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

Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    Yes. But I also never approved of our bench development and egg timer 5 in 5 out rotations.

    I also think we've had good bench players here used incorrectly.
    We also have good bench players that have not fit correctly.

    Here are my thoughts on the bench issues and we'll just focus for now on this year's team and last year's sort of indirectly.

    1.) Salary: Right now when Monta, Stuckey, and Al play off the bench we have $28 million coming off the bench and they all are essentially the same idea. Great 1 on 1 offensive talents who struggle defensively. Now Monta and Stuckey occasionally make a defensive play, but it's not worth the redundancy they give you offensively IMO. Al is a complete waste on defense and it's why lineups with him are overwhelmingly negative for the Pacers unless Al scores 14 or more points in his 15 minutes of play (which he's not doing enough to make up for the defensive issues). The Monta/Stuckey signings were just baffling as was the franchise's decision last year to refuse moving Monta to the bench. If you sign Monta, but let Stuckey walk, the Pacers could have done something like let's say retain Ian as your backup big man this past summer due to the money you wouldn't be paying Stuckey, this would have been pragmatic salary planning. I know he's been hurt in Washington, but that's the sort of move that gives you actual flexibility in the front court whereas Al just limits it.

    2.) Lack of fit: This is an issue you can find going back on Pacers benches for years, but just explain exactly what Al was supposed to bring to this team...scoring? Don't we already have enough ball dominant guys who can put it in the hoop? Al just slows down basically anything you want to do offensively. I give him credit for still demanding doubles in the post at times, but the Pacers don't even have the guys to take advantage of that. Even his smaller signings like Brooks just don't fit with what you already have. Why sign another guy who wants to score and is a tiny guard?


    3.) Focus on the issue: Our benches have been a known issue for so long. The media knows it, opposing teams know it, we know it. Yet it hasn't been addressed...why? That is perhaps the most bothersome to me.


    Comment


    • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      Raptors have 2 all stars, made great moves, Ujiri looks to be GM of year.

      Bird should be fired.

      Difference between 2 team? 4 games. It's just interesting.


      I want Bird gone because I think is time, also Raptors got better at the trade deadline Pacers not so much.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
        We also have good bench players that have not fit correctly.

        Here are my thoughts on the bench issues and we'll just focus for now on this year's team and last year's sort of indirectly.

        1.) Salary: Right now when Monta, Stuckey, and Al play off the bench we have $28 million coming off the bench and they all are essentially the same idea. Great 1 on 1 offensive talents who struggle defensively. Now Monta and Stuckey occasionally make a defensive play, but it's not worth the redundancy they give you offensively IMO. Al is a complete waste on defense and it's why lineups with him are overwhelmingly negative for the Pacers unless Al scores 14 or more points in his 15 minutes of play (which he's not doing enough to make up for the defensive issues). The Monta/Stuckey signings were just baffling as was the franchise's decision last year to refuse moving Monta to the bench. If you sign Monta, but let Stuckey walk, the Pacers could have done something like let's say retain Ian as your backup big man this past summer due to the money you wouldn't be paying Stuckey, this would have been pragmatic salary planning. I know he's been hurt in Washington, but that's the sort of move that gives you actual flexibility in the front court whereas Al just limits it.

        2.) Lack of fit: This is an issue you can find going back on Pacers benches for years, but just explain exactly what Al was supposed to bring to this team...scoring? Don't we already have enough ball dominant guys who can put it in the hoop? Al just slows down basically anything you want to do offensively. I give him credit for still demanding doubles in the post at times, but the Pacers don't even have the guys to take advantage of that. Even his smaller signings like Brooks just don't fit with what you already have. Why sign another guy who wants to score and is a tiny guard?


        3.) Focus on the issue: Our benches have been a known issue for so long. The media knows it, opposing teams know it, we know it. Yet it hasn't been addressed...why? That is perhaps the most bothersome to me.
        I agree with pretty much all of this. I'm hoping Monta becomes movable with his better play and/or worth his contract. Al has been good, but the biggest mistake Bird made IMO is not having another PF on the team and expecting the bench to be good playing 2 slow centers. My hope here is Christmas is an NBA power forward and it improves the bench.

        But yea, bad moves as of right now. But at the same time, GRIII and CJ Miles are really good for their contract. So you have 2 bad moves and 2 good. It's not uncommon.

        EDIT: I should add DJ Augustine and Gerald Green turned in some good play after leaving. Scola was a good bench piece. Ian was a good bench player, etc. I think coaching had something to do with it, which is ultimately still on Bird.
        Last edited by freddielewis14; 02-25-2017, 02:18 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          I want Bird gone because I think is time, also Raptors got better at the trade deadline Pacers not so much.
          I agree with this. It's his time to go, just feels right. Bird has kinda become bigger than the team. But to say he's been below average or bad doesn't really fly. He hasn't met his standard or done a good job to makes us a contender over last 2 years but he has still made us better than most teams and we have future potential.

          Comment


          • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

            Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
            Rationality is frowned upon here.
            I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, because many other posters have also made a lot of really great points that I left out of my lengthy response earlier in this thread. Perhaps you disagree with some of my (and others) analysis of Bird's style and record lately. But I think saying that we're looking at it irrationally is just flat out untrue. I know, speaking for myself, I am doing my very best to despite my "homer-ism" to be honest about what's actually been happening. It's cool to disagree. But I don't think that people who want Bird to stay OR go are being irrational at all.

            Comment


            • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

              Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
              I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, because many other posters have also made a lot of really great points that I left out of my lengthy response earlier in this thread. Perhaps you disagree with some of my (and others) analysis of Bird's style and record lately. But I think saying that we're looking at it irrationally is just flat out untrue. I know, speaking for myself, I am doing my very best to despite my "homer-ism" to be honest about what's actually been happening. It's cool to disagree. But I don't think that people who want Bird to stay OR go are being irrational at all.
              As someone who disagrees with your major points with Granger and Vogel as I don't really get attached like that and thought we could do better w/o those guys, I find your post and most of your points perfectly rational.

