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

Pacers fire Big Smooth

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

  • #91
    Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

    I little blurb in David Aldridge column

    http://www.nba.com/2010/news/feature...3/morning.tip/
    David Aldridge
    Indiana (season complete): I don't know the details, so it would be ridiculous as to speculate on what really happened, but one hopes the Pacers had good reason to fire Sam Perkins last week after two years as the team's VP of player relations. Smooth was one of the most well-liked players in the league during his time in uniform, and one assumes he hasn't lost that touch in the intervening years. Again, I have no inside information on what happened, and I'm not being critical of them simply because they fired Sam; I just hope there was a good reason

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      What did he do as coach?
      Deferred to Carlise and Harter as his offensive and defensive coordinators, like in football. Or at least that was my impression.

      Not to side track this, but I always wonder if Bird thought being GM would be like being the head of scouting with the power to draft guys and make moves.

      I mean it's much more than that and I think he's good at what he thought he'd be doing (subjective), but maybe not as interested or good at the other parts.

      That's maybe where Morway comes in. He's the Assistant Principal. The Principal (Bird) doesn't have to deal with all of the discipline problems or the unsavory parts of the job directly, the asst principal does that. The Principal sits on high, makes sweeping administrative initiatives and guidelines, the underlings carry it out.

      I mean Morway clearly works under Bird. I wonder if Morway's the heavy or the ax man in all of this. I'm not defending Morway because I don't really know, but I'm thinking this might be the case. I'm guessing with all of this, but it's my impression.

      I mean does anyone think if Morway says that he thinks they should draft Whiteside over Patterson and feels strongly about it, that it really holds much weight?

      Or is it more likely that when it's time to let Smooth or Mel Daniels go that he's the Vice Principal that gets to wield the ax.

      Just something to consider.

      Regardless, I don't like it when it appears there is an ongoing lack of communication across the franchise in these matters.

      I mean if you feel like Smooth wasn't doing a good job, shouldn't you figure out how to help him improve. Or if Mel is out-of-control with his opinions and Morway and him are at odds, don't you have a sit down to clear the air and try to reconcile the situation with some give and take.

      Again I go back to Bird wanting to be the head of scouting with authority, but is likely completely unqualified to run a multi-million dollar organization. You can coach old school, like that, you can't run a big time organization like.

      Opinions on Donnie vary on his player decisions over the year, but I never got the impression the organization was in disarray, sometimes I get that feeling now.

      So maybe Bird has the sharpest eye for talent, but can he run a company? Maybe that's up to Morway, but what makes him qualified to do it either.

      I'm just saying that it seems like at the least there is some discontent and disorganization in the group. I'm not sure who has the wheel and I'm not sure what direction they are actually driving sometimes.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Because there's more to being a good communicator than speaking standard English at a high level?
        You're absolutely right. Has Larry effectively communicated to you his vision for the team; his rationale in the choices he's made; shoot, which choices he's made?

        Nobody here knows what the hell is going on at PS&E. Now, maybe that's by design, the Colts have certainly made an art of not communicating to the outside world. But, when we hear the same tired cliches every year, or worse, hear promises that are not followed by appropriate action, then yes, I think the Pacers have a communication problem.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          Deferred to Carlise and Harter as his offensive and defensive coordinators, like in football. Or at least that was my impression.

          Not to side track this, but I always wonder if Bird thought being GM would be like being the head of scouting with the power to draft guys and make moves.

          I mean it's much more than that and I think he's good at what he thought he'd be doing (subjective), but maybe not as interested or good at the other parts.

          That's maybe where Morway comes in. He's the Assistant Principal. The Principal (Bird) doesn't have to deal with all of the discipline problems or the unsavory parts of the job directly, the asst principal does that. The Principal sits on high, makes sweeping administrative initiatives and guidelines, the underlings carry it out.
          I think you have it right.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I little blurb in David Aldridge column

            http://www.nba.com/2010/news/feature...3/morning.tip/
            David Aldridge
            Indiana (season complete): I don't know the details, so it would be ridiculous as to speculate on what really happened, but one hopes the Pacers had good reason to fire Sam Perkins last week after two years as the team's VP of player relations. Smooth was one of the most well-liked players in the league during his time in uniform, and one assumes he hasn't lost that touch in the intervening years. Again, I have no inside information on what happened, and I'm not being critical of them simply because they fired Sam; I just hope there was a good reason
            See, that's why some of us are upset about this. It's not just because he's a former player we liked. It's because Sam has a really positive rep that was cultivated over 20 years. When we first signed Sam, I didn't think "Ooo, we got a great high-post center." I thought, "We just got a great locker room guy." Everybody in the media loved him, not because he was a good quote, but because he was a good guy who charmed everyone he met. And for the Pacers to not lay him off and blame the economy, but fire him and say he wasn't a good communicator, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              How in holy hell can you deride someone as a poor communicator when Larry Joe Bird is the public face of your organization!!!

