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

Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

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

  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

    What kind of offensive efficiency can bird actually expect when he never bothered to give the coach an actual point guard?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      Yes, what I described certainly leads to more points. But the way to score more points is to actually do those things. Just saying that you want to score more points will not actually make it happen.

      The issue I have with Bird's explanation so far is that he hasn't actually explained how we're going to score more points. Scoring more points is more complex than simply shooting more 3s and creating more transition opportunities. I'm pretty sure that every team wants to score more. The ones to manage it are the ones who have a plan on how to do so. And that plan starts at the very top.
      I mean, coaches never explain in detail his offensive gameplans or defensive designs in pressers either. Not only does it pose a strategical disadvantage, but these things are only a few minutes long and those aren't the questions that reporters ask.

      Give him hell for firing Vogel by all means, but I think Bird at this point knows that you need a mix of playmakers and shooters for a good offense. He has been around the NBA for 40 years.

      //EDIT: And yeah, I get the crappy roster construction w/ too many combo guards and not enough shooters. But I honestly think that he had compiled the talent necessary to overcome our deficiencies and was fully aware the roster needed some work. Heck, if George HIll and Monta had played like they played last year he might have been right.
      Last edited by aamcguy; 05-07-2016, 09:27 PM.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        What kind of offensive efficiency can bird actually expect when he never bothered to give the coach an actual point guard?


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


        Game 5 versus Toronto got him fired. Also we lost a lot of games by 3 pts or less this season. Because his end-of-game designs were constant repeats of his end-of-game designs from the previous contest.

        Comment


        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

          Originally posted by flox View Post
          I really wish I wasn't doing this all from a phone a can't address this all at once.

          I think if we played the style bird wanted us to play we probably either would have morphed into a small ball juggernaut or flamed out.

          I don't think we gave it enough time or tried enough lineups for it. I think we would have accepted Vogel this year if the players showed better adaptation to birds vision, playoffs or no. I think in the scheme of things, looking at the roster turnover and our players playoffs was a goal but not the goal. I mean look how long he tolerated job even though he wasn't making the playoffs, as long as the style of play fit what he was looking for.
          I have never known Bird to be a Guy that hasn't preached the notion that we should be pushing for the Playoffs at all costs.

          That's the goal of the Pacers since he's been running the show from day 1.

          The problem is that it's one or the other.....do what you have to do to make it to the Playoffs ( even if it means sacrificing trying out Small Ball cuz it's not working ) or make small ball work by figuring out different lineups ( even if it means losing games and missing the playoffs ).

          I'd like to believe that we could do both.....but this lineup isn't built to make a small ball lineup work and make the playoffs.

          Frankly, giving Vogel a 1 season leash to figure out how to get a Small Ball lineup and offense to work ( one that is completely different than how our entire offense was run in previous seasons ) with a roster like this and then letting him go because he couldn't get it to work is ( as Trader Joe suggested ) setting him up for failure.
          Last edited by CableKC; 05-08-2016, 02:08 AM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

            I voted "No" on this, but in reality that is only partially true. I feel like overall, Bird has done a good job during his tenure. I'm not going to cherry pick things that didn't work out, but were good moves anyway (like the Hill/Leonard trade) to discredit him. I'm a guy who roots for the laundry, so I only get really attached to players and coaches in special cases. I didn't mind the Granger trade, think the Scola trade made sense at the time, and even though I didn't really agree, thought dumping Hibbert was a fair position to have at the time (although kicking him on the way out was a little tacky).

            My problem is going forward. Almost everything Larry has done starting last summer has been a terrible move. Not in hindsight, but things that were absolutely obvious at the time. The Monta signing was destined to fail for a million reasons. The Stuckey re-signing made no sense after the Ellis signing. The Chase trade was dumb, even as a trade chip as some have suggested. The cap space would have been more valuable than Chase's expiring contract. The way Bird pretended like he had no idea West was opting out long after West announced it was silly. Not picking up Solo's option was short sighted. Letting Vogel go seems like a pretty bad idea, but worse is the fact Larry seems to think this is a good roster. Our second best player is George Hill and our 3rd best player is Ian Mahinmi. That team winning 3 playoff games is a success in itself. I'm also more than a little concerned that the man running our team has less knowledge of the CBA than most 15 years olds with internet access.

            I will be rooting for Bird going forward, but I have lost faith in his direction and ability to build a team. I think of it like this: You have had a pretty great car for a few years. It's always been dependable and gotten you where you want to go. You have had some great road trips and amazing memories in that car. In the past year however, the transmission has gone out 3 times, the electrical shorts out at weird times, and the engine is starting to knock like crazy. I am going to be more than a little concerned driving the old girl out for a cross country road trip this summer.

            Comment


            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
              I mean, coaches never explain in detail his offensive gameplans or defensive designs in pressers either. Not only does it pose a strategical disadvantage, but these things are only a few minutes long and those aren't the questions that reporters ask.

              Give him hell for firing Vogel by all means, but I think Bird at this point knows that you need a mix of playmakers and shooters for a good offense. He has been around the NBA for 40 years.

