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

  • #31
    Re: I was wrong about Rick

    The Indiana Pacers need something Fresh, Rick did his job, but as a fan, we just can't compete with all these other teams, We're not atletic enough. ..Since we don't have a lot of fire power, we should have opened up the offense even during this losing part of the season,Rick's approach is not even close to motivating the players and who can blame them
    R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: I was wrong about Rick

      @ JB's Breakout Year

      I agree with you for the most part. I think RC needs to go and I DO think he has lost the team. I just don't buy that RC was holding the Pistons or the Pacers back with his meticulous coaching (and that Larry Brown came and set the Pistons free).

      With all the crap this team has been through, and the players weve had on our roster, I think RC has done as good a job or better than any other coach would have done that last few seasons.

      But I do agree this team needs a fresh start.

      Comment


      • #33
        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.
        If the league "solved" us as early as December, then how in the world did we win 61 games? Doesn't make much sense to me.

        We went 9-7 in December, but then went 12-3 in January which includes quality wins against Dallas, Detroit, and New Jersey. One of the losses was against San Antonio, and we had a 3 point lead towards the end of regulation, but Turkoglu hit a 3 to force OT with tenths of a sec left to force OT, which the Spurs won by a point. The Spurs game was the night after the victory in Dallas.

        So think about it: We won in Dallas one night, and went to SA the next night and had them beat, they were only saved by a lucky shot. I don't think you can do that if the league has you "solved" as you state.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: I was wrong about Rick

          Originally posted by Oneal07 View Post
          I think we need a change of coach justfor the watcing sake of the pacers
          Please re-post this when your not drinking. As for RC, I would add that in no way is this all RC. I blame many of the current and former players. We have zilch for outside shooters. Shooters miss long or short not left or right. May be we should have traded JO instead of Al... who at the time was shooting about 47% from 3.
          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: I was wrong about Rick

            Trade JO instead of AL? lol U must be drinkin somethin
            R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: I was wrong about Rick

              Finally go look at the Detroit and Indy rosters and what they did the year before Rick showed up. He isn't Larry Brown, he didn't get an influx of players.
              Huh?

              %80 of the Pistons roster was different from 2001 to 2002. Aside from Chucky, Ben and Jerry, Joe replaced the entire roster.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: I was wrong about Rick

                Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
                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-****.


                If he hasn't lost this team, aren't you worried what it would look like if he does?

                " He has lost the team and this player has the skill set", make me want to puke when I hear them. WTF, does he lost the team mean? Did he lose them at the airport or what? I think fans use these terms to imply that they are somehow students of the game, when in reality they are only parroting what they have heard some talking head has said.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: I was wrong about Rick

                  Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                  If the league "solved" us as early as December, then how in the world did we win 61 games? Doesn't make much sense to me.

                  We went 9-7 in December, but then went 12-3 in January which includes quality wins against Dallas, Detroit, and New Jersey. One of the losses was against San Antonio, and we had a 3 point lead towards the end of regulation, but Turkoglu hit a 3 to force OT with tenths of a sec left to force OT, which the Spurs won by a point. The Spurs game was the night after the victory in Dallas.

                  So think about it: We won in Dallas one night, and went to SA the next night and had them beat, they were only saved by a lucky shot. I don't think you can do that if the league has you "solved" as you state.

                  Ragnar's argument is that Tinsley was the key to that season and that kick-start in january.

                  And, true, Jamaal was (and is) crucial to that (and to this) team. Thing is he has developed a sort of play that more often then not causes us to lose instead of winning the game (like he did in 2003-2004).

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: I was wrong about Rick

                    Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                    If he hasn't lost this team, aren't you worried what it would look like if he does?

                    " He has lost the team and this player has the skill set", make me want to puke when I hear them. WTF, does he lost the team mean? Did he lose them at the airport or what? I think fans use these terms to imply that they are somehow students of the game, when in reality they are only parroting what they have heard some talking head has said.
                    When a coach has "lost his team", it means a situation where the players are no longer really listening to what he is saying. They may run his plays, but may decide to do something else instead. When the coach tries to motivate his (or her) players by saying or doing something, the players are no longer affected. There may be dissension among the players toward the coach, and players may be openly critical about him or her among themselves or to the coach. There is a general lack of respect for what the coach is trying to accomplish.

