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

Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

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

  • #31
    Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

    JO, Harrington, and Artest have all credited Thomas with their maturation. Carlisle has credited Thomas many times for preparing the team and making them more mature.
    Artest matured under Isiah?

    Are you sure?

    Please discuss. This might entertain.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

      I have about 12 firends here in Massachusetts who are NBA fans. Mostly Celtics fans, but one Knick guy and one Lakers guy.

      To a man every one of them has a much LOWER opinion of Isiah as a coach than I do. They told me going into the Boston series last year that in their opinion the Pacers had given up on Isiah and that Boston would probably win. I said "no way". I wanted to believe otherwise. The series was an eye-opener for me. I found my friends to be totally accurate. Afterward, we all agreed, in fact, that had the Pacers been coached by O'Brien and the Celtics coached by Isiah, the Pacers would have won the series-- that they had superior talent with a coaching void.

      New Yawk, I can't help it if it disturbs you that I thought you were alone in your high opinion of Isiah's coaching ability. I have absolutely never met (in person) any sports fan SINCE Isiah was fired that thinks he was a good coach. All of my friends regard me as crazy for thinking he was anything but a terrible coach, when I argue that perhaps he was merely average.

      I had begun to believe that there were very few people out there with that opinion. I was wrong.
      Boston fans saying Isiah sucks, and that the Celtics will win.

      I'm... shocked. ed:

      You live in Massachusetts, and you can't find anyone "SINCE Isiah was fired that thinks he was a good coach."

      And, I'm... shocked. ed:

      All of your friends (who, I assume, also live in Mass) say you're crazy for calling Zeke average.

      Once again, I'm... shocked. Shocked... I tell you. ed:

      Your friends, I'm sure, are fine people, but BOSTON CELTIC FANS commenting on Isiah Thomas's abilities is like asking a Red Sox fan to be objective about Roger Clemens. Objectivity and Boston are like vinager and oil.

      I believe Kegboy's post summs it up best:

      "Now, was he [Thomas] as good as Carlisle? Of course not. Now, that said, I completely believe if we'd hired Rick instead of Isiah, Rick wouldn't still be the coach either. Donnie was completely right. Rick didn't have the people skills to succeed in such a massive rebuilding effort coming off the Finals. He didn't have expectations to live up to in Detroit, and he still got canned. Because of that he's learned to be more mellow and more flexible, and it's made him a better coach."

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

        He tried (and I believe this was his direction from Donnie) to get everyone playing time, but when your 13th man is as deserving of PT as your 7th man, establishing a consistent rotation just ain't going to happen." [Anthem]. Would that change your opinion?
        Again, you're pulling something out of your ***. Donnie takes a very hands off approach to his coaches. He pretty much let's them do their thing. He would talk to Isiah during the collapse because there was clearly something wrong and he felt the need to intervene at that point. Guess what? And this is something you would never know, but I do. Isiah wouldn't listen to Donnie. Which was incredibly frustrating to him. And it is at that point when I know Donnie lost faith in Isiah.


        Clearly, you don't like dissenting opinion. I have yet to see anything form you that concretly refutes anything I've said. Thomas Ii] did [/i] have a winning record. The team did improve each year he was coach. Key players on the squad did improve each year he was coach.

        We disagree. This argument is highly subjective as both sides clearly have a point. Accept it. Deal with it. Move on.
        Everything I've said has concretely refuted what you've said as it pertains to the discussion we're having. You choose not to listen.

        As for the argument being highly subjective on both sides, it's subjective from your side because you are wildly speculating whereas I'm not.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

          JO, Harrington, and Artest have all credited Thomas with their maturation. Carlisle has credited Thomas many times for preparing the team and making them more mature.
          Artest matured under Isiah?

          Are you sure?

          Please discuss. This might entertain.
          Without question, he became a better player under Thomas. His talent matured, which is what Hicks and I are discussing. Plz, read more carefully next time.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

            Well, the word "good" is pretty subjective. I think if the question was if he was an "okay" coach, it'd probably be closer to 40%.

            That said, I'm surprised it is 20%. Isiah is the whipping boy on this forum. He's been gone for 7 months and people still can't go a day without talking about how much they hate him.
            Just a clarification... or a question...
            I don't know that I have EVER seen anyone say they hated Isiah here. Didn't like (or hated) his coaching I have certainly heard.

            Which are you saying?

            There's a difference. A big difference.

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

              Everything I've said has concretely refuted what you've said as it pertains to the discussion we're having. You choose not to listen.

              As for the argument being highly subjective on both sides, it's subjective from your side because you are wildly speculating whereas I'm not.
              Translation-- If you don't agree with me, you're deaf.



              I can't talk to someone who simply dismisses dissent, and states opinions as "concrete refutes." Pointless debate. We can't even agree to disagree.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                Everything I've said has concretely refuted what you've said as it pertains to the discussion we're having. You choose not to listen.

                As for the argument being highly subjective on both sides, it's subjective from your side because you are wildly speculating whereas I'm not.
                Translation-- If you don't agree with me, you're deaf.



                I can't talk to someone who simply dismisses dissent, and states opinions as "concrete refutes." Pointless debate. We can't even agree to disagree.
                Did you ever consider bulletproof may actually 'know' what he is saying is fact?

