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

  • #16
    Re: Conversation with JO

    Originally posted by able View Post
    So you are saying our players like it ?
    You know what the hell I was trying to say.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Conversation with JO

      Originally posted by Nick View Post
      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.
      What a golden opportunity to make defenses pay with a little bit of smart basketball and good passing.

      Unfortunately, JO has demonstrated that he is incapable of smart basketball OR good passing. Don't you think that teams with a smart, good-passing post player would LOVE to be defended like that? Of course they would, and they would eat the defense alive.

      Put it this way, if YOU were defending the Pacers, wouldn't you do the EXACT same thing? Of course you would, because it has become obvious since JO has played for the Pacers that this is what works.

      What the Pacers need, and what they MISS, are players that will make defenses pay for the double-team. Brad Miller did that. Ron Artest did that. Those guys are gone, and the team's performance has gone downhill. (I'm not suggesting Artest should still be a Pacer, just pointing out that they don't have players to exploit the double-team with).

      Stats don't make a player great. Smart play, the ability to make teammates better, and ability to help your team win games make a player great. JO is NOT a great player. And THAT is the problem. They've built their team around a mediocre player.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Conversation with JO

        Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
        What a golden opportunity to make defenses pay with a little bit of smart basketball and good passing.

        Unfortunately, JO has demonstrated that he is incapable of smart basketball OR good passing. Don't you think that teams with a smart, good-passing post player would LOVE to be defended like that? Of course they would, and they would eat the defense alive.
        I have a big problem with laying this all on Jermaine.

        I've seen him make passes out of being double and triple teamed as recently as against the Suns at home last week. The perimeter players bricked the shots or went right back into traffic or passed it right back to him.

        When your only effective scoring option is to take it to the basket, and your shooting from outside is abyssmal, your opponents defenses have a very easy job - swarm the post player and give away everything outside until proven otherwise.
        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


        • #19
          Re: Conversation with JO

          Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
          What a golden opportunity to make defenses pay with a little bit of smart basketball and good passing.

          Unfortunately, JO has demonstrated that he is incapable of smart basketball OR good passing. Don't you think that teams with a smart, good-passing post player would LOVE to be defended like that? Of course they would, and they would eat the defense alive.

          Put it this way, if YOU were defending the Pacers, wouldn't you do the EXACT same thing? Of course you would, because it has become obvious since JO has played for the Pacers that this is what works.

          What the Pacers need, and what they MISS, are players that will make defenses pay for the double-team. Brad Miller did that. Ron Artest did that. Those guys are gone, and the team's performance has gone downhill. (I'm not suggesting Artest should still be a Pacer, just pointing out that they don't have players to exploit the double-team with).

          Stats don't make a player great. Smart play, the ability to make teammates better, and ability to help your team win games make a player great. JO is NOT a great player. And THAT is the problem. They've built their team around a mediocre player.
          Agreed, the problem is JO gets the ball and most of the time everyone else just stands around watching. Where is the off the ball movement? We see it sometimes but not enough IMO. We ran a backdoor play once last game and Murphy got a layup...

          p.s. just want to clarify JO didn't use the word hate when describing the offense and he was hesitent to tell reporters that he felt a change was even necessary. But you could tell how frustrated with it he is.

          -------------

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Conversation with JO

            Here's a wild thought... Has anybody noticed that nearly everytime JO passes the ball out, it just gets passed right back into him? Have you noticed that no one moves around the perimeter while he has the ball? How much good is it going to do for him to pass the ball if other players are just going to pass the ball right back or stand there and throw up a 3? Jermaine can't make other players move without the ball, he can't set screens while holding the ball, etc... Of course there are things he could do better, but if anyone seriously wants to try to blame everything on him then they need to step back and realize that basketball is a TEAM sport, and unless every player does his part and the coaches set them up in a system to win, it isn't going to work.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Conversation with JO

              Our problem is NOT Jermaine. It's the offense they run with him in it.
              NOT AT ALL JERMAINES fault.
              And if we trade him we're likely to see that very clearly. And regret it.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.
                There is one problem that I have noticed about play calling as a player and a fan. When your coach is standing on the sidelines yelling plays almost every single time down the court, the players tend to think to much. You trying to recall plays out of huge notebooks and sometimes you don't remember them all. But the real problem is when the players think to much about the plays and don't pay attention. Another key part of calling plays is that if one person on your team does something wrong, the play is usually going to be messed up. All I'm trying to say is that coaches should try to be a little more relaxed on play calling and trust in their point guards to make something happen.
                I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.
                  Yeh, "well documented" on Pacers Digest!
                  Or maybe you'd like to post some links to back up that opinion?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Conversation with JO

