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

    I don't know why exactly our bench is so terrible every single year. Maybe the reserves are simply bored playing only 6-10 minutes per half, knowing that Vogel will not continue playing them when they are hot? No incentive to keep playing well when they are in the game. They are bored possibly. Have we ever had a reserve player, under Frank Vogel, that closes out games with the starters? Just seems like Vogel is not very creative, and is content with his standard player rotations, which makes him comfortable.
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

    Comment


    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
      I don't know why exactly our bench is so terrible every single year. Maybe the reserves are simply bored playing only 6-10 minutes per half, knowing that Vogel will not continue playing them when they are hot? No incentive to keep playing well when they are in the game. They are bored possibly. Have we ever had a reserve player, under Frank Vogel, that closes out games with the starters? Just seems like Vogel is not very creative, and is content with his standard player rotations, which makes him comfortable.
      Here is my 2 cents about our bench. When you lol at teams that are doing very well every year, they have something in common. They have most of the same team each year.
      Every year, we clear out the bench, bring in players of the same quality. They play a season, we dump the bench, we bring in players of the same quality, they play a season, we dump the bench. Rinse and repeat.

      I would like to see us get the guys we want on the bench. And keep them for a few years and develop the bench.


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

      Comment


      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

        I would like to see Vogel get more creative with rotations. I would like to see him ride the hot hand. I would like to see him expand his "playbook".
        I still think he is going to grow as a coach. I think this stuff will get better over time. He has made plenty of changes over the season. But now we need him to do it when it counts the most.
        I think this will get better over time.


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

        Comment


        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

          CJ, Stuckey, Solo have all been here multiple years. Lawson obviously came in late (and has been a complete dud). Turner and JHill (when he was playing) are new. But that's far from massive turnover on the bench.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
            CJ, Stuckey, Solo have all been here multiple years. Lawson obviously came in late (and has been a complete dud). Turner and JHill (when he was playing) are new. But that's far from massive turnover on the bench.
            I think there is a lot of confusion about why we are struggling. There are a couple main reasons for it.

            We do not have a good offensive strategy. That's not all Vogel's fault. We have too many ball dominant guards who put the ball on the floor instead of creating for others and passing the ball. The ball sticks too often to Stuckey, Monta and PG's hands. That's partially why George Hill isn't shooting the ball. There needs to be better ball movement and that might not be possible with these players.

            Also, while we have some good shooters we do not have lights out shooters like Granger or Reggie. GHill and PG are pretty good and if we had a better shooting front court that could also defend we might get away with having so-so shooters as guards. They do have the ability to defend.

            So, the issue is more personnel than coaching but I think part of this is on Vogel. He really needs to influence these guys and get them to move the ball more IMO.

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

              Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bench we have put together and especially the players we have had for some time (Stuckey, Miles, Allen, Ian, Monta, Jordan Hill and the more recent Lawson) are not just non-starter quality players. These are players that for one reason or the other have been released and pretty much given away to us. There is no market for these guys and the best hope of our youngsters so far is Solo, who is being discarded by us? I think Vogel has tried to use the Bird, RC method to rotate these guys in and out of the lineup to keep the starters from playing 40 minutes a game.
              I may well be one of the biggest LB fans around, however Larry is stuck in a situation where he is expected to win games and make the playoffs every year while maintaining a non LT salary level. How many Champions or serious contenders have had a money making salary situation while in the midst of their run? Maybe most of us should become front runner fans and just watch the teams that are going to win a large majority of their games.

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                How many Champions or serious contenders have had a money making salary situation while in the midst of their run?
                every single one of them and don't let them tell you different.

                Comment


                • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  every single one of them and don't let them tell you different.
                  So the horror stories about the HUGE salary penalties are mostly hype? Do the Lakers and Knicks, etc. make enough to offset the salaries and penalties?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    Did firing Carlisle prove to be beneficial for the team? It didn't so why would firing Vogel be any more beneficial?

                    Why do you want us to repeat the same mistakes we did in the past?
                    Firing Rick Carlisle was the right thing at the time unless we were going to turnover nearly the entire roster and start from scratch. Not even sure Carlisle would've wanted that. Plus, there would've been a significant portion of the fanbase up in arms about getting rid of JO (although I wouldn't have been one of them... I would've been cheering).

                    Frank Vogel is not Rick Carlisle. There's simply no comparison in the coaching talents of the two. Vogel will benefit from a fresh start elsewhere and may someday be on par with Carlisle now. But not as things are going now. Meanwhile, Carlisle benefited from both his Pistons firing and his Pacers firing and was able to use those things to build on going forward.

