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

Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

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

  • Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

    During the past couple of seasons, if the Indiana Pacers fell behind in a game, they stayed behind and looked ahead to the next game.

    Not so this year.

    Though not every comeback attempt is successful, the Pacers have taken on coach Jim O'Brien's personality of believing they're never out of the game, no matter the deficit.

    The Pacers, who host the Toronto Raptors tonight at Conseco Fieldhouse, have won five games in which they trailed by eight or more points this season. In two of those victories -- at Orlando last week and against Chicago on Wednesday -- they trailed by at least 15 points. They recovered from a 15-point deficit against Phoenix on Dec. 4 before losing by four.

    "We believe we have the tools to get back in the game no matter what," Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal said. "In previous years when we struggled to score, we'd get down 15 and we'd be like we'd get the next game. Now we know we can put up 40 points in a quarter and that's the biggest thing."
    The Pacers aren't overhauling their schemes and O'Brien isn't chewing his team out during timeouts. Sometimes O'Brien encourages them to contest more shots. Other times, O'Neal, Mike Dunleavy or Jamaal Tinsley will speak up during timeouts.

    "It's the old cliche about the harder you work, the more difficult it is to surrender," O'Brien said. "These guys have worked hard. We're capable of defending at a high level and we're capable of scoring a lot of points."
    O'Neal grinned when reminded that they've shown they can easily blow a lead, too.

    The Pacers have lost three games in which they led by at least 10 points. The most noticeable loss came when they wasted a 25-point lead against Denver at the Fieldhouse on Nov. 10. The Pacers nearly lost to the Nuggets again after leading by 18 points on Nov. 27.

    "We run to score all the time," O'Neal said. "If we're going to run to score, we have to run back and play defense. We cannot score and give up buckets on the other end; that's been the thing. We feel very confident that with the way we play, as the season progresses, we're going to get a lot better."

    O'Brien doesn't believe in slowing the pace if they have a significant lead. The only time they get out of their up-tempo system is during the final three minutes of the game.

    "I've seen a lot of games lost or almost lost by going into a style that's not your style because you're trying to protect the lead," O'Brien said. "We are a running team until the three-minute mark."
    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../1088/SPORTS04

    And after the 3 minute mark - what do we do? we try to protect the lead....and if we are a running team and its not our style to slow down...why do we do it with 3 minutes to go?

    I know I'm reaching...but its Friday and I have had some free time on my hands before a meeting

  • #2
    Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

    "Does he contradict himself?
    Then he contradicts himself!
    He is vast.
    He contains multitudes!"
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

      Maybe he is saying they do that out of habit and he is trying to break them of it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

        bell, I don't think you're reaching at all. I agree completely. I wonder why the interviewer didn't ask him that very question. The second I read it, I thought the same thing, and not just because the thread title had me looking for a contradiction....

        We should be running until the final buzzer. We have played the running game this year and not been horrible with turnovers. As long as we practice what JO preaches about getting back on D and not giving up easy buckets, there is no reason to stop the running game....ever.

        Maybe after a few losses when we abandon the running game will be the mule kick to the head that gets him to stop changing the way they play just because it's the end of the game. As far as I'm concerned, you play the game a certain way, and as long as the clock has time on it, it's still the game. It's not a different game with a different strategy. If we were losing in the last three minutes we wouldn't be looking to play slog-ball, would we?


        Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
        Maybe he is saying they do that out of habit and he is trying to break them of it.
        Maybe that is it. It's all in how you read it, I guess. The article should have been a little more clearly written......Good point, ragnar...
        Last edited by heywoode; 12-14-2007, 08:07 AM. Reason: ragnar is the poop



        RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

          You are correct, you're reaching

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

            heywoode: bell, I don't think you're reaching at all.
            Unclebuck: You are correct, you're reaching
            gotta love the difference of opinion on this forum

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

              I think Ragnar is right. In words it looks like a contradiction but the way he spoke it was probably intended to mean "This is what we're doing, but we shouldn't be doing it." At least that's the way I read it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                You are correct, you're reaching
                I didn't see a contradiction, either. The clock can be the biggest ally when you have the ball and the lead. Why wouldn't they slow down?

