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

Ric Bucher on our next Coach

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

  • #91
    Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

    Originally posted by beezer615 View Post
    False, people hated the Rick Carlisle way of play with slow half-court offenses. Grinned and bore it when we were doing well, but it was hard to watch slowly walking up the court, bounce pass onto the baseline for JO, and watch him stare down his defender for 5 seconds to just put up a J. Rather have something between the 2.
    this. i was one of those people. screaming that the team to run. then rick starts waving his hands and the pacers crawl to a stop as they run a play.

    don't want that anymore. especially with this collection of players. they have a hard enough time scoring in the half court when they only have to do it every 4th or 5th play. pacers would have trouble breaking 60 if the ran half court sets every play.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

      Originally posted by aaronb View Post
      Part of the reason we've struggled over the last few years, is our mismatched roster. We want to run, yet we start a 300 lb center? We can't effectively run half court, because we lack guys who can create their own shot. Still looking for that guy who can get to the rim at will.

      Seems like a huge disconnect between the people picking the players and the coach.
      that disconnect seems to be more of a natural progression from the old murphy/dunleavy team to the new guys. bird has been pretty consistent in his taking full sized guys for their position. rush, george, roy are all tall. tyler and darren are undersized. tyler is bigger and stronger for his height. the older team was mostly weak and/or undersized by position. that seems to be changing. this looks like the cause of the disconnect. as more new players get here, the type of offense will change to accomidate their skill sets.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        You do realize that was an exact discription that could have applied to Jim O'Brien. Jim is old school, too honest with the media, discriplinarian
        HONEST?

        Hardly. How about wildly contradictory. How about UNECCESSARILY HARSH which does NOT EQUATE to "honesty".


        Example since you insist on pretending like you don't get this difference and it ticks me off:

        Honest - "He's struggling a bit on some switches, but he's working on it and I think we can get him there."

        JOB - "His defense is awful."


        Honest - "Josh had a great first half tonight and it shows what we know he's capable of, but he's got to work on consistency so he can help us keep momentum into the 2nd half and get the win."

        JOB - "Irrelevant"


        Honest - "MIP? Well certainly Roy's made huge strides so that's a possibility, but the thing is he can go so much farther and still has a lot of work to do...and I think he'd tell you that too."

        JOB - "MIP? Roy isn't playing very well and I think he'd agree."



        Honest - "Buck likes to see both sides and tries to maintain an overall objective balance when it comes to discussing the coaching situation"

        JOB - "Buck is up my rear because he's too dumb to not fall in love with me."


        What is gained by that second approach other than to be insulting?
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-29-2011, 01:12 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

          Nate Mac - like Rick Carlisle, is willing to use WHATEVER lineup including small ball, to give his team an advantage. Rick was often stuck using 3 or even 4 guard lineups post-brawl. There were a lot of games with James Jones playing PF and Reggie at SF. JJ and Reggie specifically came through with this lineup vs the Nets late in that season, getting big shots in the final minutes to earn the win.

          Nate Mac, like Rick, wants to grind teams to help make it a defensive struggle which he feels they can then win.


          Personally as a Rick fan I'd love Nate. I'm not pro or con on tempos, I just want SMART basketball.

          Nate does NOT rely on a 3pt focus specifically and is NOT known for his PF shooting 150 3PA in a season.


          Nate will confront players and it might involve the press, I don't love that. But he won't be out of left field and he won't doubletalk them, as in play, DNP, play, DNP. You won't get a kid ripped for defense while a horrible defensive vet goes unmentioned and unpunished for SEASONS at a time.




          It just comes off as more pro-JOB spin, this whole "oh Nate is just like him" and "you'll soon hate Nate" angle. Every coach will have detractors, but not all of them are reasonable first of all (look at all the people ready to shove Rick out only to have him go somewhere else and continue to win big, just like his first 2 teams) and second of all good results tend to quiet those complaints.

          Finally, the team is already losing and losing fans. Nate Mac (or anyone including Tim Floyd) couldn't do worse.

          Troy's deal was already turned into DC. JO's deal was reduced to TJ Ford long ago. Your 17th pick became an all-star and dream team player. Another 17th pick was showing early signs for MIP. The team has long moved past being completely jammed up with no chance for talent.

          Right now the only financial step this team could take would be to convert the TJ+Dun money into something like Zach Randolph or Melo. Either guy would improve the team, but no way that counts as 25 more wins to the 55-56 range of "mission completed".

          The team spending on all other players on this roster is right in line with other teams. No one else is getting overpaid by talent (DJones barely), and a few are actually getting underpaid due to rookie deals (or cheap new deals like Josh).

          This team is actually AT THE END of clearing out the bad money, not the start. This is the end of a rebuild if the reason you needed to rebuild was many bad deals that locked up the team. The mid-picks panned out just as well as picks higher in the draft did, so you weren't hurt by drafting 5-6 slots lower for the most part.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

            Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
            Roy's contract is NOT covered by insurance. That is why Prich is getting killed, the condition was known & preexisting. Bad contract!
            Insurance on a player isn't in a contract with the player, that would be a separate document. The Pacers didn't get insurance money on Bender because his contract called out some insurance clause, they just take out insurance on a financial investment (the contract/player) as a contingency.

            Maybe Pritch didn't buy insurance on the Roy deal, but that wouldn't have been part of the negotiations in his deal.

            What WOULD be in there is salary to be paid were the player medically unable to complete the contract, and I'm not sure what the NBA standard is but I'd be surprised to learn if a lot of NBA player deals involve forfeiture of salary due to lost games due to injury.

            And if I were that player/agent I think I'd also take out insurance to cover any potential salary loss were I to become injured, and that insurance cost would be why we wouldn't want to sign a deal like that.



