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

Conversation with JO (with audio)

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

  • Conversation with JO (with audio)

    Hey guys, been a while since i've checked in but I wanted to share a little info...

    I sat down with Jermaine for about 15 minutes following the Clippers loss and we talked about where the heart of this problem is coming from. The issue Jermaine has right now is he hates the offense. Ok maybe hate is a strong word but it's broken. He feels teams have figured it out... That the coaches will call out a play and the opposing bench will call out exactly what is coming. Teams have been sending double teams as soon as Jermaine touches the ball in the post. It used to be they would wait until he started to make his move, and now they won't even let him do that. They are daring us to shoot and no one is hitting their shots. He said he has been trying to step out of the post and shoot but if he misses, we have no rebounders so our possessions are typically one-and-done.

    It seems to me that our leader does not believe in our offense right now, which I think is saying something considering the offense is supposed to be built for him.

    Also of note, I spoke with Donnie after the Clippers game and he said he's never been one to put a lot of stock in a single game but he was clearly concerned with the current slide. After the game he said it was one of those games where it makes you look at your coaches and players and everyone involved and ask "what the (bleep) is going on?"

    He also said the team is already gearing up for the draft and my impression was that they are going to trade for a first round pick.

    Edit: Here is most of the post-game with Jermaine. It's about 8 minutes long so give the file some time to load. Enjoy! http://www.absolutepacers.com/audio/JO.WAV

  • #2
    Re: Conversation with JO

    If all of this is true, then Jermaine O'Neal may be the worst human being alive.

    Alright, Artest is still worse. But how in the name of God could he possibly be upset with the offense. We play this way to keep him happy, and the reason we have no rebounders is because of the way we play.

    JO down in the post, everyone bolted to the floor behind the 3pt line.
    House Name: Pacers

    House Sigil:



    House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Conversation with JO

      I knew someone would say that about JO.

      But the strange thing is the Pacers get more offensive rebounds per game than any team in the NBA - of course part of that is because they shoot so poorly. I think percentage wise the Pacers are 4th in the league in offensive rebounds. This is in sharp contrast to Rick's 5 previous years as head coach when his teams were always poor offensive rebounding teams. Of course there is a flip side to this. That might explain why the Pacers transition defense is putrid IMO

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Conversation with JO

        DD, sorry but without a verbatim, this is exactly what he said in the post press conf. Opponents have figured it all out, every play called is answered before it is ran, something I said 2 weeks ago when it became very clear.

        As your father noted in another thread, RC calls every play even after a rebound given half the chance, add to that the outside players not being able to hit the broadside of a barn from 3 feet and you have the outcome you are looking at.

        Once more: I am sure JO would never say that (hating the offense), but he said something of that nature (without "hating" the offense, but that it has been figured out completely) in the post game press conference.
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

        If you've done 6 impossible things today?
        Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Conversation with JO

          able, every team knows every opponents play calls, they know what play they are going to run. There are no secrets. The key question is whether the other teams can stop the plays. And with the new defensive rules, dribble penetration is so important and stopping dribble penetration is even more important. Rick has one of the thickest playbooks in the NBA.

          I've said this before, but I'll say it again, I like Rick calling the plays (how in the world that became taboo, I'll never know or understand) most of the best coaches in the NBA call almost all the plays.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Conversation with JO

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            able, every team knows every opponents play calls, they know what play they are going to run. There are no secrets. The key question is whether the other teams can stop the plays. And with the new defensive rules, dribble penetration is so important and stopping dribble penetration is even more important. Rick has one of the thickest playbooks in the NBA.

            I've said this before, but I'll say it again, I like Rick calling the plays (how in the world that became taboo, I'll never know or understand) most of the best coaches in the NBA call almost all the plays.
            UB, how come we don't see it with the Mavs, or Suns Or Pistons?

            How come those PG's go out with a choice/read/react hand?

            I see no other coach in the NBA calling out every play all the time, except Rick.

            That stands aside the fact that it is clear that the bad-shooting brings it all to a halt, JO can kick the ball out as much as he wants, if it only ends in missed shots, it's still worthless.
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Conversation with JO

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              I knew someone would say that about JO.

              But the strange thing is the Pacers get more offensive rebounds per game than any team in the NBA - of course part of that is because they shoot so poorly. I think percentage wise the Pacers are 4th in the league in offensive rebounds. This is in sharp contrast to Rick's 5 previous years as head coach when his teams were always poor offensive rebounding teams. Of course there is a flip side to this. That might explain why the Pacers transition defense is putrid IMO
              Well then conversly that must mean JO doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the rebounding.
              House Name: Pacers

              House Sigil:



              House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Conversation with JO

                Originally posted by able View Post
                UB, how come we don't see it with the Mavs, or Suns Or Pistons?

