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

Fire Frank Vogel

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

    Originally posted by docpaul View Post
    . . .The thing that sticks in my mind strongest is how this team came out of the gate following the allstar break. The pieces and potential are there once there's a full throated commitment to a strategy, IMO.

    We. need. some. freaking. leadership. in. this. locker. room.
    The team also came out of the gate fast in November. But in both cases, the wear and tear of the NBA season caught up with them. JMO, but the major problem this year has been Paul's recovery, Monta's surgery, CJ having to play the 4 and injuries to Rodney and GHill. If this team is going to have a good offense, Paul, Monta and Hill are the guys that will have to carry the load. And Rodney and CJ the offensive load of the Backups. The thing all these guys have in common are having been hurt or getting hurt. Hard to score effectively when your best guys are not at full strength. Even more so when they are also your shooters.

    I expect that next season, both Paul and Monta will play better. Up until this season, Monta was a top 50 type player. This year he is just another guy. Unless he has just fallen off a cliff athletically wise, he should be better next season. Paul is a better player, skill and awareness wise, but athletically, he is not 100%. Mostly that shows up on defense, but offensively, his shots are more challenged than in the past. He just can't get them off as quickly. Next year, we can hope that will be better. In either case, there is very little that Frank can do about that.

    Originally posted by Sookie View Post
    That's the truth of it.

    Vogel doesn't need better assistants, he needs better players. A lot of his "deficiencies" stem from that problem.

    Comment


    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

      So what I read most of you saying is that we are NOT a contender this season and need to continue to build the identity of this squad. To me, that means going with the youth of this team, as I have said over and over. I also agree with some of you who feel PG 13 is a large part of our problem. It sometimes seems that Paul only wants to play HERO ball and not face the every play grind that would make him one of the top 10 players in the League. From the showboat dribbling, to the slacking off on defense, to putting himself above the changes the team wanted him to try, PG is becoming more and more about himself, IMO.
      We need to get a good draft pic again this offseason as well as make some moves on the trade scene to build the talent pool to a contending status.

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Are we going to do tit-for-tat?

        Roy.
        Lance.
        West.
        Scola.

        Those are off the top of my head.
        3 of those 4 guys were big guys. Big guys with some talent have a better chance of succeeding in a slow bogged-down offense than wings do. Also, a guy like West was just so talented that he was going to put up good numbers anywhere.

        The fourth player - Lance - represents one of Vogel's best qualities: the ability to harvest a young talent from scratch and mold him into the system. The Pacers certainly get good results from players they draft, no doubt about that.

        Where we struggle is assimilating veteran wings/guards from other teams into our system. Gerald Green, DJ Augistin, Evan Turner, and Monta Ellis all took an immediate dive once they came to the Pacers. Three of them - Green/Augistin/Turner - pretty much played the worst basketball of their careers and for long stretches and were borderline worthless. Since leaving the Pacers, all three saw a resurgence. Each of these players have talent and should have never been as worthless as they were here. If that 2013 team could have got some real production from Green and Augistin, then maybe that team makes the Finals because the starting 5 was so good. We were just one reliable bench player away from winning that series, but we pretty much had the least productive bench of any team in NBA Conference Finals history.

        Bird had to know that Danny Granger was a vital locker room guy, but he made that trade for a reason - Turner can play. The Celtics are one of the best teams in the East and Turner has been playing solid all season. He should have never been as utterly worthless as he was here. I'm not saying it's all coaching or anything, but I think it's certainly fair to question the system.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-02-2016, 09:20 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

          What happens in the offseason will be detrimental in keeping PG. Next season could be his last season here if the lack of moves or wrong moves are taken. That can't happen. He will opt out and if things don't look promising he will go West.

          Comment


          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

            Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
            What happens in the offseason will be detrimental in keeping PG. Next season could be his last season here if the lack of moves or wrong moves are taken. That can't happen. He will opt out and if things don't look promising he will go West.
            I didn't think he could opt out until the 5th year of his contract. That would be following the 17/18 season wouldn't it, not after next year?
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              3 of those 4 guys were big guys. Big guys with some talent have a better chance of succeeding in a slow bogged-down offense than wings do. Also, a guy like West was just so talented that he was going to put up good numbers anywhere.

              The fourth player - Lance - represents one of Vogel's best qualities: the ability to harvest a young talent from scratch and mold him into the system. The Pacers certainly get good results from players they draft, no doubt about that.

              Where we struggle is assimilating veteran wings/guards from other teams into our system. Gerald Green, DJ Augistin, Evan Turner, and Monta Ellis all took an immediate dive once they came to the Pacers. Three of them - Green/Augistin/Turner - pretty much played the worst basketball of their careers and for long stretches were pretty much worthless. Since leaving the Pacers, all three saw a resurgence. Each of these players have talent and should have never been as worthless as they were here. If that 2013 team could have got some real production from Green and Augistin, then maybe that team makes the Finals because the starting 5 was so good. We were just one reliable bench player away from winning that series, but we pretty much had the least productive bench of any team in NBA Conference Finals history.

              Bird had to know that Danny Granger was a vital locker room guy, but he made that trade for a reason - Turner can play. The Celtics are one of the best teams in the East and Turner has been playing solid all season. He should have never been as utterly worthless as he was here. I'm not saying it's all coaching or anything, but I think it's certainly fair to question the system.
              For comparison's sake, Rick Carlisle has gotten career years out of guys like Darren Collison, OJ Mayo and our very own Monta Ellis. His current guard rotation includes Deron Williams, a not so productive Wes Matthews, JJ Barea and Raymond Felton. And those guys produce.

