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

Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

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

  • #31
    Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

    I feel I need to clarify my response. I do not, and never have, trusted Bird. That statement speaks more about me than it does Bird. To this point Bird has done more right than wrong. There have been times where he was right, and I was wrong. Overall though he has made many decisions, and said many things that make me worry that at any moment he could completely screw things up big time. If we were to replace him though I would trust his replacement even less. He is the lesser of all evils, but he is still an evil from my point of view.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

      Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
      Selected "NO" and would have done so already a year ago.

      He is not horrible GM (no Kahn, Isiah or Grunfeld). But over last few years, his decisions have IMO been net-negative...

      1) botching the situation with Granger.
      2) giving a bad deal to C.J.Miles
      3) the indecision of point guard spot
      4) acquiring Copeland who most obviously could not defend to qualify in Vogel-ball
      5) drafts - DRAFTS

      ...and so on...


      Seriously? Of all the things you could complain about, you pick out things that don't even make sense.

      Granger was awesome but he would have contributed nothing in the playoffs for us even though Turner stunk it up. In fact, Granger would have just got injured again(like he did with the Clippers) and we would have been down a body(s) completely rather than having Turner and Lavoy's bodies. After the fact, Granger might have left through free agency anyways and even if he didn't, he ended up hurt again and trade anyways. Though I love him as a fan, he's offered nothing til this date since the trade other than the potential of being a friend to the players. He isn't actually helping on the floor in any way, shape or form. Hopefully the Suns can fix that and get him healthy again like they've done with so many others.

      I was upset with CJ Miles for most of the season but at this point, on what planet is 4 million a year for Miles bad? Dude is a chucker for sure but he's had his nights where he buries 3 after 3, after 3. You're not finding many better shooting guards with the price tag of 4 millions. Heck, in this league you're lucky to find a shooting guard at all. Hands down the worst position in the league at the moment and hardest to fill.

      Lastly... we've had point guard issues for years but you choose to bring it up after Hill's breakout year. Sorry, but your post hit so many points that were just totally wrong. I'm not even sure what's going on here, so I'll just leave this as my final thoughts on everything you just said:


      Last edited by TOP; 06-26-2015, 08:56 AM.
      "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

        I'll start by saying that I love Larry. I love some of the things he's done for us in the past. But, like Pritchard said, the draft is our only way to "get special". We have to swing for the fences to try and increase our talent, because our big FA signing odds aren't as high. Last night felt like a very safe pick that we could have got with the 14-17th pick. I'm disappointed and ready to turn the front office over to Pritchard.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

          Originally posted by I Love P View Post
          When it comes to free agency, yes. When it comes to 2nd round picks, yes. When it comes to 1st round picks, no. He'll be right back again picking between 10-16 next year and he'll f that up too.
          Barring anymore major injuries, I would bet my house that we are higher than a seven seed next year. We are not picking higher than #16 unless we get a lottery pick for Hibbert.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

            Would this have even been a poll had Bird drafted PD favorites Cam Payne/Devin Booker?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Would this have even been a poll had Bird drafted PD favorites Cam Payne/Devin Booker?
              No, because those would have been considerably better picks.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                I am not complaining about the pick, though his trackrecord is a lot worse then most revisionist here tend to admit, I do however complaint vout the number of guaranteed contracts given to 2nd rounders that did not work so well for us, or his trades.
                I am mainly talking about his complete lack of people and social skills and the fact he cant look past his own importance.
                What he did to DG is an afront to this organisation and he has put Roy out with the trash as well, which will cost us dearly whether he stays or not, he apparently pissed off Lance enough for him to make a point to NOT come to the Pacers, like DG did not want to re-sign here and like D West is now parting ways, that all is LB
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                  Originally posted by thatch3232 View Post
                  No, because those would have been considerably better picks.
                  Didn't know they played in the league already.

                  All three guys were projected to go in the same area of the draft, so it's not like we reached for a guy

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                    I do. I like the Turner pick. I feel like his floor is Ian but with much better hands, can actually catch entry passes, and clean up around the paint not to mention shoot the three. If he can develop a few post moves, even better.

                    If Turner develops a solid three point shot in the NBA, his ability to spread the floor for guys like PG to penetrate is going to benefit the Pacers' wings to an incredible extent. I for one don't want PG to get hammered every time he penetrates to the basket for the rest of his career because no one has to respect our bigs. Think how much better D-Rose's career may have turned out if he wasn't putting his body at serious risk in the paint because Noah and Boozer were camped out in there for so many years.

                    All I do is read draft analysis like most of you but Joseph Young stuck out to me as someone the analysts thought could be a nice value pick at the end of the first round. Instead, he fell to the Pacers at 43 and we did the right thing by picking him up. He's at worst a good utility bench player, but his ceiling is a solid starter and maybe even a fringe All-Star. Not guaranteeing he's going to get there, but I think Young will probably go down as a top 15 or so player in this draft.

                    This will go down as one of the better Pacers drafts. Let these guys develop.
                    Last edited by idioteque; 06-26-2015, 09:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                      No.

                      Pacers have been pretty good, but lets not pretend the East has been full of dominating teams. The East is significantly weaker than the West.

                      Bird's made some good moves, but recently, no, he has not made very many good moves. His all in has really hurt the franchise. Trading multiple first rounders have left the roster very bare, and that you have to fill with cheap crap for the most part.

