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

    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
    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
    If it makes you feel better: Going into more detail helps bring understanding. I didn't even mention the room exception!

    Comment


    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
      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.
      That may be true for Paul, but what about the other guys? Ian and Myles would certainly benefit from the addition of a truer point guard, don't you think?

      Comment


      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post

        In practice, good luck getting Paul to give up the ball.
        I agree, and think that is a problem this team needs to address.

        Comment


        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post

          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.
          This is a concern. I am a big PG fan. I would like to see him play on a less dysfunctional team where the players actually knew how to pass and shoot. I think he's good enough that he could adapt well to that. Obviously he will be good on D but I think his game is flexible enough to play well without dominating the ball on offense. He would have to be the slasher though and not just jack 3's even though he does shoot it pretty well. To win a title, you have to have better shooting than the Pacers and an offense that functions.

          Comment


          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            The MLE only goes to teams that are OVER the salary cap. Not under.
            Damn type-o...I meant that we don't get one since we are under the Cap
            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 BlueNGold View Post
              This is a concern. I am a big PG fan. I would like to see him play on a less dysfunctional team where the players actually knew how to pass and shoot. I think he's good enough that he could adapt well to that. Obviously he will be good on D but I think his game is flexible enough to play well without dominating the ball on offense. He would have to be the slasher though and not just jack 3's even though he does shoot it pretty well. To win a title, you have to have better shooting than the Pacers and an offense that functions.
              Here's the thing......we are in a similar situation as the Cavs are with Lebron ( no, I'm not comparing PG13 and Lebron....I'm comparing the situation ). We want PG13 to be ball dominant when the game is on the line....where he can run the offense and score on his own ( ignoring that when he goes ISO and goes 1 on 1 he's not the greatest ) while creating for others. The problem is that he isn't a great ball handler ( nor do I think that he will ever be ) and isn't the greatest when we run Isolation plays for him to score. But when we are going through the motions in the game itself ( let's say for 3.5 QTRs )...we don't want to run the offense through PG13 as much where he is dominating the ball because he's simply not that good at handling the ball like Lebron is.

              The Cavs ( or any Lebron-Led Team ) let's Lebron "Be Lebron" during Crunch time.....while the rest of the offense operates like a normal offense during the rest of the game.

              What ( if any ) lessons can we learn from how Teams run offenses with a non-PG All-Star type player ( considering that I don't think that PG13 will ever be as effective running the offense through him for extended periods of time on a regular basis )?
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                If Bird has such brutally harsh standards for Vogel, then he needs to be held to brutally harsh standards next summer. If we don't win a playoff series next year, then Bird should be fired, no questions asked.

                Comment


                • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  If Bird has such brutally harsh standards for Vogel, then he needs to be held to brutally harsh standards next summer. If we don't win a playoff series next year, then Bird should be fired, no questions asked.
                  Should be, but it's not happening. Bird is an icon in Indiana and it would take a LOT more for him to get fired. Afaic, and I am a Bird supporter, he has to have the team performing better next year on offense. Watching that offense was painful.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Should be, but it's not happening. Bird is an icon in Indiana and it would take a LOT more for him to get fired. Afaic, and I am a Bird supporter, he has to have the team performing better next year on offense. Watching that offense was painful.
                    Yes but father time is starting to erode the Legend's importance to Indiana basketball. Just look at this poll and it's about split even.
                    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      If Bird has such brutally harsh standards for Vogel, then he needs to be held to brutally harsh standards next summer. If we don't win a playoff series next year, then Bird should be fired, no questions asked.
                      I'll go a step further and say he should resign.

                      But he is not above getting fired because of this Hoosier icon status, that ship has sailed. This isn't 1990. If Bird doesn't deliver fans, media, and community will be calling for his job. He's been mostly successful, so this hasn't been tested, but I think it's pretty obvious he has no special treatment at this point.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                        I've got reasonable confidence in Bird. He has drafted very well in general, and managed to put together a team that made two ECF. His trades have been pretty good considering he fleeced the hell out of Toronto, New Orleans, and Lakers (ha ha, suckers!) I don't think letting Vogel go is necessarily a bad decision. However, how he picks his coaches does worry me some, and this upcoming hire is going to be huge.
                        Danger Zone

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Should be, but it's not happening. Bird is an icon in Indiana and it would take a LOT more for him to get fired. Afaic, and I am a Bird supporter, he has to have the team performing better next year on offense. Watching that offense was painful.
                          I agree that the Simons will probably not fire him because of his status as a legendary player. But if Bird is as "brutally honest" and "old school" as he wants to think he is then he should have the decency to resign if he fails once again.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                            I agree that the Simons will probably not fire him because of his status as a legendary player. But if Bird is as "brutally honest" and "old school" as he wants to think he is then he should have the decency to resign if he fails once again.
                            Do you guys read the paper?

                            If the Pacers even have a slow start next season Bird's job will be on the line. Firing Vogel instantly put Bird on the hot seat. It's put up or shutup time. Nobody cares about what Bird did 30 years ago anymore.

                            Now, Bird's relationship or friendship with Simon may help him, but Bird has no pass for being a basketball great from Indiana.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                              I don't really understand the Bird hate around here. He has probably done more for this franchise than anyone in the last 30 years. Coached the team to its only finals, hired Carlisle and put together a really good team that disintegrated due to player stupidity, then picked up the pieces after the brawl, which is quite possibly the most disruptive singular event to happen to a team. He got rid of all the players everyone hated and put together another team that went to two ECFs, and would have been a real contender if not for the Granger injury. He's been one of the best drafters in the NBA over the last 15 years, getting a lot of mid-round talent that went on to become all stars.

                              I know Vogel was popular, and he is an awesome guy, but if you don't think there were some coaching issues, and not just on the offensive end but with motivation and team discipline, then you are just sticking your head in the sand.
                              Danger Zone

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird

                                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                                I don't really understand the Bird hate around here. He has probably done more for this franchise than anyone in the last 30 years. Coached the team to its only finals, hired Carlisle and put together a really good team that disintegrated due to player stupidity, then picked up the pieces after the brawl, which is quite possibly the most disruptive singular event to happen to a team. He got rid of all the players everyone hated and put together another team that went to two ECFs, and would have been a real contender if not for the Granger injury. He's been one of the best drafters in the NBA over the last 15 years, getting a lot of mid-round talent that went on to become all stars.

                                I know Vogel was popular, and he is an awesome guy, but if you don't think there were some coaching issues, and not just on the offensive end but with motivation and team discipline, then you are just sticking your head in the sand.
                                I think you're giving Bird too much credit for certain things. That said, he's done a good job with things as well. I think a lot of us are concerned with Bird's vision for a team and the inability to recognize and put together the correct personnel to fit that vision. My other issue with him
                                is that he seems to look and place the blame for the team's shortcomings on everyone but himself lately.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X