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 Peck View Post
    All you have to do is watch the end of the game play where Ellis misses a wide open Myles Turner under the basket for what would have been the easiest game winning shot in history and watch Frank's reaction as he jumps 5' in the air trying to get Monta to just look left.

    Heck, even Solo is up and pointing directly at Myles.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Rodney Stuckey, Joe Young, Monta Ellis, George Hill, Ty Lawson all are guards, none of them are a pure shooting guard and in fact none of them can shoot very well period. Yes I know George Hill had a period where he was shooting a very high % from three and that lasted what about a month and a half. I will file that away under the rule of even the sun shines on a dog's *** someday's.

      Okay so Bird wants to play the spread offense like other teams do. I don't like it but okay I understand that is just the new normal so let's start naming all of the big men he brought in that could stretch the floor.

      Our bigs are as follows. LaVoy Allen, Ian Mahinmi, Shayne Whittington, Myles Turner, Jordan Hill, Raheem Christmas.

      Well let's see stretching the floor falls under the category of being able to hit consistently enough from the outside (not just three's) that the other big player has to come out an defend you. Okay Myles Turner can do that. Jordan Hill facing up from about 10-12 feet isn't a disaster. Mahinmi has made it so if he shoots from up to 14' nobody really cringes if he is open. LaVoy Allen is like a box of chocolates and both Whit & Christmas were none factors as they toiled away in Ft Waynes.
      My two main problems with your analysis is George Hill has been a great 3 point shooter for most of the season, and if you REALLY want to analyze Larry's plan it would include PG playing at least SOME minutes at the 4.

      The majority of our losses go like this. We lose a close game because we make mental mistakes late and after PG complains about 2 things, effort and getting stretched out by spread teams, to which common sense responds...



      But despite PG not buying in even a little, this is (or should be if you take care of business) a 45 win team, which left 5 games on the table, easy. As constructed, this team crapped the bed so many times. The players on the court made just awful turnovers and decisions, and just completely forgot how to play defense. That is not on Bird, that is not on Vogel, that's the players.

      I just can't understand it. Have we all been watching the same team? The players were there to close games. Whether it's PG and Ghill, your best defensive players and longest teammates, completely blowing a switch and being in no man's land or it's Lavoy Allen throwing the ball out of bounds ON an inbounds TWICE this season during the last minutes of a game or it's pulling up for contested jumpers instead going to the rim and getting to the line. Monta missing Turner wide under the rim. This team had the players to be a 50 win team and just simply did not compete 48 minutes mentally.

      Quit giving the players a pass guys. Let's hope they focus for playoffs.
      Last edited by freddielewis14; 04-12-2016, 09:27 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
        My two main problems with your analysis is George Hill has been a great 3 point shooter for most of the season, and if you REALLY want to analyze Larry's plan it would include PG playing at least SOME minutes at the 4.
        You analyze what happened in reality, not what happened in someone's mind. The plan didn't work so therefore you grade the plan as failing, because that's what happened, the plan failed.

        Bird built a team on paper with a plan in mind, the plan never developed because Bird could never leave the paper and enter into reality. Even with Paul telling him his plan needed to change, he continued to stare at the paper and convince himself that it would work out.

        We can argue that it could have worked, but I could win the lottery. I don't analyze my finances on what could have happened, I analyze them on what actually did.


        Yes, the Pacers managed to win more games than they lost even with a failed plan, that's the upside. The frustrating thing is that they could have been better from the get-go, if Bird would have listened and built a team within the confines of reality.

        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
          My two main problems with your analysis is George Hill has been a great 3 point shooter for most of the season, and if you REALLY want to analyze Larry's plan it would include PG playing at least SOME minutes at the 4.

          The majority of our losses go like this. We lose a close game because we make mental mistakes late and after PG complains about 2 things, effort and getting stretched out by spread teams, to which common sense responds...



