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

Coach Knockout RD 3!

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

  • Coach Knockout RD 3!

    Larry Legend fell to the other 3 coaches. I am kinda shocked. But it was tough. I still say Bird is one of the best coaches we ever had. This next round will get very interesting. Kick the tires and light the fires!


    Rick Carlisle
    Overall: 181-147
    Playoff Record: 18-17

    2003-04: 61-21 1st in East, reached Conference Finals; 10-6 in Playoffs
    2004-05: 44-38 6th (out of 15) in East, reached Conference Semi-Finals; 6-7 in Playoffs
    2005-06: 41-41 6th (out of 15) in East; 2-4 in Playoffs
    2006-07: 35-47 9th (out of 15) in East




    Frank Vogel
    Overall: 197-139
    Playoff Record: 28-26

    2010-11: 20-18 8th in East; 1-4 in Playoffs
    2011-12: 42-24 3rd in East, reached Conference Semi-Finals; 6-5 in Playoffs
    2012-13: 49-32 3rd in East, reached Conference Finals; 11-8 in Playoffs
    2013-14: 56-26 1st in East, reached Conference Finals; 10-9 in Playoffs
    2014-15: 30-39




    Larry Brown
    Overall: 190-138
    Playoff Record: 22-16

    1993-94: 47-35 5th in East, reached Conference Finals; 10-6 in Playoffs
    1994-95: 52-30 2nd in East, reached Conference Finals; 10-7 in Playoffs
    1995-96: 52-30 3rd in East; 2-3 in Playoffs
    1996-97: 39-43 10th in East
    56
    Rick Carlisle
    25.00%
    14
    Frank Vogel
    35.71%
    20
    Larry Brown
    39.29%
    22

    The poll is expired.



    "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
    "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

  • #2
    Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

    Though he was the coach that was on-board when the franchise became competitive (Thanks Byron), he kind of D'd the team over when he decided it was time to move on.

    Bye Larry. For all the talk of 'playing the right way', you didn't live up to 'the right way' when you decided to go elsewhere.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

      We've had some really good coaches in my lifetime and picking between them is tough. Vogel is a good coach that I think is still developing but of the remaining coaches only 1 lacks a nba championship on his resume. I know that Brown and Carlisle didn't win it all here but it shows what kind of coach they are.
      I'll expect for Brown to bite the bullet on this round due to the what have you done for me lately mentality more than anything else, but consider that he's the only coach in history to win both an nba and ncaa title as well as the only coach to coach 8 teams into the nba playoffs.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

        Frank isn't in Larry Brown's league, at least yet. Not even close. I'm really surprised by this poll.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Frank isn't in Larry Brown's league, at least yet. Not even close. I'm really surprised by this poll.
          I voted for Larry because of the way he left and because Frank has arguably had more success. Nobody would argue that Frank is the better coach or has had the better career, but he already has a better Pacer legacy.

          LB always had his eye on the next job and it cost him a chance to take down MJ.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

            While I think Rick is an exceptional coach, he did not do his best work here. To be fair, I think he was a bit traumatized by what happened in Detroit, and overcorrected (anyone remember the Dale Carnegie press conference?)

            As for Brown leading, I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed. I think the man belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of basketball coaches. Yes, he burns hot and quick, and obviously the last 10 years have not been kind. Before that, though, give him any roster for a single season, and I honestly don't believe anyone could do a better job getting maximum results.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

              How the hell is Larry Brown about to get voted off? He took the Pacers to the next level
              Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

                Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                How the hell is Larry Brown about to get voted off? He took the Pacers to the next level
                There are obviously some relatively new Pacer fans voting. Larry Brown is the coach who brought the NBA Pacers into relevance. He also has a lot more accomplishments than Frank. This should really be between Rick and Larry.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  There are obviously some relatively new Pacer fans voting. Larry Brown is the coach who brought the NBA Pacers into relevance. He also has a lot more accomplishments than Frank. This should really be between Rick and Larry.
                  Did Frank also not bring the Pacers back into relevance from the JOB era- and accomplish that in half a season?

                  Of course Larry has a more accomplished career than Frank, and there's almost no way Frank will ever have the type of longevity and innovative impact on the league.... But I'm willing to guess he wouldn't get the bronze medal if he took over the Olympic team like Brown did...

                  On paper, Vogel has already surpassed Brown's career as a Pacer coach in terms of accomplishments. Granted, he could bolt to coach the next Iverson, but I doubt it.

                  Question-

                  Would Brown have had the same results as Bird in 98? Was the 97 collapse on Brown? Haven't thought about this in a long time (obviously). Curious to hear people's thoughts in hindsight.
                  Last edited by Isaac; 08-10-2015, 12:11 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

                    I think people need to realize that Frank already has better numbers than the 2 guys he's facing and is still the coach of this team. Larry Brown had some bad luck with Reggie's eye injury and flamed out after that, and Rick had 1 really good season as a head coach WITH THE PACERS, obviously the brawl hurt him too, but so did the flame out of the 2013/14 Pacers season for Frank.

                    They all had great moments, and hopefully Frank will continue to have great moments, but Frank holds his own here and will be going on longer.

                    I voted for Carlisle personally.
                    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                    ----------------- Reggie Miller

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

                      I am voting based on who I think the best coach is out of them, and I truly believe both Carlisle and Vogel are better coaches than Brown.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

                        I would love to see ages to go along with Votes on this one, I think the older guys among us think a lot more of Larry Brown than the younger ones.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

                          Larry Brown was an amazing hall-of-fame coach, so long as you didn't let him meddle in personnel decisions. He took chicken **** and made it into chicken soup more times than any other coach in basketball history.

                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

                            If we're talking just Pacer accomplishments, look at this bio:

                            This coach took over a mediocre team that had been floundering for years. With development mostly from the current core and a few key additions, this coach guided the team to two Eastern Conference Finals. This was caused mostly by a large improvement on the defensive end from this coach's instruction. Near the end of his third and fourth full season with the team, this coach dealt with key injuries including the team's star player and some chemistry issues. This caused the team's record to slip, and in his fourth full season, the team missed the playoffs.

                            It's amazing how that describes both Brown and Vogel, and with a few small changes, it could describe Carlisle as well.

                            I'm voting Brown because at the end of that tenure, he quit. That breaks the tie with three very similar coaches.

                            Brown putting the Pacers on the map doesn't give him any bonus points to me. Sure, he did it first. Often first people should get extra credit because they make it easier for succeeding coaches. But was the franchise really in better shape on the day Vogel took over than it was on the day Brown took over? I would argue the effect of the 2000's meant the whole franchise had to reset, and Vogel ended up putting the Pacers on the map again in a very similar way to what Brown did.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Coach Knockout RD 3!

                              I'd argue the winning template was still there, even if the team had gone backwards. Bird inherited a team that had good chemistry and had experience winning together, and he inherited a rik smits that wasn't a total stiff. All of those things were left behind by larry brown.

                              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