Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

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

  • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    We're extrapolating a line in a chat as a report from the source again. Bucher says Vogel is not the guy Bird wants. We should be careful not to start thinking that Bird said this somewhere.
    If Bird knew that Vogel was the guy he wanted, he would have already been hired on.

    Comment


    • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
      I can't see the Lakers considering Brown, but if they do, that will change things for him entirely.
      Brian Shaw should be the coach in LA

      Comment


      • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        If Bird knew that Vogel was the guy he wanted, he would have already been hired on.
        Not knowing before interviews that Vogel IS the guy is not the same as knowing before interviews that Vogel is NOT the guy.

        I can't believe how many people are acting like due diligence to see who else is available and talk to them is some kind of insult or indication of a decision already made. There's no urgency in this hiring, why rush?
        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: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

          We don't even know for sure that Bird is coming back at this point. What would incline someone to think that under these circumstances Vogel would've already been hired if he was in fact the wanted man.
          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

          Comment


          • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            But put yourself in Bird's shoes. What if he likes the job Vogel did but he just thinks Mike brown is a better coach, that Mike Brown is one of the top 4 or 5 coaches in the NBA.

            I am only speaking for myself here, but even if what you say is true and Bird does feel Mike Brown is a top tier coach, it shouldn't change anything.

            Unless there were some things going on behind the scenes that we NEVER even got a whiff of, it should be abundantly clear that Vogel captured the hearts and minds of this team and got them to play at a MUCH higher level than they "should have". Especially in their playoff series.

            Am I saying Mike Brown is a bad choice for head coach? Absolutely not! I like Mike Brown.

            All I mean is that it should be very obvious that for OUR GUYS, Frank Vogel is THE man for the job right now. He has the perfect mixture of youth, determination, motivation and the ability to empathize and relate to his players that you simply cannot go out and hire elsewhere.

            He has been in the trenches with the majority of our core roster for nearly their entire careers (as an assistant), Danny and a few others being the exception.

            THAT is what makes him such a great candidate for our HC job, not his X's and O's versus the next candidates.

            I still don't understand why more Pacers fans don't feel this way?

            After all the years recently of fielding teams who didn't seem to care or give it their all or play with passion... We finally find a guy who brings that out of them for half a season in an interim role and then we DON'T want to re-hire him?!!? Because some other coach has been around the block a few more times?!

            I don't get it...

            Comment


            • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

              Vogel or no Vogel. I dont want Brown. I think it will be a mistake. I will be happy to eat crow, but doubt I will.

              Comment


              • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                Not knowing before interviews that Vogel IS the guy is not the same as knowing before interviews that Vogel is NOT the guy.

                I can't believe how many people are acting like due diligence to see who else is available and talk to them is some kind of insult or indication of a decision already made. There's no urgency in this hiring, why rush?
                Yeah, those things are not the same. That's also not what I said. Vogel is still one of the top candidates for the job. Bucher says he is not the top candidate, and I don't believe that he ever was, or even should have been.

                For this team, Vogel's best attribute was that he wasn't Jim O'Brien. I'm not saying any bum off the street could have gotten the same results, but the coaching change, for the sake of making a change (which is all Vogel's initial promotion was) was the biggest factor in the team's improvement toward the end of the season. Obviously, there were huge strategic changes, and better tactical adjustments that came with the change, but pretty much any coach worth his salt could have seen the need to make those moves. They were obvious, common sense decisions. They were not brilliant basketball decisions.

                I don't believe it is any kind of insult for the Pacers to interview other candidates. Vogel doesn't have the background to make him worthy of us not looking into other names. He did a good job in his interim role, but there is a reason that the term interim was attached to his job title. He hasn't earned the full-time gig yet.

                There is no rush to make this decision. I've said as much. I'm fine with the decision if we decide to retain Vogel. I'm fine with the decision if we decide to go in another direction. Vogel is still going to be out there for us. He is a perfect fall-back option if there are other candidates that we like. If we bring in somebody like Brown, or Adelman for interviews and it doesn't work out. Great, we still have Vogel. If we bring in Brown and Adelman for an interview and their is a high level of mutual interest, we can keep pursuing it. If it falls through at the end, great, we still have Vogel.

                It's a fluid situation, I'm just making the educated guess that Brown is the front runner. Vogel is probably a close second in the race. Nobody is declaring the race over.

                Comment


                • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  he probably did. But put yourself in Bird's shoes. What if he likes the job Vogel did but he just thinks Mike brown is a better coach, that Mike Brown is one of the top 4 or 5 coaches in the NBA.

                  I'm not asking you to agree with Bird, but for this discussion, lets say you do, and if the owner will pay enough to get Brown and he wants to come here, don't you have to hire him.

                  The GM's job is on the line so heneeds to get the best possible coach (in his estimation) that he can.
                  I understand where Bird is coming from, if he thinks Brown is the right guy.

                  I just personally happen to think Vogel is the right guy. I haven't seen Brown do anything other than the Lebron years. And those years, the guy was more a babysitter than a coach.

                  To be honest, the only reason why I want Bird back is because Vogel has a much better chance of getting the job with Bird than with a different GM. I understand interviewing other candidates. That's the correct thing to do. But I really don't think Brown is a better candidate for this team than Vogel. The players love him. He can clearly motivate them. With the exception of a few rookie mistakes, he's done well at a basketball level. And most of the guys on this team are young, and consistency means a lot to them.

                  The biggest question mark for me, with Vogel. Is offense. But that's the biggest question mark for me with Brown too.
                  Last edited by Sookie; 05-09-2011, 01:03 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                    Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                    Yeah, those things are not the same. That's also not what I said. Vogel is still one of the top candidates for the job. Bucher says he is not the top candidate, and I don't believe that he ever was, or even should have been.
                    OK, I think I misunderstood what you meant. It sounds like we're agreeing.
                    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: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                      I haven't seen Brown do anything other than the Lebron years. And those years, the guy was more a babysitter than a coach.
                      Well, those are his only years as a head coach. I'm not sure what you're expecting.

                      This babysitter notion is nonsense. Do people really think they made the Finals with a do-nothing coach? Do people think he won 66 games and was COY by doing nothing in 2008-09?

                      It was all LeBron? Really?

                      I don't think Mike Brown is a top-five coach by any means, but to discount a guy because he had a star player is ludicrous ... especially when supporting a guy who hasn't coached a full NBA season.

                      I like Vogel and Brown, and can understand arguments for both.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                        Mike Brown will be an awful hire

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          I understand where Bird is coming from, if he thinks Brown is the right guy.
                          I can't. I can understand if Bird would rather have one of a couple proven hall of fame coaches that might be on the market this summer, but not someone who has only coached LeBron.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                            You don't want Vogel..........bye bye Larry.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                              Everyone has been saying that all the Players will walk through a wall for Vogel....but how do we know that they won't do the same ( eventually ) for Mike Brown. I've never gotten the impression that Mike Brown was not a "Players Coach".
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                                Vogel is the right guy for THIS team.

                                Mike Brown isn't bad, but he's not going to develop players and get on their level like Vogel has.

                                I don't know what Bird sees in Brown and what he can do for this team better than what Vogel did. The players want him back, they liked him and respected him, he loved being the coach.

                                This will be a big mistake letting Vogel go.

                                IMO, he's the right coach for this young, up and coming team.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X