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 presto123 View Post
    Anybody see Vogel getting fired if we come out and give another game away or have a really bad showing? I think he is safe regardless. If we would have missed the playoffs.....maybe a different story.
    If he loses again in a bad way after giving guys like CJ Miles and Stuckey big minutes...he should be fired. I don't care if Lavoy or Solo are burning 40 minutes. He should have GHill, Monta and PG all out there easily 42 minutes or more. Yes, they might get tired which is why you have to manage time-outs...and I know that also requires coaching skills. IOW, good luck Frank.

    Comment


    • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

      Originally posted by presto123 View Post
      Anybody see Vogel getting fired if we come out and give another game away or have a really bad showing? I think he is safe regardless. If we would have missed the playoffs.....maybe a different story.
      For one thing, instead of anyone saying the Pacers were a 7 seed losing to a 2 seed so to win on their court and almost win on their court twice so Vogel has the team over-achieving, should not be the be all, end all answer to the question.
      Someone needs to hit the rewind button on the season, the games, the schedule, and study whether the Pacers should've been more than a 7 seed and whether that was about right, over achieving, or underachieving.
      There needs to be a look at the games we lost (and won) and especially the 4th qtr flameouts.

      There needs to be some soul searching about our historical woeful bench play and our woeful offensive efficiency both in total and per unit (and even via players and compared to career stats both before and after Pacers).
      This is the time to get out those 'advanced stats' and really dig into the numbers.

      A firing shouldn't be about what happens in this series. Certainly not the series alone. Personally, (in case nobody had noticed ), I've already made up my mind that Vogel's weaknesses are fatal flaws at this point, with this team. So he should be replaced regardless of what happens in this series. I'd hope this series alone isn't responsible for much of anything either way. Although it does seem like this series could make his firing a little more tolerable for some fans should the Pacers flame out with another inexplicable 'pulling defeat from the jaws of victory' performance.

      Bird kept O'Brien too long. So there is that. But Frank pretty much got his extra season after the championship contention season went up in smoke, and then even more of a pass with the PG injury mulligan last season. But none of that extra time has seemed to make Vogel a better coach. He's still got the same weaknesses.
      I've always wondered if Vogel was really Bird's guy anyway. So I suppose part of the answer lies in that question. If Bird's never been 100% behind Vogel then he's given him plenty benefit of the doubt so I think this will be his last season in that case.
      OTOH, if he's earned Bird's total trust.... then I really don't know... He still has some fan support. Particularly around these parts. So that is the only reason I'm divided on the answer. There's no external pressure on Bird that is obvious right now to fire him.
      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 presto123 View Post
        Anybody see Vogel getting fired if we come out and give another game away or have a really bad showing? I think he is safe regardless. If we would have missed the playoffs.....maybe a different story.
        I think if it comes down to Bird saving himself or dumping Vogel that's when he would be fired. I'd be okay if both were gone.

        Comment


        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

          Vogel had a great start coaching after JOb. It was hard not to make the decisions he made from the outset. He really had the team aligned and marching forward together because he was actually nice to them. He was a breath of fresh air...for them especially...after losing the dictator JOb.

          But Frank's style isn't aging well. He isn't really in charge and I don't believe they respect him. They know they run the show and I can only say he's lucky he doesn't have the wrong players (e.g. Tinsley, JO, etc.) or it would be MUCH, MUCH worse. You think Rick Carlisle couldn't influence that bunch...well you would be right but Frank wouldn't have a prayer.

          But Frank also lacks in-game, on the fly coaching in addition to strategy. While Rick was brilliant, Frank is a B or C student. A very nice, personable and friendly student who would probably make a great salesman. But a B or C student...and it's showing especially the last game. The 4th quarter collapses were a warning sign. Last game was a smack in the face showing he really falls short.

          Again, nice guy. He's a good coach...don't get me wrong. He's just not really good and hardly a great coach. He's fine for a team making the playoffs but if you think he's winning a title it will be a miracle at this point. The players are in charge and we are not looking at Popovich here.

          Edit: BTW, this talk of more minutes for starters is no surprise. It became obvious to him only after the disaster. You need a coach who is a bit quicker...
          Last edited by BlueNGold; 04-28-2016, 08:08 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

            Originally posted by PR07 View Post
            Paul George doesn't need to play any more minutes. That wasn't the issue in Game 5. The issue was when Vogel would bench all of our starters simultaneously. It's really Ellis and Hill who need to play 40 minutes along with George that should be the discussion here.
            Thank you! THAT and a 2 year old that could have seen that Stuckey was INCREDIBLY bad and should have been taken out early in the fourth, maybe even end of the 3rd, instead of playing on for a horribly, no really terrifyingly, bad loooong stretch against (has to be noted) players in the Raptors line up that are obviously superior to him (and that's when he's playing good).

            I'm not at all anti-Vogel, to the contrary, but this all-bench BS year in-year out and letting a guy like Stuckey play extended time, while beying completeley disastrous... I'm just going to say it: Vogel lost us game 5 IMHO.
            2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

            2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

            2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

            Comment


            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

              One thing people don't seem to consider about these 'platoon' rotations is that they may be the reason we get the big lead in the first place. Clearly, having your starting 5 on the floor for an extended period is an advantage over the other team who does not. The drawback is that you have to play five subs, too. Just something to think about.

              You can't disregard the fact that he is keeping this team competitive in a series we have no business competing in and then blame him for us not winning.

              Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
              Last edited by pacers_heath; 04-29-2016, 07:04 AM.
              Lifelong pacers fan

              Comment


              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                I know what you are saying and I give and have given Frank plenty of praise and props for how he's coaching and, yes, you have to play subs, offcourse, however, when several of our starters play a good numbers of minutes less then their rivals on the opposing team, there's something that needs to be really looked at. Game 5 should not have been lost. Simple. We IMHO gave the game to the Raptors. Yes, they played much better defence in the 3rd and 4th quarters, but how we squandered that what... 17 point lead in the second half after having close to the same happpenning in the first half ALSO when the bench took over from the starters...
                Last edited by Mourning; 04-29-2016, 09:21 AM. Reason: dumb spelling error
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                  I think PG needs to be on the court whenever DeRozan is, but when he isn't Monta needs to be out there. Seriously does Monta need to be out there only when PG is? Given him control over the bench. MONTA-STUCKEY-RobinsonIII-CJ-Lavoy/MylesT

                  Have Myles be the first off the court and put him in when Ian needs out. Take out Monta and put in CJ or Stuckey.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                    Ironically, if we had lost both games in Toronto, won game 3, then lost game 4 and 5, all by reasonable margins, very few people would be complaining about Frank, and most would consider this a perfectly adequate series for a 7 seed against a 2 seed. But because we got a win in game 1 and had a huge lead in a tie-breaking game, suddenly the Pacers losing becomes an unthinkable thing that could only happen due to an incompetent coach.

                    Very much like the season, really. We came out of the traces faster than expected so people adjusted their expectations like that was going to be how the whole year went.
                    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 pacers_heath View Post
                      One thing people don't seem to consider about these 'platoon' rotations is that they may be the reason we get the big lead in the first place. Clearly, having your starting 5 on the floor for an extended period is an advantage over the other team who does not. The drawback is that you have to play five subs, too. Just something to think about.

                      You can't disregard the fact that he is keeping this team competitive in a series we have no business competing in and then blame him for us not winning.

                      Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
                      I am going to disagree with you. You do not have to play 5 subs. Several teams have had success in the playoffs with an 8 man rotation and I think most teams use an 8 or 9 man rotation. If we can find just 2 more guys to come off the bench and give us some decent minutes, we'll be fine.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Ironically, if we had lost both games in Toronto, won game 3, then lost game 4 and 5, all by reasonable margins, very few people would be complaining about Frank, and most would consider this a perfectly adequate series for a 7 seed against a 2 seed. But because we got a win in game 1 and had a huge lead in a tie-breaking game, suddenly the Pacers losing becomes an unthinkable thing that could only happen due to an incompetent coach.

                        Very much like the season, really. We came out of the traces faster than expected so people adjusted their expectations like that was going to be how the whole year went.
                        I agree and disagree. It is like the regular season, but not for the reasons mentioned. The hot start then cool down didn't make the season disappointing, it was all the close losses.

                        This team should have had 50 wins, and this team should advance to the second round. But because the players lacked focus all year, and some bad decision making by the coach, we've let opportunity slip away.

                        I still think we have a solid shot to advance.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          This team should have had 50 wins, and this team should advance to the second round.
                          I heartily disagree with this. Those of us predicting well over .500 were supposedly being over-optimistic, and many had us winning fewer games than last year and missing the playoffs again. You may have had them winning 50 games pre-season, if so, that's your point of view and I respect it - but if not, then you were influenced by the strong start as well. Just because the weakness turned out to be closing tight games rather than being in the game in the first place doesn't change the quality of the team.

                          Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                          I still think we have a solid shot to advance.
                          I agree with this.
                          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
                            I heartily disagree with this. Those of us predicting well over .500 were supposedly being over-optimistic, and many had us winning fewer games than last year and missing the playoffs again. You may have had them winning 50 games pre-season, if so, that's your point of view and I respect it - but if not, then you were influenced by the strong start as well. Just because the weakness turned out to be closing tight games rather than being in the game in the first place doesn't change the quality of the team.
                            I said 50 before season and before the playoffs I said I believed we would advance and prove that we are a top East team.

                            That's what's frustrating. This squad was capable of more wins and a deep run, yet here we are.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post

                              I still think we have a solid shot to advance.
                              I think the chances of us winning this series are pretty slim. It's pretty hard to win two straight games in this scenario, especially when Game 7 is on the road. I can think of a ton of Pacer teams over the years who lost Game 5 of a 2-2 series, then won Game 6 at home, only to lose Game 7 on the road. Granted, most of those scenarios were in the ECF's when we were playing way better teams than Toronto, but those Pacer teams were also way better than this Pacers team.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-29-2016, 10:34 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Fire Frank Vogel

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                I think the chances of us winning this series are pretty slim. It's pretty hard to win two straight games in this scenario, especially when Game 7 is on the road. I can think of a ton of Pacer teams over the years who lost Game 5 of a 2-2 series, then won Game 6 at home, only to lose Game 7 on the road. Granted, most of those scenarios where in the ECF's when we were playing way better teams than Toronto, but those Pacer teams were also way better than this Pacers team.
                                In the context of 2 games in a row, one on the road vs the number two seed? Yes, very slim.

                                But if we win tonight, all best are off for a game 7. I don't think the 2 stars on the Raptors have grown much since they lost Game 6, and then Game 7 at home to the Nets just a season ago.

                                I just can't see PG not dominating on both ends and finishing the game tonight.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X