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

A question for the OB haters

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

  • #46
    Re: A question for the OB haters

    Why should I give him praises when he's starting to do the things we've been *****ing and screaming for him to do for the past 3 years now?

    Maybe if he would have done the most logical sense things to begin with, we wouldn't be considered "haters." But it is what it is.

    -Get a PG that actually attacks the lane. Check
    -Actually have players play defense. Check
    -Try and establish Roy in the low block. Check
    -Actually understand that your 4 doesn't need to be a "stretch." Check.


    And is there a site that tracks average time of possession before a shot? I would guess the Pacers would have the ball 4-5secs more, on average, which is a tremendous change from last season considering how many fastbreaks they get.

    A three with 9secs on the shot clock is a big difference than taking one with 14.


    And I thought DC2 played a hell of a lot better last night, than he has been. I thought he looked extremely good attacking the middle and kicking out, once he established that he was going to score if he got inside. He put up points quickly in the first quarter, and then cooled off, because he turned into a passer instead of a scorer. Makes all the difference in the world, that inside-out game.

    But hey, what do I know? I'm just a plain ol hater........
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: A question for the OB haters

      Originally posted by ballism View Post
      He has made a number of mind boggling decisions over the years. Some substitution patters, also some end of game plays make you /facepalm. However when you listen to him explain his decisions, or read his interviews, you often go away thinking that he's smarter than the first impression.
      When I listen to Charles Manson talk, I always come away thinking he's pretty smart too. Crazy as all can be, but smart none-the-less.

      Anyone can rationalize their decisions. But most usually don't try and fit a square peg into a round hole every single day, and continually expect it to fit.


      I understand the philosophy behind having a player like Murphy as your 4, but you have to have the right personel around him. The Pacers didn't, and that's what we saw. There's a reason why Utah can get away with it, and the Pacers couldn't.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: A question for the OB haters

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        When I listen to Charles Manson talk, I always come away thinking he's pretty smart too. Crazy as all can be, but smart none-the-less.

        Anyone can rationalize their decisions. But most usually don't try and fit a square peg into a round hole every single day, and continually expect it to fit.


        I understand the philosophy behind having a player like Murphy as your 4, but you have to have the right personel around him. The Pacers didn't, and that's what we saw. There's a reason why Utah can get away with it, and the Pacers couldn't.
        Personally, I don't care if you play 5 wings who don't care about defense, like Donnie Nelson. If it works, it works. Sometimes it works because it makes sense from basketball point of view, and sometimes it works simply because players buy into what coach says and play their butts off.
        I don't mind a poor decision maker, if he compensates for it by being a genius motivator.

        I always thought JOB might be a below average decision maker. But pretty good at motivating players, getting them to buy into the system, judging by his interviews. The team did look ok sporadically.
        But judging by that article about JOB in that other current topic on this forum, the players actually had trouble buying into what JOB says last year.... so now I don't know anymore, is he is above average at anything?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: A question for the OB haters

          Like most NBA coaches, O'Brien coaches the players he has on the roster.

          I'm sure he understands the 4 doesn't need to be a "stretch" - he ran with Toine out of Boston, he used Dalembert, Thomas, Webber and Jackson as his bigs in Philly. He used PGs who attacked the lane in the past too. And had teams playing the low post a lot.

          But you can't do omelettes without eggs. Hibbert used to struggle to stay on the court for more than half a quarter in his rookie season, with fouls and conditioning issue... how can you build your offense around his low post game, which is still a work in progress?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: A question for the OB haters

            And Don Nelson get's you GSW..... Sorry, but if that were the Pacers, you'd think that I was actually a JOb fan.

            Just because there is an alternative, doesn't mean that it's the correct way to do things.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: A question for the OB haters

              As for the defense, see how great is Cleveland's defense when they have a great defensive coach like Byron Scott - a guy who coached some of the best defensive teams in the last 20 years. It's bad and if they get unlucky with injuries in a couple of players, it'll get even uglier. Does it mean that Scott can't coach defense?

              O'Brien's teams have always overperformed defensively relatively to their talent level.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: A question for the OB haters

                Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                But you can't do omelettes without eggs. Hibbert used to struggle to stay on the court for more than half a quarter in his rookie season, with fouls and conditioning issue... how can you build your offense around his low post game, which is still a work in progress?
                And routinely fouled out of games with 4 fouls....... Just like PG, the moment Roy would make any mistake he was looking towards the bench because he knew he was getting subbed out.

                Hard to play with confidence and grow when you're scared ****less of making a mistake.

                But whatever. You've not convinced me in 3years that JOb is a good coach, I doubt you're going to do it now.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: A question for the OB haters

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  And Don Nelson get's you GSW..... Sorry, but if that were the Pacers, you'd think that I was actually a JOb fan.

