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

I was wrong about Rick

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

  • #16
    Re: I was wrong about Rick

    Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
    What would I have against him personally? I've never met him; I'm just a fan of the team he coaches. I want him to succeed-I want to root for a team that wins. Ours doesn't, though. And he's the head coach.

    Looking at it objectively? You mean, like 2-17 objectively? You mean us getting blown out by 20 every other game objectively?

    The announcers aren't going to say he sucks, are they? They've got to work with the guy. He's been an announcer too and it's pretty likely he's a friend of many of them.
    No, I mean like Murphy-Dunleavy-Armstrong-McLeod-Marshall-Harrison-Greene objectively. Honestly, the Pacers have one of THE WORST rosters in the entire NBA from a talent perspective. Teams with worse records than the Pacers have more talented rosters. And obviously all the teams above the Pacers do as well.

    If Carlisle goes next year I think we will see what an average coach really does with a terrible team. Then people will be calling for another new head coach when the problem is and has been the talent.

    Even when Jack and Harrington were on the team, the roster was lacking. The league is dominated by guards who can shoot for percentage and volume. You can go team-by-team in the standings. The teams who are in the playoff hunt have talented guards. Cleveland and Toronto may be the exceptions, but noone expects either team to advance that far in the playoffs, and in Cleveland's case they have a SG in LeBron who happens to play SF.

    The Pacers have no such guard. Not at point, not at the 2. Not in the starting lineup, not on the bench. They haven't had one since Miller retired. They haven't tried to get one since then, either. Instead they've been enamored with defense-lacking, perimeter oriented SF for some reason.

    The management is to blame, not the coach. If they insist on getting rid of the coach, then this cycle of mediocrity will intensify until the franchise hits rock bottom. They are far from it percentage wise, but not that far in terms of talent.

    I don't believe you have anything against Carlisle personally, but I do believe that your judgement of him is much the same as how fans judge a particular player. i.e. You just don't like his style.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I was wrong about Rick

      Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
      I don't believe you have anything against Carlisle personally, but I do believe that your judgement of him is much the same as how fans judge a particular player. i.e. You just don't like his style.
      Agreed. I don't care for its results, either.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I was wrong about Rick

        Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
        But he really doesn't have that charisma, and it ain't like you're gonna learn it if you don't have it to begin with. It's a personality trait. He may be a hell of a nice guy once you get to know him.
        You mean like the charismatic Tony Dungy
        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: I was wrong about Rick

          Originally posted by ABADays View Post
          You mean like the charismatic Tony Dungy
          Sure. That's a fine example.

          Remember how many of Colts players, including Peyton Manning, commented on how special it was to win the Super Bowl for Dungy? He's a leader. He connects with his players. They want to do what he says is best.

          Or wouldn't you say Dungy's leadership was a factor in the title?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I was wrong about Rick

            Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
            Sure. That's a fine example.

            Remember how many of Colts players, including Peyton Manning, commented on how special it was to win the Super Bowl for Dungy? He's a leader. He connects with his players. They want to do what he says is best.

            Or wouldn't you say Dungy's leadership was a factor in the title?

            Yeah, like it is much easier to say nice things about a coach when you are winning, right? UH, the Pacers don't have Manning, Harrison, Wayne type players on their roster, right?

            The best damn coach in the universe couldn't get anymore out of this mismash collection of players than Rick has.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I was wrong about Rick

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I think management in many ways neutered Rick this season. They traded away AJ so Rick was forced to play JT and Saras. They forced him to fire Kevin O'Neill, and they criticized him in the media. I think Rick knows he's on the way out, the players know he's on the way out, and that is a big part of the 2-17 record.
              You inspired me:

              http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?p=562735

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: I was wrong about Rick

                Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                Yeah, like it is much easier to say nice things about a coach when you are winning, right? UH, the Pacers don't have Manning, Harrison, Wayne type players on their roster, right?

                The best damn coach in the universe couldn't get anymore out of this mismash collection of players than Rick has.
                The Colts had, what, the 32nd ranked defense in the league going into the playoffs? Or doesn't that matter?

                It's "easier" to say nice things? He got more out of his defense than Carlisle has gotten out of his "mishmash". I've got the Super Bowl commemorative T-shirt to prove it.

                The "best damn coach in the universe" couldn't do better than 2-17? Huh....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I was wrong about Rick

                  One thing the Colts have done is bring people in that get in line behind Dungy and then behind Peyton. The pecking order is clear.

                  We had a certain kicker that questioned the hierarchy and last I checked he was out of the league a couple of years later and on thin ice from the point he opened his mouth and spoke out of turn. True, he did hang around a while after his famous quote but he was put in his place because the pecking order (chain of command) was clear and stayed strong.

                  You cannot say that about the Pacers. The whole pecking order is a muddied mess.

                  -Bball
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I was wrong about Rick

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    One thing the Colts have done is bring people in that get in line behind Dungy and then behind Peyton. The pecking order is clear.

                    We had a certain kicker that questioned the hierarchy and last I checked he was out of the league a couple of years later and on thin ice from the point he opened his mouth and spoke out of turn. True, he did hang around a while after his famous quote but he was put in his place because the pecking order (chain of command) was clear and stayed strong.

                    You cannot say that about the Pacers. The whole pecking order is a muddied mess.

                    -Bball
                    Excellent points. There is definitely great leadership on the Colts.