              //EDIT: And yeah, I get the crappy roster construction w/ too many combo guards and not enough shooters. But I honestly think that he had compiled the talent necessary to overcome our deficiencies and was fully aware the roster needed some work. Heck, if George HIll and Monta had played like they played last year he might have been right.
              I agree that no one is going to divulge their offensive and defensive designs in a press conference. It does pose a strategical disadvantage and they have no reason to do that.

              The issue is that Bird's signings do not indicate that he knows how to build a good offense. They're much closer to indicating the opposite.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                Don't understand the Pacers "don't have a point guard talk". George Hill was great in the Toronto series. We don't need a ball dominant point guard because the offense should be running through our best player's hands Paul George regardless.

                Comment


                • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                  Forgive me for asking....

                  Wouldn't a "ball dominate" point guard be a better ball handler and facilitator than Paul George?

                  Wouldn't that also, in theory, make Paul George even a better player on not only the offensive side of the court, but the defensive side as well?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                    Forgive me for asking....

                    Wouldn't a "ball dominate" point guard be a better ball handler and facilitator than Paul George?

                    Wouldn't that also, in theory, make Paul George even a better player on not only the offensive side of the court, but the defensive side as well?
                    I think having shooters is more important to open up the floor for George than a point guard. This isn't Karl Malone or Shaq who needs a point guard to drop the ball to him in scoring friendly positions. Paul George can create his own shot and needs the ball in his hands to do it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                      Don't understand the Pacers "don't have a point guard talk". George Hill was great in the Toronto series. We don't need a ball dominant point guard because the offense should be running through our best player's hands Paul George regardless.
                      I think we need a guy with more speed that can push it and find people in transition. Hill's got straight line speed, but he's not as fast while dribbling the ball, and he's not adept at finding guys in transition or in the half court. A fast, playmaking point with Hill and PG running the break would be deadly. If we're gonna play wide open and call less plays I think it's important to find a guy that can put more pressure on the defense from the point guard position.

                      PG obviously is gonna need the ball in the half court, but he's still got a lot to learn about shot selection and passing. Sometimes he makes great plays and sometimes he makes awful decisions. He's getting better, but I think he'd benefit from having another guy that can consistently break down a defense so he doesn't have to do so much. The only other guy that's quick enough to do it is Monta, and his decision making is not reliable enough. That's why we all want him as 6th man. I think Paul deserves a chance to play with a guy that's accustom to playing point. He's never had that opportunity because for whatever reason Bird didn't believe it was necessary, but he's commented recently about not having one since Tinsley so I'm hoping he's reconsidered and will try to find one this offseason. Or at the very least resign Lawson with our MLE and hope he gets his game back. We need at least one true point guard on the roster.
                      Last edited by CJ Jones; 05-10-2016, 11:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                        Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                        Forgive me for asking....

                        Wouldn't a "ball dominate" point guard be a better ball handler and facilitator than Paul George?

                        Wouldn't that also, in theory, make Paul George even a better player on not only the offensive side of the court, but the defensive side as well?
                        In theory yes, at least on the offensive side. Not sure why it would make him a better defensive player though unless you mean he will have more energy for defense.

                        In practice, good luck getting Paul to give up the ball. His usage numbers are Kobe-ish (his idol lol). Ellis pre-Pacers is as ball dominant a player as you can find, but even he had to adjust and sacrifice his game for PG. So I believe if we acquire a ball dominant point guard, he's going to end up a lot like Ellis - can't play to his strengths, looks like a bad fit, etc.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                          I'd rather utilize our MLE. (Assuming we have it available this year) on another position outside of backup PG. we drafted Joe Young, I think he should get a chance to man that spot. The kid has talent. I think we should sign a cheap vet as our 3rd/emergency PG, but Joe young should initially have a chance to compete for the backup spot

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            I'd rather utilize our MLE. (Assuming we have it available this year) on another position outside of backup PG. we drafted Joe Young, I think he should get a chance to man that spot. The kid has talent. I think we should sign a cheap vet as our 3rd/emergency PG, but Joe young should initially have a chance to compete for the backup spot
                            We r under the salary cap....so, I Think that we get one..... Or at least a full amount he like we usually do.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              We r under the salary cap....so, I Think that we get one..... Or at least a full amount he like we usually do.
                              The MLE only goes to teams that are OVER the salary cap. Not under.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                We r under the salary cap....so, I Think that we get one..... Or at least a full amount he like we usually do.
                                Actually no, you have it the other way around. Teams get the MLE only if they are over the salary cap. The clue is in the name - an exception is something that lets you spend over the cap. If you're under the cap, then you don't need an exception to spend money. But teams get the full MLE only if they stay under the apron (apron=LT threshold+$4m)

                                Despite what I just said, since 2011, there's also the room exception for under the cap teams. Once cap space is used up, the room exception (~$2.9m next season) gives you a little more to spend.

                                EDIT: ninja'd by Ace. Serves me right for being long winded

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X