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

We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

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

  • #16
    Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

    Originally posted by rommie View Post
    I think that this is Rick's last year with the Pacers, it has to be.
    I'd have to agree with this assessment. I think if Rick can't be successfull (and by that I mean a post-ASB run that at least leads to a hard-fought first round exit) after turning over players into a group that at least on paper fits with his preferred style of play, then his time has come.

    Originally posted by rommie View Post
    If the Pacers want to get out and run the break more Rick has to go. He is to controlling. I don't think that he has the personality to let a team be free you could say.
    However, I have to disagree with this. Rick spent a lot of time this year literally sitting on his hands, and yet the team's lack of ability to execute in a free-form offense was still clear. As I said last year, the perimeter shooting and spacing ability of this team simply does not allow it to be a successful fast-paced team - and the team was falling apart if the defense got back fast enough.

    I give Rick props for trying to let the team free-flow. This year the players need not to blame Rick but to blame their own results when free-flowing.
    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


    • #17
      Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I agree, but the league is filled with those types of coaches. So unless you find the next Don Nelson (who didn't have a team even get above the lowest Celtic PPG average of 106 in the 80s, from this season back to 1998 and I stopped looking after that) you're stuck with a grind it out coach.

      You're not gonna get Mike D'Antoni or George Karl. And are you going to want Sam Mitchell, Bob Hill, or Eddie Jordan? Those are the only 5 coaches that cracked 100PPG last season.

      If you replace RC, the odds are you're going to get another coach that plays the same style.
      That's why I say the quality of coaching in the NBA is at an all-time low.

      They're all lemmings, running over the cliff together, except for a handful of nonconformists that don't ever get to work with high quality teams. Well, Bo Hill had a chance in SA, and led them to 61-wins one season and the WCFs the next season before Popovich blamed him for D-Rob, Elliott, Person and others all missing the entire season with significant injuries.

      Whatever happened to original thought and creativity?
      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


      • #18
        Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

        Originally posted by GetMoney View Post
        thas just the way i talk

        no1 else seemed to have a problem with them...
        That's not true, and we have rules here for a reason.

        This is a moderated board, not a free-for-all where anything goes under the misguided notion of "free speech" (hint: this board is not run by the US government).

        It isn't for everybody.
        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


        • #19
          Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          If you replace RC, the odds are you're going to get another coach that plays the same style.
          I don't know about that.

          Rick Aldeman anyone? If the Pacers want to play up tempo there is a coach to do it with. He is probably the most proven coach that would be avaliable.

          Stan Van Gundy could be another canidate. I don't know how interested he is in being a head coach again, but he would be a good choice if he wants to.

          Terry Porter is someone I thought did solid in Milwuakee and should not have been fired. There is Mario Ellie, I think he is an assistant somewhere this year. I think that Tim Hardaway has been rumored to be interested in coaching but I don't know how good he would be. Mark Jackson's name has been brought up in the past as well I think.

          Marc Iavaroni could be another possiable replacement. He is the Sun's top assistant.

          Michael Cooper could be a canidate. He was the LA Sparks head coach, Denver Nuggets assistant and intern head coach, and now the head coach for the NBDL's Albuquerque Thunderbird. I think he would be an excellant choice for the new head coach.

          There will be a lot of choices out there to pick from. I think that the Pacers need to not only replace Rick, but replace atleast some of the staff as well.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

            Originally posted by GetMoney View Post
            thas just the way i talk

            no1 else seemed to have a problem with them... are you rick carlisle?
            No, but he's the creator of this site and what he says goes.

            If you'd like to stay, you'd better get a handle on the rules of this forum.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              and I think you see a pretty consistant message in this trade...

              Enough. Shut up and play the system because without it you guys aren't that good a team.


              If they really want to run, it wasn't going to work with Al at SF or Jack at SG. Rick's numbers on break points with Al at SF support that view, and we all saw how poor Jack was as a break finisher.


              That's exactly what it is. The players were wrong in griping. They weren't good at running and they weren't going to get better. Now I feel like we've traded off the malcontents and replaced them with players who are better in transition. I'm actually more interested to see how Nelson's going to deal with Harrington and Jackson's (lack of) running games.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                Originally posted by rommie View Post
                I don't know about that.

                Rick Aldeman anyone? If the Pacers want to play up tempo there is a coach to do it with. He is probably the most proven coach that would be avaliable.

                Stan Van Gundy could be another canidate. I don't know how interested he is in being a head coach again, but he would be a good choice if he wants to.

                Terry Porter is someone I thought did solid in Milwuakee and should not have been fired. There is Mario Ellie, I think he is an assistant somewhere this year. I think that Tim Hardaway has been rumored to be interested in coaching but I don't know how good he would be. Mark Jackson's name has been brought up in the past as well I think.