                    Maybe Dungy will help us out and take over as the Pacers coach. Certainly his performance could not be worse.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I was wrong about Rick

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      I'm very confused - what you mean "figured us out". I thought the brawl was the reason for the swoon - the Artest stuff, the injuries, and all the turnoil. I don't see how "the league figuring us out" plays into any of this. In fact how could they figure us out - look at how many different players have started for us the past 3 seasons. I don't think anyone has the pacers figured out
                      The brawl was in season two not one. I am talking about the early days of the Rick Carlisle time in Indiana that everyone seems to have forgotten about. We started off strong as you usually do after any change. Then the league solved us and we started playing .500 ball I am talking about almost all od December of the 61 win season we were a .500 ball club.

                      Naptown I am not talking about shooting percentage. I also did not say he would take a low talent team anywhere My point was that I had always thought he would do better with less talent because of his controlling style. I was clearly wrong on that.

                      You could be right Naptown AJ clearly had zero talent and Rick did get a lot out of him but at the same time you make my point. He took the Pistons to the ECF (admitedly in a much weaker climate)

                      Your point about him being better than Isiah is confusing to me. Of course he was better than Isiah.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I was wrong about Rick

                        I think there's a bit of truth to the idea that the league has figured JO out.

                        Double and triple team him and you will most likely win the game. This was discovered during the Detroit series in 03/04 and remains true to this day.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I was wrong about Rick

                          Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                          The brawl was in season two not one. I am talking about the early days of the Rick Carlisle time in Indiana that everyone seems to have forgotten about. We started off strong as you usually do after any change. Then the league solved us and we started playing .500 ball I am talking about almost all od December of the 61 win season we were a .500 ball club.
                          Gotta love the revisionist history, its getting more and more popular here by the day.

                          The only reason that 61-win team was successful was because Ron Artest all of a sudden turned into a perfect little angel for most of the season. Noone thought that team would be any good and noone thought Ron Artest would be well-behaved. Before that season he had been nothing but a non-stop trouble-maker and then RC was brought in and it seemed Artest was a changed man. Its funny that as much as people complain about RC's people skills now, back then he was given credit for ringing in Artest.

                          But that was just a fool's hope and Ron was just a ticking time-bomb waiting to go off. Unforunately he decided to explode in the ECF's against the Detroit Pistons. From then on this team was doomed. THATS the reason this team started losing. Not becasue "the rest of the league figured us out". Thats just plain baloney.

                          Once he is forced to start Jamaal we go back to wining because Jamaal did not always follow the instructions. We still lost some games when Rick would put AJ back in to "secure defeat" but once the owners told him to stop doing that we got better.
                          Oh yes, the only reason the Pacers ever won any games the last 4 seasons was due to Tinsley's unwillingness to follow directions. That makes perfect sense. Hell I got an idea, we should just make Tinsley the head coach since hes so damn smart, yeah. Do you actually believe the crap youre writing?!?

                          If RC can't win with an untalented team then how come we went to the playoffs the last two seasons when everyone predicted we wouldn't? Don't tell me you think those teams were talented. They were slightly more talented then the current team but still pailed compared to the rest of the teams in the playoffs. Maybe thats why everyone around the league thinks Carlisle is a great coach.

                          No thats too much of a stretch, its a lot more reasonable to believe there's a league-wide conspiracy to overrate Carlisle.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I was wrong about Rick

                            Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                            No thats too much of a stretch, its a lot more reasonable to believe there's a league-wide conspiracy to overrate Carlisle.
                            Yes, this is exactly what I said.

                            My guess is you'd find plenty of people who don't agree with the notion he's just a poor guy, finding himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Plenty of knowledgeable basketball people who don't think he's the poor misunderstood victim people here seem to think he is.

                            Well, I can think of one. Joe Dumars fired him after doing such a great job. How'd that end up again?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I was wrong about Rick

                              Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
                              Yes, this is exactly what I said.

                              My guess is you'd find plenty of people who don't agree with the notion he's just a poor guy, finding himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Plenty of knowledgeable basketball people who don't think he's the poor misunderstood victim people here seem to think he is.

                              Well, I can think of one. Joe Dumars fired him after doing such a great job. How'd that end up again?
                              Umm, well they were pretty much mediocre. That is until they picked up Rasheed. Then they became instant contenders. Thats what we need, some key talent upgrades. Btw, who replaced Carlisle? Oh yeah it was Larry Brown, hes the complete opposite of Carlisle.

                              And for what its worth, I do think RC needs to be replaced this summer, but NOT at all because hes a bad coach.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: I was wrong about Rick

                                Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                                Umm, well they were pretty much mediocre. That is until they picked up Rasheed. Then they became instant contenders. Thats what we need, some key talent upgrades. Btw, who replaced Carlisle? Oh yeah it was Larry Brown, hes the complete opposite of Carlisle.

                                And for what its worth, I do think RC needs to be replaced this summer, but NOT at all because hes a bad coach.
                                But Carlisle did have Billups, Hamilton, Big Ben, and Prince. I'd take that kind of mediocre all day, thanks.

                                I said he's a good coach about 3 times in this thread already. I wish he was successful this year because I'm a Pacers fan. I'm sure he'll do well with his next team.

                                But we're not good. His coaching is part of the problem. If he hasn't lost this team, aren't you worried what it would look like if he does?

                                When all I hear is what a trooper he is, I gotta call bull-****.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X