              "I told my mom that I wasn't gonna leave Indiana State without no education and I ain't gonna, either..." Paraphrased slightly, very slightly, from a TV interview conducted during the NCAA playoff run.
              http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
              "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                What did he do as coach?
                He delegated but was always the point man for overall coaching.

                It doesn't make sense that Morway could fire someone but that person be hunky dory with Bird and not the person doing the firing. I guess it could, but it seems odd.

                Supposedly Bird would be in a position to not only nix the firing but to tell Morway to find a way to get along with Smooth. But for whatever reason Bird seems to not have done that yet didn't seem to get on the bad side of Smooth. Like Smooth knew Bird wasn't the one with the power to change the decision or stop it entirely from getting any further.
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                  Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                  No.




                  I'm not making a judgement on Daniels or Perkins, nor am I assuming that Morway is the bad guy.



                  That's funny, because that's what I said in my initial post.
                  Disagree with the first part, sorry.

                  Someone was making Morway out to be the bad guy in one of the posts here, and I guess I confused you two.

                  Great, we're on the same page.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                    Here's additional comment from Mike Wells about Perkins' exit:

                    -----
                    May 4, 2010
                    IndyStar
                    Posted by Mike Wells


                    Sam Perkins' firing as Vice President of Player Relations hasn't gone over too well with many people. Big Smooth played on the team that reached the NBA Finals in 2000.
                    I was told the Pacers sent out a very brief email, which they don't normally do, to their employees saying Perkins no longer worked with the organization effective immediately. No explanation was given over his termination.

                    They didn't send out an email to their employees when they fired Mel Daniels, who has his number up in the rafters at Conseco, back in October.

                    Perkins and a couple of high ranking front office members (Larry Bird was NOT one of them) in the organization clashed over how things should be done. That played a big part in him being fired.

                    Perkins must have done something right because guess how many off-the-court incidents the Pacers had with him as VP of Player Relations?

                    Zero.

                    http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...y_will_pu.html
                    And I won't be here to see the day
                    It all dries up and blows away
                    I'd hang around just to see
                    But they never had much use for me
                    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                      I don't think this is a big deal, but who are the other high ranking front office members besides Bird? Morway? anyone else?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I don't think this is a big deal, but who are the other high ranking front office members besides Bird? Morway? anyone else?
                        Eh hm:

                        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                        FYI, for those wondering about the structure of PS&E, I found this (don't know why it's repeated 3 times.)

                        http://www.consecofieldhouse.com/uploads/PSEOfficeRoster12010.pdf
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                          I have no problem giving Sam some of the credit for zero off court incidents while he was here, but it doesn't really impress when you consider who has been on the roster lately. Who was the "wild child" he was keeping in check, Travis Diener?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                            Eh hm:

                            I see Carl Nicks listed as a scout. This wouldn't be Carl Nicks, fellow ISU team mate of Bird would it?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                              Originally posted by Putnam View Post

                              Perkins and a couple of high ranking front office members (Larry Bird was NOT one of them) in the organization clashed over how things should be done. That played a big part in him being fired.


                              http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsi...y_will_pu.html

                              So Perkins was clashing with some people in the organization about how things should be done, but NOT Bird who is allegedly the President of Basketball Operations, and PERKINS is who gets fired?

                              It's sounding like Bird's fancy title doesn't actually match his power in the organization.

                              The FO is a mess. The team with it's coaching is a mess. Is it coincidence?

                              This team is going to be sold. Either that is the plan all along or the ineptness of the last several years is going to put them on the for sale list.

                              I no longer have any doubt. The next question is will the new owner keep them in Indy?
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                                So Perkins was clashing with some people in the organization about how things should be done, but NOT Bird who is allegedly the President of Basketball Operations, and PERKINS is who gets fired?

                                It's sounding like Bird's fancy title doesn't actually match his power in the organization.

                                The FO is a mess. The team with it's coaching is a mess. Is it coincidence?

                                This team is going to be sold. Either that is the plan all along or the ineptness of the last several years is going to put them on the for sale list.

                                I no longer have any doubt. The next question is will the new owner keep them in Indy?
                                Someone get this man a "Jump to Conclusions Mat."

                                Here's a 'crazy idea:'
                                Maybe Bird felt that A) It was Person X (I'm guessing Morway's) call as to whether or not to fire Sam and that B) Morway's (?) reasons for doing so weren't out of line.

                                But no, that's already known and proven to be impossible. What am I thinking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X