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

Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

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

  • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

    Originally posted by Blackhawk4 View Post
    Well if you know Larry will be back after a year and need someone to hold down the fort for a year it somewhat makes sense to get Walsh. If it's set in stone Bird comes back after a year, Pacers can live with Walsh for a year. It's not like Walsh is going to go crazy and go trading everyone. He is 71 and has some health problems, but you're asking one year out of him not 3-4 years. Pritchard is there as well so it's not like Walsh everything on his plate.
    All this speculation and reasoning and I haven't read anything but sources saying Bird is gone. Didn't we have this Internet storm just a few weeks ago and it wasn't true? I guess we find out for sure tomorrow.

    Comment


    • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      This front office movement should make it difficult for us to get free agents I think.
      How so?

      Comment


      • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

        Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
        How so?
        Because if you are a player like Williams, Nash, Dragic and the long time President of the team who is courting you just abruptly announced his resignation like this, woudln't that make you think that the Pacers organization is not in the best shape right now?
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

          Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
          I really hope Herb Simon makes it very clear to Walsh that if he starts bringing
          in dysfunctional knuckleheads and signing them to outrageous contracts again,
          like the last time things got so terribly screwed up, that he will be fired and
          there will be no more chances.
          fired? and no more chances?

          I was thinking more along the lines of being taken by the scruff of his collar up to the top of BLFH and give him a running start off the edge of the precipice ... LOL
          <---- BLFH
          "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

          Comment


          • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

            bball in response to your idea that Simon wanted a slow approach. I don't buy that. Pritchard is not a guy you want running your franchise if you want a slow approach. OK, you say well Walsh is running the franchise - well, we don't know that yet, we'll see. Plus how do I put this nicely. Herb is getting old. He's 77 years old, he doesn't have much longer to enjoy this and to get a championship. So I don't believe he wants a slow approach. He should be in all out win now mode.


            Honestly, I really believe Bird's decision to leave is 95% based on his health. Plus he's now been doing this for 9 years, he almost left after the last couple of years and he's often said that he will leave once the franchise is turned around.

            We can come up with theory after theory, but most of the time the most obvious answer is the right answer
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-27-2012, 09:09 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

              I agree with UB. Remember we didnt know about the back surgery when Larry had his presser last month.
              "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

              "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

              Comment


              • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                Look its pretty obvious by now, Simon has no interested in signing a big name FA or going after a RFA that would push the payroll above cap once we sign our existing players. To Bird that means that the daily grind of running this organization is not worth it considering the terrible condition of his back. Terrible situation, I think we definitely have an ownership problem. I understand, losing upwards of 20 million a year during some of the past 10 years is bad. But if you aren't striving to get better, then you will eventually get worse and worse.

                They will mask this was purely a medical issue for Bird, but seeing a rejuvenated Bird just a month ago I don't buy it. Bird knows what it takes to win a championship, Herb isn't willing to spend it. Bird isn't willing to settle.
                You can rejuvenate the spirit, but that doesn't do anything for your physical ailments.

                How many times to people have to bring up Simon's willingness to spend (wisely, that is) before others believe it?

                People keep bringing up examples like Nash. Heck, Nash is almost ready for the retirement home. He's ancient and he doesn't play a lick of defense. Is that what you really want? That is not wise spending.

                Comment


                • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                  Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                  How are picking and choosing? Wells hasn't directly said one way or another that Simon is or isn't willing to spend $$$.
                  But Wells has said that Bird wants to return if healthy.

                  Your theory hinges on Bird quitting because he is fed up with Simon not spending.

                  If so, why would Bird come back at all? What would health have to do with it?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                    I am not overjoyed, nor am I freaking out about this. Having Pritchard here relieves some anxiety. It will be interesting to say the least about what is going to transpire in the coming months with the team and signings.

                    One thing is certain. The pace of roster changes is going to be different than it was in the past. Which is not a knock against Bird. It has more to do with financial freedom. Getting West, trying for Mayo, getting Barbosa, getting Amundson, and trying for Crawford is way more proactive than sitting on Artest, sitting on Tinsley, waiting on contracts to expire, and drafting upper class men.

                    I would also argue that KP has neither as much positive interaction or negative interaction with other teams than Bird. Which is more of a positive than a negative.

                    The future of this team is no longer dependent on one man. Bird is replaceable and he coached the team that way.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                      Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                      I've never quite understood how someone could be "past their prime" on a job like that. Its impossible for a team to ALWAYS compete, in fact, I can promise you teams will almost always have terrible years. Its not because the GM is past their prime.
                      My response, as a Certified Walsh Warrior, is that times pass you by. I think Donnie got caught between modern players and an old-school attitude about loyalty and reward. He treated certain players as if they were going to give what it took for the franchise instead of being focused on their own personal careers. Look at the players Donnie was most successful with and realize that they got their rewards and repaid them by loyalty to the Pacers (even Reggie ultimately stayed after flrting with Free Agency). Players asked for trades and got them, but they seldom were wishy-washy about what they were going to do.

                      Donnie also had trouble dealing with the impact of off-the-court issues. A New York guy in an Indiana community is not going to understand the depths of the emotions stirred up by what happened with Artest, Jackson, and Tinsley, and is going to keep those guys until forced to get rid of them for money reasons - Donnie never acted at short notice, and was never really good at it.