                Marc Iavaroni could be another possiable replacement. He is the Sun's top assistant.

                Michael Cooper could be a canidate. He was the LA Sparks head coach, Denver Nuggets assistant and intern head coach, and now the head coach for the NBDL's Albuquerque Thunderbird. I think he would be an excellant choice for the new head coach.

                There will be a lot of choices out there to pick from. I think that the Pacers need to not only replace Rick, but replace atleast some of the staff as well.
                And you know what type of a coach Tim Hardaway and Mark Jackson would be, along with the other assistances on your list?

                Rick is given credit for running the offense under Bird when they went to the finals. A team that was #4 in the league in scoring with 103PPG.

                What happened when he was given his own team? Just because you do one thing as an assistant, doesn't mean you do it as a head coach.

                There's very few proven NBA coaches that try a running type scheme, and isn't even close to being considered running when compared to the 80's Celtics like Jay did.

                The Ps aren't trying to completely rebuild, which would be what they would start to do if they brought in an unproven coach to run a system opposite of what they have in place.

                The odds of landing a Don Nelson or Mike D'Antoni are very slim.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  And you know what type of a coach Tim Hardaway and Mark Jackson would be, along with the other assistances on your list?

                  Rick is given credit for running the offense under Bird when they went to the finals. A team that was #4 in the league in scoring with 103PPG.

                  What happened when he was given his own team? Just because you do one thing as an assistant, doesn't mean you do it as a head coach.

                  There's very few proven NBA coaches that try a running type scheme, and isn't even close to being considered running when compared to the 80's Celtics like Jay did.

                  The Ps aren't trying to completely rebuild, which would be what they would start to do if they brought in an unproven coach to run a system opposite of what they have in place.

                  The odds of landing a Don Nelson or Mike D'Antoni are very slim.
                  I don't think it is about finding a Don Nelson or Mike D'Antoni. Their teams run to extremes. I don't think that we have to do that.

                  However, if Larry wants an uptempo team I think that Rick has to go. Even if he doesn't I wonder if Rick has the locker room under control although with a trade like what was just made maybe that will change.

                  I'm not saying that really any of those coaches would be better than Rick or are the next Don Nelson or Mike D'Antoni. I was just listing the possiable replacements should the Pacers let Rick go. Especially when you give an guy their first head coaching job in the NBA you are taking on the unknown. It's a gamble. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. I trust that if Larry and Donnie decide they need a new head coach they will be able to spot a quality one regardless of his head coaching experience.

                  I think that we have pretty much already completely re-built this team. Jermaine, Jamaal, Jeff, Danny, and David are the only current Pacers who have been with the Pacers over a full season. This team has made major moves. Why not change the coach?

                  Like I said. Rick is a good coach. I have been a supporter of him. He just doesn't seem to be the right fit here anymore. Rick has had a tough tenure here after his first year that I think that has taken its toll on the whole franchise that the team and Rick himself deserve a new start.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                    lol wow

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                      do with me what you wish i could care less

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                        Who says we want a team that runs? Has that ever been a stated goal?

                        Also, what does JO want and what can Carlisle do to pacify him in this offense and still be effective?

                        -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


                        • #27
                          Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I agree, but the league is filled with those types of coaches. So unless you find the next Don Nelson (who didn't have a team even get above the lowest Celtic PPG average of 106 in the 80s, from this season back to 1998 and I stopped looking after that) you're stuck with a grind it out coach.

                          You're not gonna get Mike D'Antoni or George Karl. And are you going to want Sam Mitchell, Bob Hill, or Eddie Jordan? Those are the only 5 coaches that cracked 100PPG last season.

                          If you replace RC, the odds are you're going to get another coach that plays the same style.
                          You may get a coach similar to RC but not the micromanaging of the team. Despite what he said and how hard he tried, he always reverted to calling set plays.
                          .

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                            Has the team shown the ability to pick and choose their own plays? Towards the end of last year, when Tins was down and AJ was starting, he started freeing AJ up to make his own decisions.

                            As a coach you first have to trust your team. I don't see a player, in a leading position that can make a play call, that RC can give that much responsiblity to.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                              Wow you mean there are actually teams where the players don't grumble?
                              The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: We need to discuss Rick Carlisle again

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Has the team shown the ability to pick and choose their own plays? Towards the end of last year, when Tins was down and AJ was starting, he started freeing AJ up to make his own decisions.

                                As a coach you first have to trust your team. I don't see a player, in a leading position that can make a play call, that RC can give that much responsiblity to.
                                I see your point, but if the coach isn't going to trust his PG, why have one? I'd like to see JT and a couple others packaged for a possibility at Kidd.
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X