                    The Pacers will benefit from a different voice and actually having some semblance of an offense being taught. This weakness in Vogel's arsenal is a fatal flaw. Arguably, establishing himself as Mr. Positive has ran it's course and left him in a bad place going forward, but he's simply awful on the offensive end of the floor and has shown no ability or inclination to fix that. It's going to take more than a green light to shoot and a pat on the back to fix the Pacers' offense. And it's also why IMHO once we drop down a notch on talent that our bench historically sucks under Vogel. The starters can make some things happen whereas the bench needs more of a system. Yet, both would benefit from a system.

                    You cannot continue to be this bad offensively and retain your job. Eventually, you have to fix it.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      I don't know of another coach other than Poppavich (and honestly I don't even think he could) that could get more out of this unbalanced roster.
                      45 wins with this roster is solid, but it doesn't fall into "no other soul on the planet could win this many games except Popovich...and maybe he even couldn't" territory. That's just taking the Vogel credit a bit too far, IMHO.

                      In this conference, you have one true established elite team in Cleveland, another team with an elite record in Toronto......then everyone else has 48 or less wins. We played most of our games against flawed Eastern Conference teams who also had "meh" rosters and trouble creating any distance between themselves and the rest of the conference. When such a huge percentage of our games are against opponents who also aren't very good, it's not a huge surprise that we won 45. Given all the games that were crapped away in the final seconds with hideous play calling and execution, I just think that the "no other soul on the planet except Pop could have done this" is just a bit too much credit to Vogel.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        Firing Rick Carlisle was the right thing at the time unless we were going to turnover nearly the entire roster and start from scratch. Not even sure Carlisle would've wanted that. Plus, there would've been a significant portion of the fanbase up in arms about getting rid of JO (although I wouldn't have been one of them... I would've been cheering).

                        Frank Vogel is not Rick Carlisle. There's simply no comparison in the coaching talents of the two. Vogel will benefit from a fresh start elsewhere and may someday be on par with Carlisle now. But not as things are going now. Meanwhile, Carlisle benefited from both his Pistons firing and his Pacers firing and was able to use those things to build on going forward.

                        The Pacers will benefit from a different voice and actually having some semblance of an offense being taught. This weakness in Vogel's arsenal is a fatal flaw. Arguably, establishing himself as Mr. Positive has ran it's course and left him in a bad place going forward, but he's simply awful on the offensive end of the floor and has shown no ability or inclination to fix that. It's going to take more than a green light to shoot and a pat on the back to fix the Pacers' offense. And it's also why IMHO once we drop down a notch on talent that our bench historically sucks under Vogel. The starters can make some things happen whereas the bench needs more of a system. Yet, both would benefit from a system.

                        You cannot continue to be this bad offensively and retain your job. Eventually, you have to fix it.
                        You're still not answering my main question. Did firing Carlisle prove to be beneficial? No, it didn't. We replaced him with a worse coach, the roster was blown up anyway and we were forced to build almost from scratch. Yes, Carlisle benefited from being fired but the team absolutely didn't.

                        I do agree that our offense has to be improved. But for an offense to be good, you have to have the right parts. We don't.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                          Did firing Carlisle prove to be beneficial? No, it didn't. We replaced him with a worse coach, the roster was blown up anyway and we were forced to build almost from scratch. Yes, Carlisle benefited from being fired but the team absolutely didn't.
                          I think Larry fired Carlisle as a favor. (All speculation here ...) He knew what he was going to be doing with the team and didn't want Carlisle to look like a chump. He knew his next coach would be a 'disposable' one once he started getting the roster turned over from the, uh - you know. And when they got thru the Murphleavey years, he canned That Coach and we've moved on.

                          That's MY theory anyway .........

                          Comment


                          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                            If we somehow take the raps to 7 games, or even manage to WIN the series....should we still fire Vogel?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              If we somehow take the raps to 7 games, or even manage to WIN the series....should we still fire Vogel?
                              IMO if we missed the playoffs we should have still kept Vogel considering the hand he was dealt by Bird. No reason not to keep him no matter how many games we win or lose in the playoffs. If Bird fixes our front court issues in free agency and pulls of some incredible trade to move either Stuckey or Ellis for a dependable shooter then it's on Vogel to produce but he's produced in the past when given the tools to get the job done.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                                IMO if we missed the playoffs we should have still kept Vogel considering the hand he was dealt by Bird.
                                I don't agree with this. We have enough talent to make the playoffs with this team. Had Vogel not made the playoffs, I think it might have cost him his job.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X