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

Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

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

  • Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

    Ok, I am going to run one of these for everyone in managment starting with the head coach.

    We've had more than half a season now to at least get a feel for where we stand on these guys.

    There can be all kinds of reasons, one way or the other, saying yes you have confidence or no you don't. Feel free to list them.

    But at this time I would like a vote.

    Here is the quesiton.

    Do you have confidence in Jim O'Brien as our head coach?
    It's either a yes or no question at this point. You can feel free to give your reasons.

    BTW, if you are going to say that you have faith in him if he had a better group of players that still counts as a yes you have faith.

    That is really the core of the question anyway. Do you have faith that Jim O'Brien is THE coach if we had the right set of players.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

    Yes. I like the freedom that he gives to the team during games and how we have seen that he can still call a good play when we need it. Solid coach, I don't love him but I have confidence in him.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

      No.

      He's is not the right coach for the future. I believe his system could work if we had players who could hit shots when the games on the line. But his system as it stands, is entertaining but can not win games in the long run. Adding JO is not the answer either. Deiner is playing the point well. The ball movement is there but it ends up being another 3 shot. Why did the Pacers attack the basket in the first New Jersey game and settle for three's in the second one? I believe thats the coaching. I'm not convinced O'B knows what to do at the moment it needs done. If he makes adjustments it's always too late to affect the game.

      Maybe the Pacers are 1 Michael Redd away from making O'B look like a genius. I am not convinced.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

        No. I don't think you can ever win a title with this style of basketball. This team is disregarding the defense over and over again, in close games it doesn't seem that he can call good plays, and jacking up rushed 3-pointers constantly is not my philosophy of good basketball.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

          Originally posted by 31andonly View Post
          No. I don't think you can ever win a title with this style of basketball. This team is disregarding the defense over and over again, in close games it doesn't seem that he can call good plays, and jacking up rushed 3-pointers constantly is not my philosophy of good basketball.
          Do we ever run a a set play given the situation?

          You precisely sum up my concerns with O'Briens philosophy. I have said it before-his offense has to much of a gimmick feel. Yes an offensive post threat might alter things to a degree, but not drastically IMO.

          And that's not even getting in to the defensive scheme. I will say that I like his intensity though. I'm willing to give him a shot with some talent upgrades a key spots to see if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it will turn out that way.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

            Yes.

            An offensive go-to guy and a defensive stopper and suddenly JOB is a genius.
            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


            • #7
              Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

              I'd say yes. He was certainly looking like a genius at the beginning of the year before JO and JT got injured. I'm sure he can do very well with better personnel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                Originally posted by Peck
                Do you have faith that Jim O'Brien is THE coach if we had the right set of players.

                I wouldn't say he is "THE" coach. He's not the best coach in basketball history or the only guy capable of putting five guys in yellow on the floor. But I would say he is "a" good enough coach for the Pacers.

                I do not believe O'Brien is telling the players to go out and throw up 29 3-point attempts a game. The offensive scheme promotes ball movement in order to create open shots, and I like that. If the players take the wrong shots, or take good shots and miss them, is not a fault of the scheme.


                There is no king, be his cause ever so just,
                Can try it out with all unspotted soldiers.


                Three years from now, the team will be better off because O'Brien stuck with his scheme and kept the development of the players-of-the-future on track rather than switching plans to get a few more wins this year out of Troy Murphy and Marquis Daniels.
                Last edited by Putnam; 02-24-2008, 10:08 AM.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                  Yes from the interested observer category. The problem's not the coach. The problem's management not getting the coach the players he needs.

                  Similar to last season . . .
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                    Yes.

                    I didn't agree with his hiring, and I don't believe his system can ever be a contending one.

                    However, he has shown that he is capable of being successful with at least some talent. I won't even say we need players that fit his system, we just need players with more talent. Every team needs a go-to guy, every single one. We don't have that, and the argument can be made we haven't had one in 3 years.

                    Another thing to consider is his system is entertaining to watch. If we can start winning again, I think the seats will be easier to fill running his system as opposed to something like Rick's.

