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

Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

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

  • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

    Originally posted by mattie View Post
    Some of the discussions we have on this board are just ridiculous. They almost always start with someone completely overreacting over nothing.

    This is silly. He's an unproven coach, that's it. It's pretty simple, signing him to a 1 year deal is not that big of a deal.

    Why do you have to take it too extremes? How come this cannot be a case of them hiring an unproven coach to a short contract? Why does it have to mean something? Too some it means "we are the Clippers." Lol whatever that means. Or it's "insulting."

    Really?

    You know what? If it was really that insulting I'm sure Vogel could find a job somewhere at least as a head assistant if this was so insulting. Or if it made us become the Clippers.

    Why does it have to mean something? I never understood how every move, or word out of the front office's mouth must mean something. People begin jumping at conclusions that if "Bird wants to strengthen the bench" that must mean he has no intentions of signing any real talent!

    You cannot argue that signing an inexperienced coach to a short contract is a bad move. You just can't. Now you can get emotional and argue all day left and right about what it means, but then again I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this little group with their panties in a wad are the only ones that care. I think what this really shows is the "signing vogel to a 1 year contract is insulting" crowd is being overly emotional about a complete non-issue.

    Seriously, relax. We all like Vogel, but let's not assume this guys a great coach yet. I really don't feel like naming every interim coach in professional sports history that had a good interim year, and subsequently followed that up with a porous showing the next. The list is too long.

    In short we know the following:

    * It appears Vogel is the best coach for the job out of every possible candidate
    * We cannot know if he is the best for certain however, because 43 games is not enough to evaluate
    (no seriously, please don't force me spend hours proving you wrong, just admit what we know. It's not like there is a particular site that has all interim coach information, it would suck researching all that)
    * Since we cannot know for certain that Vogel is the best, although it appears so, it probably wouldn't make that much sense to sign him to a long contract would it? I mean that is if we decided not to get overly emotional about it, and purely treated this as a business decision

    What we cannot know:

    * That all other head coaches assume we are not worth playing for
    * That Vogel is personally insulted
    * What type of message this move supposedly sends
    * That the players will suddenly feel like Vogel is a lameduck and will decide not too play hard, or develop, or they'll feel slighted, or they'll react negatively in some way.


    Nice post. Can't say I agree 100%, but still a nice post.

    Comment


    • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

      Originally posted by mattie View Post
      I think I see your case though- Am I right in saying you'd rather see the Pacers hire the sure thing for the next 3 years instead of a small one year risk on Vogel?
      I don't think there's a "sure thing" out there by any means, but - while I think the risk on Vogel is small - I think this team is worth investing in a higher probability coach if there is one to fit.

      With those caveats, then yes, you are correct.

      I'm not convinced you don't get a higher probability Vogel in Mike Brown, and Adelman still intrigues me a lot. If we give this contract to Vogel it has to be after we've done due diligence on everyone else, not as a first resort.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

        Oh he11, I'm tired of this controversey, lets just give Adelman a contract and move on.

        Comment


        • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

          Why does everyone make it sound like Vogel is getting screwed?

          Is it impossible that he believes in himself, and the players to the point that he wants a 1 year contract? He could prove himself in that year and double his salary the year after because he's shown he can be a winner when he has the job for the whole season. Instead of being locked in at this cheap rate for 3 years.

          Comment


          • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
            Why does everyone make it sound like Vogel is getting screwed?

            Is it impossible that he believes in himself, and the players to the point that he wants a 1 year contract? He could prove himself in that year and double his salary the year after because he's shown he can be a winner when he has the job for the whole season. Instead of being locked in at this cheap rate for 3 years.
            Perception, I think

            Most think that coaches get at least a 2-3 year contract mnimum, and by a one year offer, that it sends a hidden message of questioning his abilities
            Sittin on top of the world!

            Comment


            • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

              Wells was on MPOS, I caught the last 20 seconds, something about a one year deal and team option for the second? Anyone hear it, they don't archive the podcasts anymore for MPOS.

              Comment


              • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                Are there any examples of what a coach in Vogel's postion might get for a contract? There was the Silas example, but other than that, I have no idea what you all are basing your rhetorical ****-slinging upon.
                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                Comment


                • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                  Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                  Are there any examples of what a coach in Vogel's postion might get for a contract? There was the Silas example, but other than that, I have no idea what you all are basing your rhetorical ****-slinging upon.
                  Alvin Gentry got 2 years and the 3rd year was an option in Phoenix

                  Scott Brooks got a multi year deal with the Thunder as well, but I don't recall the exact terms

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                    Why even make a big deal of giving him a new contract for those that think a 1 year deal is all he's worthy of... Just give him a bit of a raise and keep the interim tag.
                    ...Still "flying casual"
                    @roaminggnome74

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                      Uh gang, you're getting all bent out of shape and sticking knives in each others back over a RUMOR. As far as I know, nobody has been offered anything so how can Wells justify spreading the rumor of a 1 year contract? IMPO it may be SPECULATION on his part with no grounds for belief.