              Like you said, it's not all coaching or nothing. But there's some evidence there that demonstrates that we could do much better in the assimilation department as you described.

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                For comparison's sake, Rick Carlisle has gotten career years out of guys like Darren Collison, OJ Mayo and our very own Monta Ellis. His current guard rotation includes Deron Williams, a not so productive Wes Matthews, JJ Barea and Raymond Felton. And those guys produce.

                Like you said, it's not all coaching or nothing. But there's some evidence there that demonstrates that we could do much better in the assimilation department as you described.
                Really. I mean, this starting lineup has played together for almost 12 games. They should be perfect by now.
                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


                • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Really. I mean, this starting lineup has played together for almost 12 games. They should be perfect by now.
                  That's not what anyone is saying.

                  We're looking at at least four different players spread out over multiple years who played some of the worst basketball of their careers as Pacers, if not the absolute worst basketball.

                  Monta has had a down year. Green, Augistin, and Turner were all basically worthless as Pacers when all was said and done. Then each of them leaves the Pacers and pretty much immediately gets better.

                  Nothing is black and white, I would never say that Vogel is 100% to blame for this. But I think it's putting one's head in the sand to not even entertain the idea that poor offensive scheming has resulted in routinely getting such disappointing production from newly acquired wings/guards.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    Nothing is black and white, I would never say that Vogel is 100% to blame for this. But I think it's putting one's head in the sand to not even entertain the idea that poor offensive scheming has resulted in routinely getting such disappointing production from newly acquired wings/guards.
                    Except that would seem to indicate these guys come here and can't get open shots and that is why their production goes down. I would venture to say that these guys have missed tons of wide open shots as part of their disappointing production. All the coach can do is set up the offense to get you open looks.
                    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


                    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Except that would seem to indicate these guys come here and can't get open shots and that is why their production goes down. I would venture to say that these guys have missed tons of wide open shots as part of their disappointing production. All the coach can do is set up the offense to get you open looks.
                      I remember Chuck-em missing open look after open look after open look. It was crazy.
                      Danger Zone

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                        Evan Turner was here for 27games, in the middle of a complete basketball breakdown, on a roster that he didn't fit at all, and we're to declare that Frank and his inability to coach is the reason why Turner was so bad here?
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          However when your boss tells you that he wants to try something new and he has given you a new set of tools to work with to try it you better at least give it a real try and hope that he see's that the new tools won't work the way he thought they would.
                          Let's assume Larry fired Frank for not putting in a good effort into small ball, does a new coach change PG's stance and get the Pacers to run small ball?

                          What coach would be a good enough get to make PG leaving, either by demanding a trade or simply being traded, palatable?
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            We're looking at at least four different players spread out over multiple years who played some of the worst basketball of their careers as Pacers, if not the absolute worst basketball.
                            Does this have as much, less, or equal weight to the accomplishments the Pacers have seen under Frank?

                            The Pacers, as a whole, have routinely over achieved under Frank. If Frank's inability to reach these players was so great, how does Frank continue to win at almost a .600% clip with two ECFs in 6yrs?
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Does this have as much, less, or equal weight to the accomplishments the Pacers have seen under Frank?

                              The Pacers, as a whole, have routinely over achieved under Frank. If Frank's inability to reach these players was so great, how does Frank continue to win at almost a .600% clip with two ECFs in 6yrs?
                              I don't think that Sollozzo or I are coming down on Frank as a whole. He's done a great job of turning the franchise around and we have seen a very good amount of success during his tenure. Nobody can dispute that.

                              We are simply pointing out one of his reoccurring weaknesses that we would like to see improvement on. If we plan on continuing to see major roster additions to this team, then I hope guys can come here and play up to their ability.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                I don't think that Sollozzo or I are coming down on Frank as a whole. He's done a great job of turning the franchise around and we have seen a very good amount of success during his tenure. Nobody can dispute that.

                                We are simply pointing out one of his reoccurring weaknesses that we would like to see improvement on. If we plan on continuing to see major roster additions to this team, then I hope guys can come here and play up to their ability.
                                But when I give a list of players that played well in Indy, but then tanked when they left, I'm given excuses as to how that can be. Find me one single coach where a couple players didn't prosper under them. For example, Nazr Mohammed played better after he left the Spurs and Popovich.

                                The assumption is automatically being made that because players got better after leaving Indy, it was due to Frank. As the saying goes, correlation does not imply causation.

                                Evan Turner didn't fit with the Pacers. Not only did he not fit, he replaced the heart and soul of the Pacers in Danny. Not only did he not fit and replaced a loved player by his teammates, the whole team faltered.

                                The Pacers played better the following season, who's to say Turner if he had stayed wouldn't have also? Who's to say it was due to Frank, rather than the situation overall?

                                There's no evidence for any of it. Turner didn't play well in Indy, is now playing well in Boston, conclusion: Frank didn't coach him well. It's not that simple.

                                I know that the Pacers have continually over-achieved under Frank. And I know that the Pacers are performing how most of this board, and the NBA experts predicted to start the season. Why it's now a coaching issue, rather than just a talent/roster issue (which was the reasoning to start the season) makes me scratch my head. What changed predictions, and why is it now Frank?
                                Last edited by Since86; 03-02-2016, 11:33 AM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X