              Comment


              • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                Aren't you at all concerned that Bird has failed to build a bench that has been competitive for a full season basically his entire tenure as Pacers President? To me that is the single biggest red mark against Larry.
                I think this is tied to our current issues with our starting unit. I think Larry was fortunate building the DWest/Hibbert/PG/Lance/Hill combination. What we see with the starters now is similar to our bench from prior years. They don't fit. There isn't good strategy behind his decisions on personnel beyond being excellent at spotting pure talent. I actually think he's good at that, not as good putting pieces together. I think that takes a higher level of thinking and strategy that he might just not have. So, the Pacers best be tearing Bird's nest down.

                Comment


                • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  We also have good bench players that have not fit correctly.
                  This is really my biggest issue with Bird. Fit seems to be a secondary or even tertiary concern for him when evaluating talent. With everything that happened before 2012 and after 2015, I kind of feel like he might have just gotten lucky for a few years.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    As someone who disagrees with your major points with Granger and Vogel as I don't really get attached like that and thought we could do better w/o those guys, I find your post and most of your points perfectly rational.
                    I appreciate that. And that's my entire point. I don't think we need to be walking around calling each other irrational and so forth. Not singling out pacers_heath - just making a general statement. It's so much more enjoyable around here when we have constructive talk about the Pacers (the good, bad and the ugly) without it devolving down to that sort of thing, IMO. I accept more than my fair share of the burden on this issue lately. It's been a difficult few weeks as a Pacers fan, and in general for me.

                    You guys are great, I love having this place to talk Pacers. That's all.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                      Originally posted by adamscb View Post
                      No. Sounds like teams were coming at him left and right inquiring about PG, but luckily he didn't pull the trigger on any of them. Five years ago this forum was clamoring that if we only had a superstar, a player that a franchise could be built around, then we would win championships. Well, we now have that player, arguably the best this franchise has ever had, but because we haven't won a championship yet (which is extremely hard to do in this league by the way), then we should be shipping him off. We would be stuck in mediocrity again, and talk would begin again if we only had a Jordan-caliber superstar then we would be fine.
                      We're already stuck in mediocrity.

                      Unless you consider 30-28 with the easiest schedule in the NBA good.

                      I'll be shocked if we finish above .500 with the games we have left.
                      Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 02-25-2017, 04:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        This is really my biggest issue with Bird. Fit seems to be a secondary or even tertiary concern for him when evaluating talent. With everything that happened before 2012 and after 2015, I kind of feel like he might have just gotten lucky for a few years.
                        This. 100% this.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                          Originally posted by TMJ31 View Post
                          This. 100% this.
                          Yes. Bird said he wanted to play faster which basically meant smaller. But he didn't acquire shooters. You cannot win NBA titles having small guys who cannot shoot.

                          He tried with CJ Miles I suppose. But he should not have brought in both old Monta and Stuckey. Monta off the bench, if he would be OK with it, would have been just fine. But Bird compounds the problem moving his best shooter, GHill, who wasn't even that good. He acquires Teague who really needs surrounded by shooters.

                          Now we have GRIII who can dunk pretty well but needs to learn the game of basketball. He's really just created a mess.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Yes. Bird said he wanted to play faster which basically meant smaller. But he didn't acquire shooters. You cannot win NBA titles having small guys who cannot shoot.

                            He tried with CJ Miles I suppose. But he should not have brought in both old Monta and Stuckey. Monta off the bench, if he would be OK with it, would have been just fine. But Bird compounds the problem moving his best shooter, GHill, who wasn't even that good. He acquires Teague who really needs surrounded by shooters.

                            Now we have GRIII who can dunk pretty well but needs to learn the game of basketball. He's really just created a mess.
                            You know I actually really like the fact that GRIII is getting opportunities. He has shown some really great flashes of not just athleticism, but shooting and a few defensive spurts. He has also gotten some big rebounds for us in a few games where it seemed like everyone else was allergic to the ball on defense.

                            Totally agree, he needs to learn to be more aggressive and find "his game" within the team. But I am actually really happy to have him on the roster and think he can be a piece for us moving forward. Not necessarily a part of our CORE or anything, but an important piece. And I am not ruling out that he continues to grow and develop into a solid core player here either.

                            Adding Thad was a good move, even though it's taken some time to gel. But Al, while I've always liked his game, simply isn't working anymore. We definitely could have used that money to find more shooters to put along CJ. Without a doubt.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Yes. Bird said he wanted to play faster which basically meant smaller. But he didn't acquire shooters. You cannot win NBA titles having small guys who cannot shoot.

                              He tried with CJ Miles I suppose. But he should not have brought in both old Monta and Stuckey. Monta off the bench, if he would be OK with it, would have been just fine. But Bird compounds the problem moving his best shooter, GHill, who wasn't even that good. He acquires Teague who really needs surrounded by shooters.

                              Now we have GRIII who can dunk pretty well but needs to learn the game of basketball. He's really just created a mess.
                              We have a lot of shooters. Take a look at the three point percentage for all of or starters. Without checking i know 4 are 37-42% and teague isnt far behind. Just sayin
                              Lifelong pacers fan

                              Comment


                              • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                Fired him in June 2014 right after the team made its second straight ECF's? Why in the world would they have done that?

                                I'm certainly ready for him to go at this point and see a different direction, but it doesn't matter. He will retire to Florida long before the Simons would ever consider canning him. His seat will never be hot.
                                They had no reason to fire him in June '14. I just wish almost all the moves after that date hadn't happened.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X