                      1. I wrote it down somewhere, but the Pacers have traded 4 first rounders in about 6 years, and one of those being a lottery pick. That's cheap talent you've just taken away from your roster.
                      1a. Trading Leonard for Hill. I never liked this trade. This wasn't a terrible trade per-se, but trading away lottery talent that slipped for a player on his last year of his rookie deal just wasn't a smart play. Not only that, GHill has struggled with his aggressiveness and isn't really a pg. Leonard likely wouldn't have been as great as his is now, but the Pacers still have need for a sg. PG and Leonard would essentially have been interchangeable and they would have made a great defensive dou, and would have been something special to watch.
                      1b. trading 2 first round picks for Scola. I don't even. Scola sucked his first year here, but was hella good his second. The cost was just too high.
                      1bb. Add to the fact that the Pacers could have had Scola. I was pissed when they just re-signed GHill like that and matched Hibbert right away and not waiting for the amensties to be done. Bird didn't know he was gonna be amnestied. No ****, that's why you wait. We are always complaining about small market teams needing to spend wisely and such. What better way to get some good talent at a low cost than an amnestied player. I just never understood why the Pacers never waited for the amnesty deadline. It just lacks complete common sense. Could have had Scola and kept 2 first rounders.
                      1c. Just horrible picks like Hans, Brandon Rush, Plumlee. Trading multiple 2nd rounders for James White and giving him a guaranteed contact only to cut him.
                      2. Publicly shaming Hibbert knowing that he's a big softy. Also, you lowered his trade value by such statements
                      3. Not forcing Vogel to get an offensive coach. Offensive has been an issue for years. I'm doubtful moving to a faster pace is gonna help. What will change? I don't see it right now.
                      4. Not trading players at peak value. Only when they seem to be at their lowest. Lance is a big one. It was clear the Pacers weren't going to keep him after the season. It was clear he was causing issues with GHill and Hibbert...probably others. I miss the days when the Pacers traded players at peak value and got great value in return. It might not make fans happy at the time, but it helped long term. DD for JO.
                      5. While Turner was a solid pick. Not going to refute that, you telling me that the Pacers couldn't pull off a trade with Charlotte to get Winslow? Winslow would have been sweet redemption for trading Leonard. It was just 2 spots. I'd have been fine taking on Marvin Williams to move up 2 damn spots for Winslow. C'mon. WTF is Pritchard getting paid for?
                      6. Signing players having career years to long term deals who have never really shown much until a contract year. I'm wary of any player having a career year in a contract year that isn't on a rookie deal. Green and Cope were just 2 horrible signings that made absolutely no sense. They simply didn't fit in with what Vogel does as a coach. They don't play any defense. And their offense couldn't outweight their porous D.
                      7. David West. Loved the initial signing of David West. $10M for 2 years was great. But he got older and they re-signed him paying him $12M/yr. Just not a smart thing to sign a guy over 30 to a contract like that. It was overpaying for sure.


                      I could go on.

                      Bird's done some real good, and I know I'm coming off like a negative Nancy. Just haven't been a fan of his moves recently.

                      I'd like to see a bit more risk taking. The 2010 draft was phenomenal. Drafting PG and Lance were a pretty big risk, but paid off in big ways. Just would like to see more of that. Trading players (not always, but when it makes the most sense long term) at peak value rather than at low value.

                      Give Pritchard more slack. Why is he even here if he isn't gonna make creative trades like he did in Portland? What has he done since being the Pacers GM? Honestly.
                      Last edited by Sparhawk; 06-26-2015, 09:22 AM.
                      First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                        Honestly, I'm on the fence right now.

                        I wanna hear what happened between Larry and David for David to completely shut out the Pacers about this offseason. That seems like the opposite type of thing David would do, so it makes me think he's pissed off about something. Going from the Pacers to the Knicks, for less money, and complete silence towards the Pacers about this decision? Something went down privately.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Honestly, I'm on the fence right now.

                          I wanna hear what happened between Larry and David for David to completely shut out the Pacers about this offseason. That seems like the opposite type of thing David would do, so it makes me think he's pissed off about something. Going from the Pacers to the Knicks, for less money, and complete silence towards the Pacers about this decision? Something went down privately.
                          For now, I trust Larry to make the Pacers contenders. But I too want to know whats going on here.

                          You think Pacers told him he was coming off the bench?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                            Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                            I voted NO because I'm sick and tired of his trades. All the trades he makes benefits the other teams more than us. Bird hasn't gotten swindled in a trade, but SA basically won a championship because of a trade with us. I don't mind the Turner draft pick, but it would be nice to draft a player to get excited about maybe once in my life
                            Paul George? Lance? Brandon Rush? Granger? Shawne Williams? Bender?

                            I don't know how far back your life goes, but those were all exciting picks for me. And I'm aware Bird didn't control all those picks--i was thinking lifetime
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                              Originally posted by able View Post

                              I am mainly talking about his complete lack of people and social skills and the fact he cant look past his own importance.

                              Couldn't agree more!!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Do you still have faith in Larry Bird to run this franchise?

                                Ya'll can bash Bird with unquantifiable talk like "lack of people skills" all you want but the results on the floor speak for themselves.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X