                    Originally posted by indyman37 View Post
                    There is one problem that I have noticed about play calling as a player and a fan. When your coach is standing on the sidelines yelling plays almost every single time down the court, the players tend to think to much. You trying to recall plays out of huge notebooks and sometimes you don't remember them all. But the real problem is when the players think to much about the plays and don't pay attention. Another key part of calling plays is that if one person on your team does something wrong, the play is usually going to be messed up. All I'm trying to say is that coaches should try to be a little more relaxed on play calling and trust in their point guards to make something happen.
                    Or as the commentators at the last Suns games said;
                    The Pacers do not get at least 3 to 4 easy layups a game because they are to busy llistening to their coach
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Conversation with JO

                      I would wager that he saves just as many TOs, 3-4, in the same game they lose those layups.

                      I don't trust Tinsley to wash my car, let alone give him free reign to run a basketball team.

                      I asked earlier last week, and it was ignored, so I'll say it again. Why SHOULD Rick trust him to call the right plays? What evidence has he given that it would be a good idea? Just because you're their starter doesn't mean that should just be expected. He's the starter by default.

                      He makes horrible decisions PERIOD, on or off the court, and you want him to have more opportunity to make decisions he thinks is best for the team? That's just asking for "Bad Jamaal" to be out 90% of the time, instead of the 30% of the time, which is still way too much.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Conversation with JO

                        JO was right back at game 8, the running stunk and they needed to focus on an offense they could run.

                        He's also right now. PHX did double BEFORE he caught the ball, and no one is hitting shots behind him to eliminate that.

                        He calls that "offense broken", I'd call it wrong offense for the players they now have, at least if they aren't going to hit the jumpers and punish teams that jump the gun with the hard doubles.

                        You put Peja or Ray Allen dropping 3's or going to the lane every time teams doubled JO, you'd see a post-based offense rolling right along.

                        The Pacers made a major trade, it didn't really adjust the team in a productive way. It seems to have hurt as much as helped, if that. So you get the results of that.

                        When a driver leaves Ferrari for BAR, it ain't the driver that got worse the next season, it's the car. A method is only as good as the tools you use to implement it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Conversation with JO

                          I did hear or read somewhere, that Rick calls too many plays. Maybe it was just someone on here, but if you watch the games, you clearly see Carlisle standing up and yelling out plays more often then the opposing coach.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Conversation with JO

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            I would wager that he saves just as many TOs, 3-4, in the same game they lose those layups.

                            I don't trust Tinsley to wash my car, let alone give him free reign to run a basketball team.

                            I asked earlier last week, and it was ignored, so I'll say it again. Why SHOULD Rick trust him to call the right plays? What evidence has he given that it would be a good idea? Just because you're their starter doesn't mean that should just be expected. He's the starter by default.

                            He makes horrible decisions PERIOD, on or off the court, and you want him to have more opportunity to make decisions he thinks is best for the team? That's just asking for "Bad Jamaal" to be out 90% of the time, instead of the 30% of the time, which is still way too much.
                            That's it to me. I do NOT like Rick Carlisle calling all of the plays. I also think there's a lot of truth to his social inadequacies playing a role in his problems as a head coach (I'll always remember my conversation with Piston's trainer Arnie Kander and he described Rick as "socially illiterate"). Legitimate concerns. BUT whenever we've had stretches where Rick stopped calling most of the plays, and let the team "just play", we more often than not racked up 20-30 turnovers in a game and played matador defense. He doesn't trust them because they apparently can't handle it.

                            We're screwed either way, folks. That's the bottom line with our situation. There's no fix that can be made without many changes.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Conversation with JO

                              Originally posted by Diamond Dave View Post
                              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,
                              You think so? You think this is the way Jermaine wants to play? You think Rick's playing this offense to keep the peace with Jermaine?

                              I don't. And this would seem to back up my side of the debate.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Conversation with JO

                                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                                You think so? You think this is the way Jermaine wants to play? You think Rick's playing this offense to keep the peace with Jermaine?

                                I don't. And this would seem to back up my side of the debate.
                                I think we play this way because Rick believes it is the only way to give us our best chance to win yet keep Jermaine happy.

                                Maybe another coach would have a better plan but game 8 told me Rick was open to trying something else.

                                -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