                    My one concern about going forward with him is on player development, which will be crucial in the years to come. I've certainly been impressed with what he's gotten out of Travis and Rush, two players who I still feel aren't NBA caliber. But what about Ike? Is he really the lost cause Jim makes him out to be? To be fair, people complained for years about David's lack of PT, before we all realized he was a nutcase. But I still see Jim as the guy who'll lay the foundation for the next guy, and if he's not good at developing players, that's a big problem.
                    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Do you have confidence in Jim O'Brien as our head coach?
                      It's either a yes or no question at this point. You can feel free to give your reasons.

                      BTW, if you are going to say that you have faith in him if he had a better group of players that still counts as a yes you have faith.

                      That is really the core of the question anyway. Do you have faith that Jim O'Brien is THE coach if we had the right set of players.
                      A mild yes.

                      If Rick had that same right set of players the team would win more, but JOB is better than just some hack too. Ultimately you could upgrade at coach but clearly after 2 coaches with previously solid winning records have lost big with this group of players you know the key issue is the roster.

                      I don't like the offense, it's way too one on one (ironically after all the "iso" complaints on Rick) and the defense just gets killed from the corners...see NJ baseline alley-oops as just the latest exploitation of that.


                      PS - still waiting to see Tins put up better numbers or play more games for JOB than he was for Rick...you know, the coach that was "holding him back". Ugh, can't believe people bought into that.


                      Kegboy - I considered his odd, out of nowhere hiring as maybe a sign of pre-built fall guy. If you know the team has issues and you know that fans want a change, then why get into the big money and go after the big talent at coach if the roster is only going to end up with fans demanding his firing next. I've mellowed on that view since the summer, but it does nag at me still, that JOB is only here to ride out the roster reconfiguration. Then as that's sorted out the new guy is called in and "saves the day".

                      But as you say, shouldn't that be a guy that can develop young talent at least? Sure, in a world where reason has a vote.
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-24-2008, 11:25 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        Ok, I am going to run one of these for everyone in managment starting with the head coach.

                        We've had more than half a season now to at least get a feel for where we stand on these guys.

                        There can be all kinds of reasons, one way or the other, saying yes you have confidence or no you don't. Feel free to list them.

                        But at this time I would like a vote.

                        Here is the quesiton.

                        Do you have confidence in Jim O'Brien as our head coach?
                        It's either a yes or no question at this point. You can feel free to give your reasons.

                        BTW, if you are going to say that you have faith in him if he had a better group of players that still counts as a yes you have faith.

                        That is really the core of the question anyway. Do you have faith that Jim O'Brien is THE coach if we had the right set of players.
                        Yes I have faith in him, though it used to be much stronger. I want to see how his gameplan looks with more talent. I suspect we'd look considerably better on both sides of the ball with more talent. Though I still worry about the offense being too "free".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Yes.

                          An offensive go-to guy and a defensive stopper and suddenly JOB is a genius.
                          This is what I'm suspecting as well. Especially the offensive go-to guy part. What I really want is a guy who excels at attacking the basket.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                            "...they say your methods are unsound."
                            "...so are they? are my methods unsound?"
                            ....long pause ..."i don't see a method"



                            my vote is NO but it's a moot point -

                            i like jim o'brien and i think he's an OK
                            coach, but i think his role here will be of
                            the interim variety while TPTB shuffles
                            through another season - or two - of
                            trying to wrangle deals while saddled
                            with impossible contracts, contracts
                            negotiatied by mr. walsh.

                            jim o'brien will last about as long as larry
                            bird, which is not too much longer. probably
                            another year. sorry i can't be optimistic, but
                            i don't see a way out of this. this is going to
                            take 2-3 years to straighten out.

                            i wish i were wrong!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                              No ( for now ).

                              I have no problem in the offense/defense that he wants to implement. The problem is that I don't think that he has done a good job of implementing and running the offense the way that it should be run.

                              We have known problems on the offensive end that I think that JO'B can fix. Problems like the typical 2nd half offensive drought and our constant fallback to the 3pt barrage / jumpshot fest IMHO can be fixed by simple in-game Coaching adjustments. JO'B can do something simple as telling the players to stop "jacking up 3's" or reigning in the offense more at critical streches of the game.....but for some reason; he has either failed to do so, doesn't want to make too many in-game decisions or ( worse ) he's letting the team run the offense this way.

                              Either way, he hasn't done too much to remedy known problems that we have on our offense. Until he does something to remedy these problems on offense.....I'm not very confident in his abilities to effectively coach this team.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 02-24-2008, 02:20 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X