                  Just because there is an alternative, doesn't mean that it's the correct way to do things.
                  I don't get what you are arguing here and with who. But anyway, my point was, any system can win you games in certain situations if players buy in and play hard. You can win 50+ games and take down a no.1 team in the playoffs. Or you can be a disaster with the same system when you lose your players.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: A question for the OB haters

                    I'm saying that if you have 5 wing players like Don Nelson, you get a record like GSW routinely gets. That's not what I want the Pacers to do, and I can assure you I'm not the only one.

                    I don't care about the rationalization, or what other coach does what, playing Murphy like he did doesn't, and will never work. Period.

                    But we had a coach that played him like he was the of the best players, and one of the most important players on the squad, when in fact he was one of the most detrimental players on the team.

                    I don't care if Jim sounds smart when he talks about why he does things. I care about results, and the results plain sucked.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: A question for the OB haters

                      Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                      Like most NBA coaches, O'Brien coaches the players he has on the roster.

                      I'm sure he understands the 4 doesn't need to be a "stretch" - he ran with Toine out of Boston, he used Dalembert, Thomas, Webber and Jackson as his bigs in Philly. He used PGs who attacked the lane in the past too. And had teams playing the low post a lot.

                      But you can't do omelettes without eggs. Hibbert used to struggle to stay on the court for more than half a quarter in his rookie season, with fouls and conditioning issue... how can you build your offense around his low post game, which is still a work in progress?

                      Personally, i feel we are a bit too far into this coaching regime to still be operating with a general notion 'can't blame the coach, the team was bad'. I mean, we have this coach for the 4th year now, and we've followed the roster and its gaps for many years. If we can't discuss coaching quality just because 'talent was bad'... where have we been looking for 4 years. In 4 years, you can see if a coach overperforms or underperforms, or is average - no matter the talent level.

                      There have been so many weird decisions and plays, especially late into the game. Probably none of us has as much experience as JOB. But that does not make us blind, the man is no Popovich.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: A question for the OB haters

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        I'm saying that if you have 5 wing players like Don Nelson, you get a record like GSW routinely gets. That's not what I want the Pacers to do, and I can assure you I'm not the only one.

                        I don't care about the rationalization, or what other coach does what, playing Murphy like he did doesn't, and will never work. Period.

                        But we had a coach that played him like he was the of the best players, and one of the most important players on the squad, when in fact he was one of the most detrimental players on the team.

                        I don't care if Jim sounds smart when he talks about why he does things. I care about results, and the results plain sucked.
                        Yea, well i don't disagree with you on any on this. That has little to do with what I was saying. Maybe Im not expressing myself properly. Anyway, it seems pointless to keep discussing, since we are both thinking the same and are only for some reason repeating the same idea

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: A question for the OB haters

                          i remember a 5 game win streak last year that got everyone excited then reality set in. But what we think is irrellevant. But I am really happy with the players we have this year.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: A question for the OB haters

                            Originally posted by ballism View Post
                            Probably none of us has as much experience as JOB. But that does not make us blind, the man is no Popovich.
                            Probably? There are few things that can be stated with certainty, but this is definitely one of them.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: A question for the OB haters

                              Originally posted by ballism View Post
                              Personally, i feel we are a bit too far into this coaching regime to still be operating with a general notion 'can't blame the coach, the team was bad'. I mean, we have this coach for the 4th year now, and we've followed the roster and its gaps for many years. If we can't discuss coaching quality just because 'talent was bad'... where have we been looking for 4 years. In 4 years, you can see if a coach overperforms or underperforms, or is average - no matter the talent level.
                              I have never made such a claim. In fact I have said for years that the job Jim O'Brien did two seasons ago to get 36 wins out of that team was an excellent job coaching. Even his first season with the JT and JO distractions 36 wins was pretty good. I think in bopth instances, the team over-achieved.

                              Last season 32 wins was probably about where the team should be. Maybe a couple of games better maybe, but overall 32 wins wasn't too bad for the lack of talent and lack of players with enough experience to win.

                              This year we have Collison, a health Dunleavy, Roy is much better, Rush is much better, Ford is playing better than he has, Granger is playing defense. I expect more than 32 wins this season.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: A question for the OB haters

                                Originally posted by Part Timer View Post
                                Probably? There are few things that can be stated with certainty, but this is definitely one of them.
                                Well possibly there are very experienced people posting here / reading this. I don't work in basketball field, but I wouldn't 'state with certainty' that noone is. This board does seem to have quite a number of very knowledgeable people posting, compared to most boards.
                                Last edited by ballism; 11-24-2010, 11:43 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X