            Anyone familiar with NBA contract details feel free to correct me on this, I'm just looking at it from a practical viewpoint given the strength of the guaranteed deals with the current CBA in place. Suddenly B Roy is going to give up tons of money if he gets hurt? Seems wildly out of place with most deals.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Oh no, wait it isn't going to work, look what I found here. he likes small ball. OK who is next.

              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...attle.preview/

              By John Hollinger

              Managing the whole affair is one of the league's most underrated coaches, Nate MacMillan. The former Sonic player masterfully uses small-ball lineups to throw opponents off guard and got the Sonics to play respectable defense last year despite a paucity of athleticism. He'll have to be on top of his game once again to navigate the Sonics back to the postseason.
              The difference being, offcourse, that Nate uses smallball "masterfully" and well let's just say JOB actually uses it like well... CRAP!
              2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Insurance on a player isn't in a contract with the player, that would be a separate document. The Pacers didn't get insurance money on Bender because his contract called out some insurance clause, they just take out insurance on a financial investment (the contract/player) as a contingency.

                Maybe Pritch didn't buy insurance on the Roy deal, but that wouldn't have been part of the negotiations in his deal.

                What WOULD be in there is salary to be paid were the player medically unable to complete the contract, and I'm not sure what the NBA standard is but I'd be surprised to learn if a lot of NBA player deals involve forfeiture of salary due to lost games due to injury.

                And if I were that player/agent I think I'd also take out insurance to cover any potential salary loss were I to become injured, and that insurance cost would be why we wouldn't want to sign a deal like that.



                Anyone familiar with NBA contract details feel free to correct me on this, I'm just looking at it from a practical viewpoint given the strength of the guaranteed deals with the current CBA in place. Suddenly B Roy is going to give up tons of money if he gets hurt? Seems wildly out of place with most deals.
                That was my understanding - that a team could insure a player (contract/ investment) vs. extended injury time (out > 1 yr, then salery covered - E.Curry has this, & T.Ratliff did in the past IIRC, making their contracts partially/full covered, & making them move "valuable" in a trade), or a career ending injury. The money is to the team, & in no way affects the cap, nor is it in their team contract. I had heard that Roy's knees did not pass a physical for his new deal to be covered by such insurance, thus making Portland 100% liable for the entire amount should they sign him (which they did anyway). Portland (Pritchard) knew of the knee issues, yet signed him to a max deal anyway, so now 1 yr. into a 6 yr. deal & he is out. Ouch!
                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  I dunno, in that we gave up less talent than we received?

                  By that measure Portland isn't going to amount to anything either. They're going to be mediocre as well. So I guess they're irrelevant too. Even with the perfect human being Pritchard as GM.
                  Well you might check the standings. Portland is still a very good team despite the unprecedented injuries they have endured. That roster with a healthy Oden and Roy would be a serious contender. And Pritchard has a lot to do with that.

                  We have regressed for about 5 years IMO.
                  Last edited by Taterhead; 01-29-2011, 06:32 PM.
                  "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

                    Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                    Wow!!! Larry traded a lotto pick for 3 role players that didn't improve our w/L record 1 single game in 3 years. What a hero move that was!!!!

                    I still say a 22 year old Bayless still ends up the best guy in that deal.

                    Shade?
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      Shade?
                      Please don't insult Shade like that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

                        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                        Well you might check the standings. Portland is still a very good team despite the unprecedented injuries they have endured. That roster with a healthy Oden and Roy would be a serious contender. And Pritchard has a lot to do with that.

                        We have regressed for about 5 years IMO.
                        Where was this team headed with Artest, Jackson, Tinsley and JO? They peaked with the 2004 ECF. Once Reggie retired we had no leadership. Our best player JO (who I love) became a shell of his former self because of injuries. Artest was still crazy. Jackson and Tinsley were shooting up Indiana. The team had absolutely no future and very little of a present.

                        All those players ended up getting us guys like Hibbert, Rush, Collison and we got some late lotto players in Hansbrough and Paul George. The brawl ultimately destroyed the previous era. What the hell was Bird and Walsh supposed to do?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

                          Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                          Where was this team headed with Artest, Jackson, Tinsley and JO? They peaked with the 2004 ECF. Once Reggie retired we had no leadership. Our best player JO (who I love) became a shell of his former self because of injuries. Artest was still crazy. Jackson and Tinsley were shooting up Indiana. The team had absolutely no future and very little of a present.

                          All those players ended up getting us guys like Hibbert, Rush, Collison and we got some late lotto players in Hansbrough and Paul George. The brawl ultimately destroyed the previous era. What the hell was Bird and Walsh supposed to do?

                          Ok. Fine. So that team peaked in 2004.

                          It's 2011. Why haven't we rebuilt yet? Why are we still 6 rotation level players, and 2 stars away from being contenders? Someone should have gotten around to rebuilding this roster. Whomever was responsible?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Ric Bucher on our next Coach

                            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                            Well you might check the standings. Portland is still a very good team despite the unprecedented injuries they have endured. That roster with a healthy Oden and Roy would be a serious contender. And Pritchard has a lot to do with that.

                            We have regressed for about 5 years IMO.
                            You might check the standings, they're around .500. They're a borderline playoff team that needs another star player to compete. Too good to get the draft pick they need. Not good enough to contend, and they owe a ton of money to Brandon Roy that could very well be one of the worst contracts in the NBA in a couple years hampering their cap status.

                            Their hope hinges on re-signing Oden and him making a miraculous turnaround in health, and playing like more than an ultra hyped version of Javale McGee even when he does play.

                            They're very nearly in the same boat as the Pacers, but they had a ton of high picks and assets. This is who aaronb uses as an example of excellence, while he claims Bird sucks. Just sayin'.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X