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

Interesting article about Isiah

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

  • Interesting article about Isiah

    Some quotes from Walsh


    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...p-354324c.html


    Less doubting Coach Thomas
    BY MITCH LAWRENCE
    DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER
    Sunday, May 21st, 2006

    The drill was intended to teach the Indiana Pacers the correct way to throw the ball to the post, a fundamental part of the game that would take your normal NBA player no more than two or three minutes to master. But the man doing the coaching, Isiah Thomas, was known to sit in his office for hours, trying to come up with new wrinkles for the motion offense that he first learned under his mentor, Bob Knight.

    So it was no surprise that the drill never took less than 20 minutes. And that the Pacers practiced it almost every day.

    That feed-the-post drill got to be a standing joke for some veterans, who supressed smirks and yawns as Thomas went over every detail, down to the footwork of the man catching the ball.

    But not everyone was taken aback by Thomas' insistence on micromanaging a fairly simple part of the game.

    "I always felt that Isiah's biggest strength is his offensive game," says Indiana CEO Donnie Walsh, Thomas' boss during his three seasons coaching the team. "He came up with some interesting game plans and plays, even in our playoff games, that sometimes surprised me.

    "I've heard people say if he takes over the Knicks' coaching job, he'll have to hire an X's and O's guy. But I totally disagree. Isiah has a player's know-how, because he played point guard. And he's a very creative guy when it comes to the offensive end."

    If he does succeed Larry Brown, there isn't much doubt that Thomas will have to be at his creative best. The greatly flawed roster Thomas has assembled produced only 23 wins under Brown this season, and is missing more than a few key components to become a championship contender - starting, of course, with a franchise talent.

    That doesn't mean, however, that Thomas can't get the Knicks up to the 35-37 win level, which, in the very weak Eastern Conference, could give any team a chance to challenge for a final playoff spot.

    To do that, he'll have to throw out Brown's playbook and do what he had intended to do all along, before hiring Brown last August. According to several coaches and GMs asked about Thomas' coaching abilities, his best chance to get the Knicks back to mediocrity is to run a variation of Phoenix's system, even if that means a diminished role for Eddy Curry, one of Thomas' signature acquisitions.

    (Unless, of course, Thomas reverts to how he coached in Indiana, sitting in his office for hours, planning out new schemes for the motion offense. Often, those wrinkles would crash and burn when he'd try them out in practice.)

    "I think Isiah's approach would be, 'Here's the way we're going to run the offense, and then we'll pick up the defense as we go,'" Walsh says.

    If he does go the Suns' route, the Knicks most certainly won't perform nearly as well as Mike D'Antoni's genuine version has, although the players aren't as likely to rebel against the coach, as happened last season.

    "The challenge for Isiah is that he's got a lot of the similar players, guys like (Stephon) Marbury, (Steve) Francis and (Jamal) Crawford," says one Eastern Conference coach. "He can't play a slowdown halfcourt game, because it doesn't favor any of their strengths. It's got to be an up-tempo, shoot 'em out type of style. If he plays that style, he'll get the fans excited because they'll at least be entertaining. They'll score and he can show some progress. He can have the Garden rocking again.

    "And that will be easier to sell to his players. Guys will be gung-ho to play in it, because they'll get up and down the court, everybody will get touches and it will give them an opportunity to create. For that team, that's a whole lot better than trying to use the approach that Larry did."

    When it comes to handling players, Thomas also will have an entirely different approach than Brown. While Brown seemed to revel in pointing out his players' deficiencies to the media, causing numerous firestorms along the way, Thomas almost never ripped his players in Indiana when he compiled a 131-115 regular-season mark from 2001-03.

    Even when his teams failed to get out of three straight first-round series, including in 2003 when the Pacers were the higher-seeded team, he steadfastly supported his players - as long as they remained loyal to him. When he suspected Austin Croshere of giving anonymous critical quotes to reporters, he banished Croshere to the Siberian side of the bench.

    After spending all of last season exchanging verbal grenades with Brown and bucking the system, Marbury would seem to be the greatest beneficiary of Thomas' attempts to keep problems in-house. But while several GMs think Marbury would embrace whatever role Thomas would have for him, others say Marbury will never make his teammates better, no matter who the head coach is. If the Knicks try to become Phoenix East, for instance, it's hard to imagine Marbury succeeding in the role of Steve Nash, a two-time MVP who raises everyone's play around him.

    "I really don't know how he'd do," Walsh says of the guard. "I think Marbury is a very good player. But he's got to be put in the right role to succeed. I don't know how you do that. That would be Isiah's challenge."

    Only one of many.

  • #2
    Re: Interesting article about Isiah

    Originally posted by Unclebuck
    That feed-the-post drill got to be a standing joke for some veterans, who supressed smirks and yawns as Thomas went over every detail, down to the footwork of the man catching the ball.
    Maybe it'd be funny if they ever got it right. The downfall of The Quick was, exept for Brad, nobody could run the shuffle cut correctly. Only Brad and Reggie got the triangle aspects. Motion broke down whenever Al had the ball, and don't even get me started on Ron.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Interesting article about Isiah

      Originally posted by Kegboy
      Maybe it'd be funny if they ever got it right. The downfall of The Quick was, exept for Brad, nobody could run the shuffle cut correctly. Only Brad and Reggie got the triangle aspects. Motion broke down whenever Al had the ball, and don't even get me started on Ron.
      IMO the downfall of The Quick came after the all-star break once opposing coaches had scouted it and figured that if you clogged the lane and bumped cutters you could pretty much destroy it.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Interesting article about Isiah

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
        IMO the downfall of The Quick came after the all-star break once opposing coaches had scouted it and figured that if you clogged the lane and bumped cutters you could pretty much destroy it.
        Oh, the system wasn't working as intended long before that. What you're referring to was the downfall of the team itself, otherwise known as The Collapse. But Ron and Al were ****ing things up long before then. Brad was the only thing holding things together. Once he got hurt, we were toast.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Interesting article about Isiah

          These sound like some pretty back-handed compliments from The Don:


          "I always felt that Isiah's biggest strength is his offensive game," says Indiana CEO Donnie Walsh, Thomas' boss during his three seasons coaching the team. "He came up with some interesting game plans and plays, even in our playoff games, that sometimes surprised me."

          Interesting like losing in the 1st Round three straight years. Or surprising like taking three seasons to win more than 42 games?


          "I've heard people say if he takes over the Knicks' coaching job, he'll have to hire an X's and O's guy. But I totally disagree. Isiah has a player's know-how, because he played point guard. And he's a very creative guy when it comes to the offensive end."

          Creative enough to be shown the door after mismanaging and confusing his players for three seasons. What a waste of time this guy was.
          Read my Pacers blog:
          8points9seconds.com

          Follow my twitter:

          @8pts9secs

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Interesting article about Isiah

            Originally posted by JayRedd
            These sound like some pretty back-handed compliments from The Don:
            You're reaching.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Interesting article about Isiah

              Originally posted by Kegboy
              You're reaching.
              twas only only kidding around. Can't resist taking potshots at Isiah.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment

              Working...
              X