as a player than Isiah or Bird did to be handed one.

                        Now, with that said, if he IS open to being here, I'm interested (somewhat), but he'd be 4th on my list.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                          Yeah thats the only part I didnt like. I think Adelman might be my first choice after 4 years of watching Rick Carlisle's offense, it would rule to finally see a team have some strategy and ball movement while playing offense instead of just throw it to Jermaine and watch.

                          Maybe Adelman would be able to get something out of Dunleavy, he did it with Peja.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                            Originally posted by Mal View Post
                            If he doesn't want to be here, then I don't want him back. He's asking a lot as it is to expect a team to just hand him a head coaching job with no prior experience. And he doesn't have the legend as a player than Isiah or Bird did to be handed one.
                            Well, there's all that, plus God telling him to sign for more money in Toronto instead of re-signing with the Pacers.

                            I guess more to the point is, I'm not thrilled with the idea of Jackson being the coach.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                              Please, no Mark Jackson!!! If he wants a head coaching job just handed to him, I hope our owners and managment are not stupid enough to just hand him one. I know, I know...Larry was handed the job with no experience, but he did get the reigns of a veteran team with some damn good assistants to help him. Not to mention that Bird's name commanded respect. Jackson could get good assistants, but he dosen't have the team and the name that Larry had to start.

                              As I said before, if Jackson is not willing to pay his dues as an assistant....I don't want him experimenting with this team.

                              If JVG does quit in Houston...That becomes the #1 job in the league and the Pacers will be getting what is left, just like the other teams with a vacancy.
                              ...Still "flying casual"
                              @roaminggnome74

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: A closer look at the coaching prospects

                                Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                                Maybe Adelman would be able to get something out of Dunleavy, he did it with Peja.
                                one difference - peja can shoot

                                i'm open to the idea of adelman. i think i'm also on record for being interested in SVG (and i think the fact that he is still under contract with the heat is absurd, WTF RILES?!? FREE HIM!!!).

                                i get a really bad feeling when i think of jackson as coach. when bird and even isiah came in, neither had been quoted as saying "i've had too much experience to be an assistant." if he was really interested in coaching, why didn't he jump to the pacers asst. staff last year to relate to players and help our PG situation? i mean if he's going to just wait for someone to offer something to him i'd rather it be another team. and if he's a great coach? i'll be happy for him but i think there are better options, more deserving options.

                                i guess the other reason i'm against it... the whole point of the al harrington trade was to bring that feel-good player back to the team and that was a bust. this feels like its in the same vein.
                                This is the darkest timeline.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X