                      Y'all need to step back for a bit, quit taking it so personal, and look at the reality of what IS KNOWN, not rumored.


                      Besides, in this economy, and with a new CBA, shorter contracts for everybody may become the norm (my own shameless speculation).
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                        some of you have been asking whether 1 year contracts are common or ever used.

                        Here is a link from 2005 and at that time no coach was working with a 1 year contract. (note: that is different from being on the last year of a multi year deal)

                        http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/D...-The-Pack.aspx


                        Here is a link discussing contract lengths. larry Drew got a 3 year deal. Tom Thibs got 3 year deal
                        Monty Williams a 3 year deal. Vinny Del Negro a 3 year deal. I mention the first three because they were 100% completely unproven as they had never been an NBA head coach before. (Vogel has)

                        a http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...hes/index.html


                        Ty Corbin was given a 2 year deal with an team option for a 3rd.
                        http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...48484/27726020

                        OK, The Raptors signed Jay Triano to a 3 year deal after dropping the interim tag.
                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4158208

                        The Thunder hired Scott Brooks dropping the interm tag - 3 year deal

                        John Kuester got a 3 year deal.


                        All of these were coaches without any NBA head coaching experience. (except Vinny and he was not well thought of
                        Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-19-2011, 10:27 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                          I wonder who Vogels agent is? Do coaches have the same big time agents as players or do they even have agents? I'd guess if its a big time agency, not an uncle whos a lawyer, they won't let him have just a 1 year deal, if at all possible.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            I wonder who Vogels agent is? Do coaches have the same big time agents as players or do they even have agents? I'd guess if its a big time agency, not an uncle whos a lawyer, they won't let him have just a 1 year deal, if at all possible.

                            I'm not sure, I think there are a a few agents who represent most of the coaches.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                              Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                              Uh gang, you're getting all bent out of shape and sticking knives in each others back over a RUMOR.
                              It's the off season. What the else are we supposed to do?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vogel to only get 1 year contract?

                                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                                Wells was on MPOS, I caught the last 20 seconds, something about a one year deal and team option for the second? Anyone hear it, they don't archive the podcasts anymore for MPOS.
                                Just caught the end. I was driving & planned to look for a pod cast as there were a few nuggets of speculation by Wells. Some noteworthy comments - almost new thread worthy, but maybe not:
                                (I put my commentts below each topic, 'cuz I know you were wanting that too! )

                                -Said he thing that Larry is a one & done as President of Basketball Opperations! Said it is just a hunch, but said he would not be surprised, even despite the open-ended agreement for him to stay as long as he wants. Thinks Larry wants to spend, set it up as he wants, 7 walks away feeling accomplished.
                                (The part I would question is that IMO this is not a 1 yr. spending spree & it is fixed. IMO this off-season is like a birthday, but Christmas isn't till '12. That is when Larry (if smart t/y) can really go for it!)

                                -Said he has heard the likelihood of a 1 year deal for Frank as well, and said if the year did not go well, or a new president came in, the Pacers could be looking for a President AND Head Coach next off-season. Said CBA could affect both decisions.
                                (God I hope '12 is not full of that kind of BS!)

                                -He also discussed it was odd for Larry to mention names (Adleman, Person) of possible canidates BEFORE he has contacted them. He questioned why Adleman would be a good fit based on his age & liklihood of him wanting to go to winner (LA) & not a building team. He talked about the trend sliding away from "re-treds" & everyone wanting the next "Tom Thibadou" (sp). He also said he would not rule out a dark horse canidate who has not been mentioned (he has no info, just speculation based on Larry using names & trying to throw people off).
                                (I agree, & I want Frank, P.Ewing, Person - or if older, K.McHale. Not sure why, but I do.)

                                -They also discussed the need for some experience on the bench if Frank stays, as Walter & Vitaly were just 1st yr. guys t/y & we need someone who can help manage a locker room & has been through a losing streak & the "dog day's" & can help keep focus - a M.Brown type when he was here.
                                (I wonder if Larry might "suggest" the offensive/defensive cordinator concept he took w/ Frank? I wonder who Larry might see as this type of bench coach?)

                                -Did not say much on players likely to be a focus, but did mention the need for a long big, and a S.Battier-type leader. Said the Pacers would not over-spend just to land a big name, & said he likes Larry's plan to build a bench to be as good as the starters, & indicated that could help attract a bigger name later ('12).
                                (I agree 110% with this!)
                                "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                                (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X