                      Donnie's abilities have not changed, but his understanding of the environment around players did not change either.

                      One can only hope that dealing with the egos in NY has helped adjust that understanding.

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      Look its pretty obvious by now, Simon has no interested in signing a big name FA or going after a RFA that would push the payroll above cap once we sign our existing players. To Bird that means that the daily grind of running this organization is not worth it considering the terrible condition of his back. Terrible situation, I think we definitely have an ownership problem. I understand, losing upwards of 20 million a year during some of the past 10 years is bad. But if you aren't striving to get better, then you will eventually get worse and worse.
                      I think Herb's view is that he has no problem paying for a known quantity (thus the approval of big paychecks for our own players) but has concerns about spending top money for someone without a guarantee of how they will fit in or how long they will stay.

                      The other point is that from a financial viewpoint stablizing the income before making a new huge financial risk makes perfect sense, There is a valid perspective to say that we build a likeable, exciting, high-playoff level team without paying huge bucks, and repay some debts before going to the big free agent and risking an implosion.

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      I go back to my theory that Bird's goal was to build the best Team that he can put together while Granger was still on board ( hence the 2 year contract offers to West and JCraw...who turned it down ) until the 2013-2014 season. This would likely mean "winning as much as we can over the next 2 seasons" and likely spending $$$ to getting the best Players to fill the weaknesses that Bird saw this season instead of developing from within and patiently waiting for the tree to bear some fruit.
                      I would say that this also implies perhaps Bird was looking to "rent" a championship team a la the Florida Marlins (bring in guys you could pay now to get the ring then have to dump them because you can't afford to keep them), while Herb would like to go back to having a more stable team that fans will consistently support. One championship year followed by more years of Teh Suck isn't going to support the franchise the way multiple years of high-level playoff appearances would.

                      One thing I agree with is that we need to rebuild some fanbase for this franchise. It takes more than just the guys on PD (many of whom STILL threaten to walk away if a single wrong move is made) to allow a team to swing for the fences - if the swing misses, you need a good strong base to support you until your next try. Otherwise, you're putting all your hopes into one shot.

                      After all, it isn't like there is a move that every single Pacer fan agrees would put the team over the top. Someone is going to be pissed no matter WHAT they do, be it nothing or trading the entire team for one big name FA. That means you need plenty of people ready to support the team through thick and thin, and we haven't built that back yet.
                      Last edited by BillS; 06-27-2012, 09:35 AM.
                      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


                      • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                        Mike Wells ‏@MikeWellsNBA

                        U wouldn't think Indy finished w 5th best record n the league n had Exec of the Year w way things have gone past few weeks.
                        This is exactly what I was trying to convey earlier. It feels like we're rebuilding even if it turns out to only be the front office.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          bball in response to your idea that Simon wanted a slow approach. I don't buy that. Pritchard is not a guy you want running your franchise if you want a slow approach. OK, you say well Walsh is running the franchise - well, we don't know that yet, we'll see. Plus how do I put this nicely. Herb is getting old. He's 77 years old, he doesn't have much longer to enjoy this and to get a championship. So I don't believe he wants a slow approach. He should be in all out win now mode.


                          Honestly, I really believe Bird's decision to leave is 95% based on his health. Plus he's now been doing this for 9 years, he almost left after the last couple of years and he's often said that he will leave once the franchise is turned around.

                          We can come up with theory after theory, but most of the time the most obvious answer is the right answer
                          If the obvious answer is that it is based on his health you should hear that he will be back after he recuperates. Until i hear that I don't think that it is based on his health. How many times does a guy leave for health or family reasons and it is not health and family but that is a convenient excuse so no one has to look bad. I don't doubt that Larry will have surgery but I don't know if that surgery will keep him down indefinitely which is the way this is playing out.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            If the obvious answer is that it is based on his health you should hear that he will be back after he recuperates. Until i hear that I don't think that it is based on his health. How many times does a guy leave for health or family reasons and it is not health and family but that is a convenient excuse so no one has to look bad. I don't doubt that Larry will have surgery but I don't know if that surgery will keep him down indefinitely which is the way this is playing out.
                            The word “retired” is not being used with Bird. He may take a year off so that he can tend to some back and shoulder problems, then decide if he wants return to a front office, according to a source.
                            http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...h-stepping-up/

                            Not to pick on you Speakout but I made this bigger because it seems that people are just jumping to the "Simon won't spend and Larry is fed up with it" theory when what Wells has reported is the opposite.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                              Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                              http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...h-stepping-up/

                              Not to pick on you Speakout but I made this bigger because it seems that people are just jumping to the "Simon won't spend and Larry is fed up with it" theory when what Wells has reported is the opposite.
                              First of all I did not use the word retired and have no idea why Bird is stepping down but the fact that he was set to come back as much as weeks ago but now is not going to do so leads me to believe that the health issue is not the real reason. You can have aggressive back surgery and not need to take a year off anymore. This is not 1980.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                                First of all I did not use the word retired and have no idea why Bird is stepping down but the fact that he was set to come back as much as weeks ago but now is not going to do so leads me to believe that the health issue is not the real reason. You can have aggressive back surgery and not need to take a year off anymore. This is not 1980.
                                You said if it's based on health we should hear "he will be back after he recuperates."

                                That's exactly what we've heard thus far, so what is your point now?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X