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

  • #31
    Re: Conversation with JO

    Q: Given all the headaches you've had recently, why are you still doing this? You could be playing golf.


    A: (laughs) Because I'm sick.


    I don't know; it's in my blood. And I'm competitive. I don't know. I played, I coached . . . I didn't want no part of that coaching. But the way I did it, I managed the team and Rick (Carlisle) did the Xs and Os. I loved the defense part of it. I had one of the best (assistants), Dick Harter.

    I couldn't believe the stuff he got out of these guys. But I managed the team and me and Dick did the defense. Every once in a while I'd look at Rick's offense and say, 'You've got too many plays. Keep it simple. And run the stuff we ran in Boston.' We weren't brain surgeons, but we knew how to run the plays.

    It was very interesting to me when I was coaching, how you manage your team. That's very important in this league. This day and age, somebody better be managing your players. And you better touch every one of them every day.


    Why'd I do this? I just think it's in my blood. . . . And the craving for a championship . . . It's the drive that I want to get back there one more time.
    That says it all Bird even questions Ricks massive playbook.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Conversation with JO

      Every team knows exactly what play every other team is running?

      In the playoffs I agree.

      In the regular season its been stated/admitted many times by coaches that in the shoot around/meetings that are held earlier in the day on game nights they stick to broad concerns on defense and don't focus on the multitude of plays. (e.g. "Watch the pick and roll from the elbow with the so and so" "Player X likes to take it left, force him right" "This team runs a lot of back-cuts, keep tight baseline rub-offs")

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Conversation with JO

        LMAO, Richard Jefferson last year in the playoffs said that after a game you know how the Pacers' play, fans been saying this, and Rick Calls all the plays, I watch the game connected to speakers and all you hear is Rick Callin plays. . .HEY HEY HEY, JAMALL, 3 Down, 3 Down, 4 Up, Let's Go!!

        Rick needs to lay off and open up the offense, Pacers are just boring right now
        R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Conversation with JO

          Originally posted by ThA HoyA
          That says it all Bird even questions Ricks massive playbook.

          Yet he admits just a few lines up that he let Rick run the X's and O's part of the team while Larry was the head coach.

          Call me crazy but I believe that team went to finals.

          EDIT: It amazes me that all these teams and players know the Pacers plays, yet our own team talks about how difficult they are to learn and how they often get confused. It's like the opposition knows them better. Is it the players or is it the system?
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Conversation with JO

            That's it! I am just done listening to people blaming Jermaine! He is the best player in Pacers NBA history and he just gets blamed more than anyone not named Jamaal Tinsley or Rick Carlisle. If he is vocal about things going wrong then people get mad at him. If he isn't vocal, he isn't a leader. I mean, what does the guy have to do?! Back off of him, already! He wants to win more than anything. I'm sure he is more disappointed in himself than any of this board's posters for not being able to push this team to more wins. [/ rant]

            I'm so sorry. I'm not usually a vocal JO supporter like this but the man has been awesome this year and effort, which is the number one thing I want from a player, is never lacking. As always, I do respect people's opinions on JO, however. No matter how different from mine they may be.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Conversation with JO

              I just finished listening to the audio snippets on poster's site. I feel bad for Jermaine, because he's holding up his end of the deal. He clearly hates losing.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Conversation with JO

                Where's the site? I'd like to hear the quotes.
                ...Still "flying casual"
                @roaminggnome74

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Conversation with JO

                  the quotes there bear no resemblance to the statements above.
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Conversation with JO

                    Originally posted by ThA HoyA
                    That says it all Bird even questions Ricks massive playbook.
                    How can you possibly optimize your play when you have too many plays? You need a smaller number of plays and use them more frequently during games and make small adjustments to them....learn how to adjust them based on the opponent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Conversation with JO

                      Originally posted by Diamond Dave View Post
                      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.

                      The Perfect Storm is upon the Pacers and it does not look like it is going to be
                      pretty. We have the worst shooting team in the league with a coach who
                      will not trust his players because the players do not show the prerequisite
                      smarts plus some injuries and you have a ship waiting to sink.
                      Maybe my analogy should be a building that is on fire and is burning to the ground. At least with that analogy we can hope the Pacers can rise phoenix like from the ashes again.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Conversation with JO

                        Please this team isn't sinking like the Titanic. It is soaring soaring into the sky if anything it is the Hindenburg.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Conversation with JO

                          What I have on my site is not the full statement from JO. But I'll go ahead and post a link directly to the full audio I do have if it's alright by the admins. Some of the frustrations I mention in my original post are not in the audio clip but there is plenty there for you to get the idea. I hope those that run PD realize that i'm not trying to away members here and if it is truly about sharing team related information, please allow me to post it. Visitors to my site aren't looking for a message board anyway. It is different content that brings readers to my site as compared to what they are looking for when they visit here...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Conversation with JO

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            How can you possibly optimize your play when you have too many plays? You need a smaller number of plays and use them more frequently during games and make small adjustments to them....learn how to adjust them based on the opponent.

                            exactly thats what i hate about Rick honestly plays are an important part of the game but having a massive amount doesnt help in a game like football its reasonable to have a lot of plays, u have to rely on your strengths more and also not have too many to be like wtf?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Conversation with JO

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Yet he admits just a few lines up that he let Rick run the X's and O's part of the team while Larry was the head coach.

                              Call me crazy but I believe that team went to finals.

                              EDIT: It amazes me that all these teams and players know the Pacers plays, yet our own team talks about how difficult they are to learn and how they often get confused. It's like the opposition knows them better. Is it the players or is it the system?

                              you are right but that team had veterans and wouldnt need to call every single play. It just reminds me of when i played basketball in highschool if we did something that wasnt called by the coach on the court we would be like oh **** and look over to see if he was upset it just made it uptight, and he and rick are both micromanagers

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Conversation with JO

                                Originally posted by Nick View Post
                                What I have on my site is not the full statement from JO. But I'll go ahead and post a link directly to the full audio I do have if it's alright by the admins. Some of the frustrations I mention in my original post are not in the audio clip but there is plenty there for you to get the idea. I hope those that run PD realize that i'm not trying to away members here and if it is truly about sharing team related information, please allow me to post it. Visitors to my site aren't looking for a message board anyway. It is different content that brings readers to my site as compared to what they are looking for when they visit here...
                                Feel free

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X