          But despite PG not buying in even a little, this is (or should be if you take care of business) a 45 win team, which left 5 games on the table, easy. As constructed, this team crapped the bed so many times. The players on the court made just awful turnovers and decisions, and just completely forgot how to play defense. That is not on Bird, that is not on Vogel, that's the players.

          I just can't understand it. Have we all been watching the same team? The players were there to close games. Whether it's PG and Ghill, your best defensive players and longest teammates, completely blowing a switch and being in no man's land or it's Lavoy Allen throwing the ball out of bounds ON an inbounds TWICE this season during the last minutes of a game or it's pulling up for contested jumpers instead going to the rim and getting to the line. Monta missing Turner wide under the rim. This team had the players to be a 50 win team and just simply did not compete 48 minutes mentally.

          Quit giving the players a pass guys. Let's hope they focus for playoffs.
          Oh believe me I hold the players accountable as well.

          However you can't blame a fox for being a fox in a chicken coupe just like you can't blame Rodney, George, Monta, Joe & Tye for all being ball dominant, dribble penetration, non consistent outside shooters.

          Players are who they are, when you build a team around combo guards you can't get mad at them when they don't turn out to be prolific scorers. We have built our back court on the Jack of all trades master of none principal.


          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

          Comment


          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            Oh believe me I hold the players accountable as well.

            However you can't blame a fox for being a fox in a chicken coupe just like you can't blame Rodney, George, Monta, Joe & Tye for all being ball dominant, dribble penetration, non consistent outside shooters.

            Players are who they are, when you build a team around combo guards you can't get mad at them when they don't turn out to be prolific scorers. We have built our back court on the Jack of all trades master of none principal.
            I agree, we have roster that doesn't fit perfectly. My point is the roster was still MORE than capable of winning more games. I never thought during the 3 close losses to Jimmy Butler, "if we had X player..." I thought, "man, the guys on the court really lacked focus and decision making and it cost us the game. We gave it away."

            And again, George Hill is a consistent shooter. He had a bad 2 weeks, but is still a top 15 three point shooter this year.
            Last edited by freddielewis14; 04-12-2016, 12:31 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              You analyze what happened in reality, not what happened in someone's mind. The plan didn't work so therefore you grade the plan as failing, because that's what happened, the plan failed.

              Bird built a team on paper with a plan in mind, the plan never developed because Bird could never leave the paper and enter into reality. Even with Paul telling him his plan needed to change, he continued to stare at the paper and convince himself that it would work out.

              We can argue that it could have worked, but I could win the lottery. I don't analyze my finances on what could have happened, I analyze them on what actually did.


              Yes, the Pacers managed to win more games than they lost even with a failed plan, that's the upside. The frustrating thing is that they could have been better from the get-go, if Bird would have listened and built a team within the confines of reality.

              Goes both ways, or if PG would have listened to Bird.

              One thing is for sure, PG being able to play in the post would be a good thing. It just adds another option for us and would help us tremendously vs these spread lineups PG says kill us.

              It's frustrating that our best player complains about spread lineups and isn't willing to sacrifice to do anything about. Then you have CJ Miles willing to do whatever.

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                PG made all defensive first team in 13-14. Made second team in 12-13. Odds are that he'll make a team this year (ballots are being made public by some, and I've been seeing his name).

                I don't know why anyone would think taking a top 10 defender overall, top 2 defender as a SF, and making him a post defender would be a good thing. That's a downgrade. Especially when the most lethal threats on most teams are wing players.


                CJ stepping up is a good thing. But even CJ said he did it because he knew he'd get more playing time, not because it was a self sacrifice.

                The plan was a failure from Day 1. It's hard to put the blame on anyone else other than the designer, especially when one agrees with PG's position even if they weren't thrilled about how he went about voicing said position.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  PG made all defensive first team in 13-14. Made second team in 12-13. Odds are that he'll make a team this year (ballots are being made public by some, and I've been seeing his name).

                  I don't know why anyone would think taking a top 10 defender overall, top 2 defender as a SF, and making him a post defender would be a good thing. That's a downgrade. Especially when the most lethal threats on most teams are wing players.