                I believe he told you as much in one of his replies. I, for one, will take him at his word.

                -Bball
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                  :
                  "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?


                    Boston fans saying Isiah sucks, and that the Celtics will win. I'm... shocked. ed:
                    Boston fans, an LA fan, and a Knicks fan, but moreover NON-HOMER fans of NBA basketball,

                    who specifically told me why and how the Celtics would beat the Pacers and then why and how the Celtics would then roll over like dogs to the Nets.

                    None of the Celtics fans has green glasses. They knew they were backing a barely-above-0.500 team that would lose to any winning team with a good coach. They were gleeful to get the Indiana matchup, because it meant playing a team that was playing at a lower level, at the time, than ANY other playoff team.

                    I know some Celtics fans who think that the C's can do no wrong and that all their opponents suck. I wasn't counting any of those people. I was counting serious knowlegable fans of NBA basketball.

                    Poll any Knick fans around you that are also knowledgable NBA fans. Ask them if Isiah, while (so far) a good GM, was also a good coach.
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                      Everything I've said has concretely refuted what you've said as it pertains to the discussion we're having. You choose not to listen.

                      As for the argument being highly subjective on both sides, it's subjective from your side because you are wildly speculating whereas I'm not.
                      Translation-- If you don't agree with me, you're deaf.



                      I can't talk to someone who simply dismisses dissent, and states opinions as "concrete refutes." Pointless debate. We can't even agree to disagree.
                      Did you ever consider bulletproof may actually 'know' what he is saying is fact?

                      I believe he told you as much in one of his replies. I, for one, will take him at his word.

                      -Bball
                      I believe he thinks he knows. No, I do not think he's lying, but I do not value his opinion as much as he does, and he has shown nothing that even suggests his POV is based more in fact than mine. And, unlike him, I respect dissent. I respect his opinion. He clearly does not respect mine.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?


                        Boston fans saying Isiah sucks, and that the Celtics will win. I'm... shocked. ed:
                        Boston fans, an LA fan, and a Knicks fan, but moreover NON-HOMER fans of NBA basketball,

                        who specifically told me why and how the Celtics would beat the Pacers and then why and how the Celtics would then roll over like dogs to the Nets.

                        None of the Celtics fans has green glasses. They knew they were backing a barely-above-0.500 team that would lose to any winning team with a good coach. They were gleeful to get the Indiana matchup, because it meant playing a team that was playing at a lower level, at the time, than ANY other playoff team.

                        I know some Celtics fans who think that the C's can do no wrong and that all their opponents suck. I wasn't counting any of those people. I was counting serious knowlegable fans of NBA basketball.

                        Poll any Knick fans around you that are also knowledgable NBA fans. Ask them if Isiah, while (so far) a good GM, was also a good coach.
                        They'll say he was a good coach Tom. I talk to Knicks fans every day. Again, I'm sure your friends are knowledgable. I have knowledgable friends too who think Isiah was good with a flawed roster, and that Carlisle is benefiting from Zeke's three good years.

                        Let's just agree to disagree, and stop pissing on each other. Okay?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                          I think the problem, Yawk, is most (correctly so in my eyes) don't equate team success with a good coach. There can be a BIG correlation between them, see this season for that, but I just don't feel we got a little better each year because of Isiah, I think that was our talent maturing.

                          Same with the idea that team wins = coach's quality. It's not that simple.
                          Wouldn't you give Thomas credit for the talent maturing, and thus credit for the wins? JO, Harrington, and Artest have all credited Thomas with their maturation. Carlisle has credited Thomas many times for preparing the team and making them more mature.
                          I'm sure he helped, yeah. But I also know that when it comes to "coach stuff" he was mediocre. Watching Carlisle shows me that. He didn't know when to call timeouts. He didn't know how to make good subsititutions, he wasn't that good at drawing up plays. He didn't get them to play above average team defense. That's the sign of an average at best coach.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                            Let's just agree to disagree, and stop pissing on each other. Okay?
                            OK.

                            We can at least agree that Grady Little was not a good baseball manager, right?

                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?

                              Let's just agree to disagree, and stop pissing on each other. Okay?
                              OK.

                              We can at least agree that Grady Little was not a good baseball manager, right?

                              Well, actually...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Was Isiah Thomas a good coach?


                                I'm sure he helped, yeah. But I also know that when it comes to "coach stuff" he was mediocre. Watching Carlisle shows me that. He didn't know when to call timeouts. He didn't know how to make good subsititutions, he wasn't that good at drawing up plays. He didn't get them to play above average team defense. That's the sign of an average at best coach.
                                I also want to add that I think Isiah brought some 'Bob Knight' inspired ideas to the bench. I wonder if his use of timeouts was one of them? Knight never liked to call a timeout when the other team made a run. He thought it was a sign of weakness. He preferred the team play thru it.

                                With tough and wily players that may work... but in the world of 3 point baskets you can be snowballed quickly.

                                Bob Knight was also known to experiment with his lineup and play headgames.

                                I dunno.... I'm the only one that ever really mentions that stuff so maybe I am wrong?

                                I always thought losing your lead on the scoreboard was a pretty good sign of weakness....

                                -Bball
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X