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
    If you wanted to you could flip Thad for a pick or young asset right now.
    You can, but unless we go into a total rebuild mode ( which I don't think that we should be )....trading Thad ( at worst...1st Forward off the bench ) is a mistake given his contract and skillset. You need Players like Thad on your roster.....specifically a decent Starter or solid 1st Forward off the bench at his price tag.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      While letting go of defensive minded players and not replacing them with defensive minded players was an issue those players you mention should not of been brought back. Hill probably was way more likely not to resign than Teague. Solo got paid way to much and Ian was hurt way to often and is again is hurt this year. I buy bird built and unbalanced team but who is to say that this year will be like last year. I could actually see the Pacers advancing in the playoffs this year unlike last year.
      You're way more optimistic than I am. Our offense has improved.....but it's still inconsistent. What's worse is that our Defense is WAY too inconsistent and not able to keep up ( much less defend against ) high octane offenses that are built around 3pt shooting ( which we are AT BEST average at defending and giving up ).

      At least with Vogel's team, he always recognized that defense was priority 1, 2 and 3.....why? Cuz your offense can always falter....but as long as you have an Elite Defense.....you always have a chance to win the game in the end.

      Throw this Team on Vogel's back and I think we have a fighting chance to get to the 2nd round. But with this Team's under Nate's guidance, we are way too inconsistent on the defensive end to keep us in a 7 game series.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        If one of the non floor spreading Players had to be moved ( Thad, Monta, Stuckey or AlJeff ) had to be moved....Thad would the the last one to consider. He's on a comparable but solid contract for what he does and isn't a complete liability on the defensive end.
        I don't disagree with any of that, but we might not make the playoffs. I'd rather have a 19/20 year old than a 28 year old.

        Comment


        • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          Even if you don't want guys, you can't just let guys walk away from your roster without getting anything in return. It isn't good business. Yes, Solo is overpaid now, and yet all that really means is that teams in the league valued him as a starter level player. The Pacers should have brought him back for the pittance of $2.3M and gotten value for him in a trade if they didn't want him.

          There's no relevance to who is or isn't on the roster, certainly no relevance the mediocre power forward the Pacers brought in at the cost of a first round pick (another bad move).
          The Pacers let Solo walk because they didn't expect (and had no reason to expect) that any team would place much value in him. So the lesson here is to shop your trash because it might be someone's treasure.

          Comment


          • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

            I think, barring a miraculous big run to end the year, it's time for a bevy of changes, starting with Bird being shown the door. Need a new vision and strategy in talent acquisition. I'd accompany that with jettisoning McMillan and, barring the ability to bring in another all-star-level talent, George. In other words, we should likely be looking at a near total reset that places Turner as the centerpiece of our new direction. I have major reservations about retaining Teague. He's been pretty good. On the other hand, I can't help but thinking we're getting a contract-year special here.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

              It'll be interesting to see what Bird says at the end of the year. If last years team was suppose to compete for a championship, what about this years team? on paper this year's team is better than last years team yet they are worse

              Comment


              • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                I wanted Bird fired at the end of last year. Nothing has changed.
                PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

                Comment


                • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                  I would love to see us completely clean house and bring in a new GM from the outside who would conduct an external coaching search.

                  I was a big Bird fan for a long time. He built a hell of a team and brought the franchise back to relevance after the miserable late 2000's. Nothing can take that away. I also respect how he went all in with the Scola/Turner moves. I know he took a lot of grief on here for the Granger trade, but it was a no brainier basketball decision at the time.

                  Moving on from the West/Hibbert era was a good thing, but signing past-their-prime guys like Ellis and Jefferson were dud moves. Furthermore, firing Vogel and then not even conducting an external coaching search was just awful. I would have preferred Vogel stay, but I would have entertained canning him if we would have interviewed quality candidates from the outside. The McMillan promotion was just not a good move.

                  I felt last year was a reasonably successful rebuilding season, which made the replacing Vogel with Nate decision all the more questionable.

                  Unfortunately, "cleaning house" is just not something that happens with a Simon owned team. I just feel that our ownership is forever in a "its so cool having Larry Bird run our team" mode. Bird will go back to Naples long before he feels any heat from the Simons.
                  Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-26-2017, 02:14 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                    Oh yes. Thank you Adam. After saying he wanted to play faster, Bird turns around and signs Al Jefferson. That had to be the most surprising acquisition.

                    The thing is, I like Al's post game. I know he's not a good defender, but I still had some hope. But my hope was probably the same hope Bird had. It wasn't based on good strategy. It was just another bad decision.

                    Time and time again, Bird has made mistakes. I wonder what kind of team he wants to build right now. It's a confusing mess of players at this point.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                      I have to say that I'm surprised at how close this is. I thought there would be a few Bird die hards but this is basically dead even.
                      I accept that in my job I'm held accountable for results and I think in most highly compensated positions this is how it is. Bird did a great job a few years ago but in the past 2 1/2 years he has put together a very dysfunctional team and possibly blew our one chance to build a team around a superstar in his prime. If we lose Paul George it will be because Bird failed in his job and there is no justification for keeping him if that happens. Of course like most I don't expect for Simon to hold Bird accountable.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        Solo would be a pacer this year for $2.3M if Larry Bird were any good at his job. It's hard to buy into any of your argument when part of it is about overpaying for Solo.
                        Thats a fair point but if why say if he was any good at his job? Mistakes happen and remember who drafted Solo in the first place. To me Solo doesn't move the needle at all and certainly wouldn't change anything this year. I could easily argue that Solo would of hindered Gr3 development this year and is redundant. Statistically GR3 is doing better anyways and is on a cheaper contract so to me its a moot point.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          You're way more optimistic than I am. Our offense has improved.....but it's still inconsistent. What's worse is that our Defense is WAY too inconsistent and not able to keep up ( much less defend against ) high octane offenses that are built around 3pt shooting ( which we are AT BEST average at defending and giving up ).

                          At least with Vogel's team, he always recognized that defense was priority 1, 2 and 3.....why? Cuz your offense can always falter....but as long as you have an Elite Defense.....you always have a chance to win the game in the end.

                          Throw this Team on Vogel's back and I think we have a fighting chance to get to the 2nd round. But with this Team's under Nate's guidance, we are way too inconsistent on the defensive end to keep us in a 7 game series.
                          I think if Nat had a healthy Ian then this team would be fine defensively but I did not want to sign him to that contract at all. You are more optimistic about Vogel but I can respect that. Vogel has shown more over time but Nate should be given sometime as well. I can wait one more season.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                            We could always hire another Indy guy to be VP of basketball ops. Reggie Miller, Jermaine O'Neal, Antonio Davis.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              We could always hire another Indy guy to be VP of basketball ops. Reggie Miller, Jermaine O'Neal, Antonio Davis.
                              pls no

                              Comment


                              • Re: Should the Pacers fire Larry Bird?

                                I think it's funny people are ragging on the Simons for not firing Bird, then their main issue is 2 1/2 years (PG injured one year and drafted Myles Turner).

                                Maybe a multi millionaire doesn't make major choices based on so little?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X