                  CJ stepping up is a good thing. But even CJ said he did it because he knew he'd get more playing time, not because it was a self sacrifice.
                  I like others think PG's defensive abilities can translate into playing stretch 4 and help us beat the speed lineups killing us.

                  Oh, Atlanta is killing us with a spread lineup? Take a shot at Milsap. You can't tell me PG isn't capable of being a good defender on Milsap.

                  But we can agree to disagree. I see no downside to PG being a more versatile player.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  The plan was a failure from Day 1. It's hard to put the blame on anyone else other than the designer, especially when one agrees with PG's position even if they weren't thrilled about how he went about voicing said position.
                  Well that's not true. We had a successful stretch playing small ball. You can say it was because PG and CJ were hot, but I can just as easily say there were hot because they were comfortable with small ball.

                  Saying all this, I like the big lineup. So that's not the issue for me. But PG not doing what Bird wanted isn't a good thing. Everything worked out and that's great. But it sets a bad precedent and I'm sure it was noticed in the locker room.
                  Last edited by freddielewis14; 04-12-2016, 12:55 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Odds are that he'll make a team this year (ballots are being made public by some, and I've been seeing his name).
                    Where ??

                    Comment


                    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                      Twitter. Although going back and looking through I'm just seeing them for All NBA team in general, not defensive. But still, the guy is 7th in defensive win shares overall and only Kawhi posts better as a wing. The other 5 ahead of him are all post players. So he'll most likely be on either 1st or 2nd team again.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                        Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                        I like others think PG's defensive abilities can translate into playing stretch 4 and help us beat the speed lineups killing us.

                        Oh, Atlanta is killing us with a spread lineup? Take a shot at Milsap. You can't tell me PG isn't capable of being a good defender on Milsap.

                        But we can agree to disagree. I see no downside to PG being a more versatile player.



                        Well that's not true. We had a successful stretch playing small ball. You can say it was because PG and CJ were hot, but I can just as easily say there were hot because they were comfortable with small ball.

                        Saying all this, I like the big lineup. So that's not the issue for me. But PG not doing what Bird wanted isn't a good thing. Everything worked out and that's great. But it sets a bad precedent and I'm sure it was noticed in the locker room.
                        Yes we can use PG on Milsap, problem is Atlanta wouldn't put Milsap on PG on the other end. When facing NO, samething happened with Davis. That was where the planned failed. We can play the Cavs and PG could shut Love down but who has Lebron? And do you think Love would be on PG on the other end?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                          Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
                          Yes we can use PG on Milsap, problem is Atlanta wouldn't put Milsap on PG on the other end. When facing NO, samething happened with Davis. That was where the planned failed. We can play the Cavs and PG could shut Love down but who has Lebron? And do you think Love would be on PG on the other end?
                          Not even going that far. My only point is on the defensive end when we play versus stretch units. This isn't something we should do every game for 48 minutes. PG can spend sometime at the 4 and the option would help the team. We have been trying Lavoy and Turner for the most part until recently using Solo which is a great idea many have advocated for. Personally, I think Solo and PG have to both be on the court vs stretch units.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            Not even going that far. My only point is on the defensive end when we play versus stretch units. This isn't something we should do every game for 48 minutes. PG can spend sometime at the 4 and the option would help the team. We have been trying Lavoy and Turner for the most part until recently using Solo which is a great idea many have advocated for. Personally, I think Solo and PG have to both be on the court vs stretch units.
                            I totally agree with you there. But from the beginning, I always thought Solo should have been used from the begin. I was just as pissed as everyone else with the way Solo came to camp, but when Bird had this crazy idea, Solo was the perfect candidate.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                              Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
                              I totally agree with you there. But from the beginning, I always thought Solo should have been used from the begin. I was just as pissed as everyone else with the way Solo came to camp, but when Bird had this crazy idea, Solo was the perfect candidate.
                              That's why, if we play the Cavs in the first round, our best shot of winning would be starting Solo on Love.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                                So how'd that new voice and new direction work out for the Bulls this year?


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X