                How come those PG's go out with a choice/read/react hand?

                I see no other coach in the NBA calling out every play all the time, except Rick.

                That stands aside the fact that it is clear that the bad-shooting brings it all to a halt, JO can kick the ball out as much as he wants, if it only ends in missed shots, it's still worthless.

                Well I'm with you here Able. Carlisle does call too many plays in my opinion. And I know there are subtle differences, but most involve an isolation play by someone.

                UB, this is bad only because I believe Rick has no ability to measure momentum. If were start rolling, we don't need to slow it down, get the play, and then execute.

                Tinsley knows the plays, let him make the decision in transition and we can attack that much faster.

                That being said, maybe he just can't trust Tinsley. The Suns and Pistons have great point guards, and everyone on Dallas can score. Good teams don't need a lot of in-game coaching. Just like the Pacers of between 98-00.
                House Name: Pacers

                House Sigil:



                House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Conversation with JO

                  Originally posted by able View Post
                  UB, how come we don't see it with the Mavs, or Suns Or Pistons?

                  How come those PG's go out with a choice/read/react hand?

                  I see no other coach in the NBA calling out every play all the time, except Rick.

                  That stands aside the fact that it is clear that the bad-shooting brings it all to a halt, JO can kick the ball out as much as he wants, if it only ends in missed shots, it's still worthless.

                  No we don't see it with the Suns at all, the Pistons not very often and the Mavs not very often.

                  But we do with the Heat, the Rockets, the Jazz (Sloan always called the plays even during Stockton's time as the point guard) The Spurs not nearly as much as we used to, but Pop still calls his fair share.

                  Until I see Rick stopping fastbreaks to get his play call in, I have no problem with him calling the plays. I don't trust Tinsley anyway.


                  Rick doesn't call every play - simply isn't true


                  I do have a question though: so many people say that Rick calls too many plays and it is bad that he does. I feel it is one of those things where it has been said enough, almost everyone believes it it is bad. Please someone explain to me why it is bad.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Conversation with JO

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I've said this before, but I'll say it again, I like Rick calling the plays (how in the world that became taboo, I'll never know or understand) most of the best coaches in the NBA call almost all the plays.


                    Not true and you know it. It is well documented that the Rick calls more plays than ANY OTHER COACH.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Conversation with JO

                      Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                      Not true and you know it. It is well documented that the Rick calls more plays than ANY OTHER COACH.
                      You forgot half a sentence there!

                      (more plays) in the first quarter (than...COACH) in the whole game!
                      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Conversation with JO

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        able, every team knows every opponents play calls, they know what play they are going to run. There are no secrets. The key question is whether the other teams can stop the plays. And with the new defensive rules, dribble penetration is so important and stopping dribble penetration is even more important. Rick has one of the thickest playbooks in the NBA.

                        I've said this before, but I'll say it again, I like Rick calling the plays (how in the world that became taboo, I'll never know or understand) most of the best coaches in the NBA call almost all the plays.
                        Of course you like Rick calling all the plays. What dont you like about Rick?

                        You like it but none of our players dont.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Conversation with JO

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post


                          Rick doesn't call every play - simply isn't true


                          I do have a question though: so many people say that Rick calls too many plays and it is bad that he does. I feel it is one of those things where it has been said enough, almost everyone believes it it is bad. Please someone explain to me why it is bad.
                          Except for the occasional "fast break" in which some players hesitate looking at the bench to see if it is "ok" to "run", Rick DOES call every play (see Peck's post).

                          Now, why is it bad?
                          Imagine you are a mechanic, workin on whatever every day, paid because you are good at it or at least supposed to be adequate.
                          Now imagine that the mechanic is bend over an engine and has to wait for his boss to call out what tool to use, what part to do when etc.

                          Do you really think the engine gets fixed better? faster?

                          Do you think the mechanic will love his job? have faith in his own abilities?
                          Do you think his collegues trust him with a job?

                          That's why it is VERY bad, not just BAD.
                          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Conversation with JO

                            Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
                            Of course you like Rick calling all the plays. What dont you like about Rick?

                            You like it but none of our players dont.
                            So you are saying our players like it ?
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Conversation with JO

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Please someone explain to me why it is bad.
                              Because it doesn't work.
                              I'm in these bands
                              The Humans
                              Dr. Goldfoot
                              The Bar Brawlers
                              ME

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X