                I think all he's saying is that for now the scheme is to run the push tempo offense until the 3 minute mark. The guys haven't been consistent with this, yet. There is no reason to slow down at the 4 or 5 minute mark. This is the NBA, that's a ton of time.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

                  With timeouts, ONE minute is a ton of time. I understand the logic behind holding the ball to limit the other team's possessions when the clock is winding down and you have the lead. It should depend on how the flow of the game is going. If we are being successful running the ball and getting back on defense, forcing bad shots, or at least contesting shots and making them tough to earn, I see no reason to stop playing that way.

                  Changing the tempo of the game and making the team adjust their style on the fly, when what they had been doing for the rest of the game had been working is too much of a detriment to overcome by milking the clock to limit opposing possessions. If the Pacers can become adept at controlling the ball and not turning it into a turnover and missed jumper-fest (which is counterproductive and plays right into the losing team's hands) then I would say I would feel more comfortable doing it.

                  Is losing games while they figure out how to slow down their play worth the eventuality of being able to control the game in the final few minutes? That depends on how many games they lose and how quickly they start doing better at controlling the ball......



                  RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

                    JOB -I've seen a lot of games lost or almost lost by going into a style that's not your style because you're trying to protect the lead.
                    my understanding from this is he believes its wrong to change the style you are playing during the game just to protect the lead.

                    JOB - "We are a running team until the three-minute mark."
                    And in this one he clearly states that we change our style of play with 3 minutes left on the clock.

                    Yet in the first one he acknowledges that in many cases teams lose because of it.

                    I'd say thats contradiction.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

                      At the 3 minute mark or less, clock management is vital. If you are taking quick shots, you risk both missing and giving the opponent more time to recover.

                      What I'm hoping happens - and I've occasionally seen flashes of it - is that the only thing that stops are immediate shots as soon as the ball handler comes across the time line. What should happen is that ball and off-the-ball movement continues, but we try for a shot in the final 6 seconds of the shot clock instead of the first 6 seconds.

                      In other words, "slow down" doesn't mean stagnate, it means use more clock.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        At the 3 minute mark or less, clock management is vital. If you are taking quick shots, you risk both missing and giving the opponent more time to recover.

                        What I'm hoping happens - and I've occasionally seen flashes of it - is that the only thing that stops are immediate shots as soon as the ball handler comes across the time line. What should happen is that ball and off-the-ball movement continues, but we try for a shot in the final 6 seconds of the shot clock instead of the first 6 seconds.

                        In other words, "slow down" doesn't mean stagnate, it means use more clock.
                        Exactly. I think what he means is that if you have a fast-break that's not a guaranteed bucket, you should settle down and run a half-court set instead. IMO, that's what a team should do. The Suns win games because of their excellent half-court execution.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

                          Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
                          my understanding from this is he believes its wrong to change the style you are playing during the game just to protect the lead.



                          And in this one he clearly states that we change our style of play with 3 minutes left on the clock.

                          Yet in the first one he acknowledges that in many cases teams lose because of it.

                          I'd say thats contradiction.
                          Or...

                          It means this has always been the game plan, but the guys have been slowing it up before the three minute mark in the fourth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

                            Three minutes is simply JOB's mark.

                            Everyone on here agrees that if you're up 1 with 20 seconds to go, you "stop the running game" and hold the ball until the last second.

                            And most everyone would agree with slowing it down with 30 seconds to go, a minute, etc.

                            Everybody has their place. JOB's is three minutes.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Doesn't JOB rather Contradict Himself? New Indystar Article

                              heywoode: bell, I don't think you're reaching at all.

                              Quote:
                              Unclebuck: You are correct, you're reaching




                              "Okay. I'm with you fellers."
                              And I won't be here to see the day
                              It all dries up and blows away
                              I'd hang around just to see
                              But they never had much use for me
                              In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X