                    As far as "skill set," that refers to the specific things a player can do. One player may be able to shoot and handle the ball, while another player is limited to rebounding and defense.

                    And hey, I didn't even need to look those up! Hope that's helpful! Have a good one!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: I was wrong about Rick

                      Do you think that this team can be more productive and more cohesive with another coach, essentially any coach, than they are now. I bring this up because the team we have is the team that will likely be on the floor next season. So given that there will be a new coach ( I think RC will move into the office) can this team avoid the losing streaks it has had this year? This is not to say that RC is terrible or can't coach another team to 61 wins or anything like that but merely he is no longer right for the next season.

                      I think that given the same group next season the Ps will be better.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: I was wrong about Rick

                        Originally posted by JB's Breakout Year View Post
                        Good points. 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. But he's not a leader of men (i.e., Riley, Jackson, Brown, Johnson, etc.).

                        And he hasn't changed anything significant about his game management-playbook or otherwise for the past 19 games. Same old, same old.
                        Have you ever wondered what the so called "leaders of men" as you put it would have done with this years team (post trade) or with the post brawl team.

                        I think they would have -

                        Riley - Would have gone to the front office citing hip surgery.

                        Jackson - would have taken time off to find himself and write a book about Zen

                        Brown - Would be giving all kinds of excuses in the press, call out players in the press, burn a few bridges with team management and get fired with $20 million left on his contract (I have respect for coach Brown and I think was wrongfully shown the exit in Detroit and New York but am just making a point)

                        Avery Johnson - Avery is good and has leadership skills but the bottom line is he has a good Dallas team that Ron Rothstein might take to the Western Conference finals.

                        Just think for a moment what Rick has acheived in Detroit and his years here as an assistant and head coach before you let 19 games after a mid season trade cloud your opinion of him.
                        ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: I was wrong about Rick

                          On the other hand, any of those guys might have led to us Greg Oden.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: I was wrong about Rick

                            Originally posted by pacerwaala View Post
                            Have you ever wondered what the so called "leaders of men" as you put it would have done with this years team (post trade) or with the post brawl team.

                            I think they would have -

                            Riley - Would have gone to the front office citing hip surgery.

                            Jackson - would have taken time off to find himself and write a book about Zen

                            Brown - Would be giving all kinds of excuses in the press, call out players in the press, burn a few bridges with team management and get fired with $20 million left on his contract (I have respect for coach Brown and I think was wrongfully shown the exit in Detroit and New York but am just making a point)

                            Avery Johnson - Avery is good and has leadership skills but the bottom line is he has a good Dallas team that Ron Rothstein might take to the Western Conference finals.

                            Just think for a moment what Rick has acheived in Detroit and his years here as an assistant and head coach before you let 19 games after a mid season trade cloud your opinion of him.
                            You may be right about the above coaches. And Rick did a fine job in Detroit and for his first couple of seasons here. Although when he left Detroit, they won a title. I'm just sayin'....

                            But it's not just about the past 19 games. He has his flaws like any other coach, and I would argue he is not in the same ballpark with the coaches listed above. You may disagree. But he's overrated because of the pass he continually gets. A lot of people seem to say he can't be criticized because of the Brawl, Artest, Jackson, etc. He's a part of the problem, too. Quit excusing him because of the circumstances this franchise has gone through.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: I was wrong about Rick

                              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                              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.
                              Miami.

                              It was SVG that figured it out. Larry Brown and everyone else with a brain copied off it.

                              Plagarism is only considered a huge crime in academia.

                              Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

                              I've got others...

                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: I was wrong about Rick

                                Originally posted by Jay View Post
                                I've got others...

                                Can you tell the one about Bob Hill being able to coach?

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X