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

O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

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

  • O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

    O'Brien details clashes with Webber

    PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Chris Webber never really fit in Philadelphia, dissatisfied with his role, the offensive system and all the losing in nearly two ill-fated years with the 76ers.

    Former coach Jim O'Brien saw all the unhappiness early in Webber's tenure, shortly after the former All-Star forward was acquired from Sacramento near the 2005 trade deadline.

    "He clearly was toward the end of his career," O'Brien said Monday.

    O'Brien, now in his first year coaching Indiana, was fired after only one season in Philadelphia. Webber played 21 games for the Sixers that year, but rarely hid his distaste about playing for O'Brien. The pair clashed almost from the beginning and Webber called the final 21 games "timeout times 50," a reference to his infamous gaffe at Michigan in the 1993 national championship game.

    "It became very apparent he wasn't going to give the 76ers everything we had hoped for," O'Brien said.

    Speaking openly about Webber for the first time since he was fired at the end of 2005, O'Brien said before Indiana's game at Philadelphia that the forward was never interested in practice or truly committed to the offensive scheme.

    "Webber didn't practice at all that year prior to coming to us," O'Brien said. "He didn't practice at all the previous six weeks. I think he was just at the point where he didn't necessarily feel where he was in need of practice, or could practice, or couldn't practice and play at the same time."

    O'Brien said he wanted to actively use Webber, who had lost some mobility and agility after microfracture knee surgery, in the low post to open up shots for 3-point threat Kyle Korver.

    "He said, 'Coach, I don't do the low-post thing anymore,"' O'Brien recalled.

    "We just made a major trade to bring in this 6-11 guy and he said, 'No.' I said, 'Yes, you do."'

    Webber's unhappiness forced him to meet with O'Brien to express his grievances with his role. O'Brien was fired three weeks after the Sixers were eliminated by Detroit in the playoffs -- the organization's last playoff appearance -- and replaced by former Sixer Maurice Cheeks.

    Cheeks is coaching the final year of a three-year contract.

    "I just think it would have been a very difficult group to coach the following year, quite frankly," O'Brien said. "I'm just glad Maurice Cheeks had that opportunity instead of me."

    Webber bounced back under Cheeks in 2005-06 with solid averages of 20.2 points, 9.9 rebounds and 3.4 assists in 75 games. But he fell out of favor with Cheeks early last season, was benched in several fourth quarters and accepted a contract buyout in January.

    He finished last season with Detroit.

    O'Brien said he agreed at the time with then-team president Billy King's decision to acquire Webber.

    "That move enabled us to make the playoffs," O'Brien said.

    O'Brien, a Philadelphia native who played for Saint Joseph's, sat at home the last two years and collected the nearly $8 million owed to him by the Sixers. He is glad he earned another chance in Indiana.

    "I was hoping I'd get another opportunity and I did," O'Brien said. "I've always been a Philadelphia fan. I hope they turn that franchise around."
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html
    This is the darkest timeline.

  • #2
    Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

    way to listen to Webber, Sixers. lol

    Let's hope our management has finally learned not to coddle the prima-donnas.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      way to listen to Webber, Sixers. lol

      Let's hope our management has finally learned not to coddle the prima-donnas.
      After last week's is he suspended, is he just injured debacle, I doubt that's ever going to happen.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

        Interesting that he would say this now.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

          He might be able to hook up with a nice team.........in the WNBA.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

            Okay, I'm not exactly totally unbiased about this but with that proviso in mind, WTF is this about? I would think O'Brien might just want to address the myriad of problems he's got right now instead of dumping on Chris Webber.

            For the record, in case some of you have forgotten, Webb was the reigning PLAYER OF THE MONTH for the WC when he was traded. He has NEVER refused to practice but he was still somewhat limited in knowing how his knee would react on any given day. On those days he would limit his full contact practice so he could be productive in the game. And he was in more than just a little pain a lot of the time.

            Yes, Chris Webber had strong feelings about his possible role with the team and the best way to utilize him but I think the neurotic accountant trying to act as coach needed to put his own ego aside just a bit. He didn't and the entire episode in Philadelphia was more than ugly for all concerned.

            As far as the whole "low post" option was concerned, Webb was being pretty honest. He no longer had the mobility you really need to have in the low post to be productive. And any team getting him should have been aware of it.

            This looks a lot to me like petty whining and finger pointing and an attempt to put blame on someone other than himself for his (O'Brien's) abysmal time as head coach of the Sixers.

            This sounds like the cry of a quitter to me:

            "I just think it would have been a very difficult group to coach the following year, quite frankly," O'Brien said. "I'm just glad Maurice Cheeks had that opportunity instead of me."
            Anybody - well figuratively speaking - can coach a team without problems. The proof of the pudding is in finding a coach who can get the team to rise above the problems, something O'Brien clearly knows less than nothing about...

            /end rant
            NBA basketball - taking my breath away since 1963.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

              Originally posted by VF21 View Post
              This sounds like the cry of a quitter to me:

              Anybody - well figuratively speaking - can coach a team without problems. The proof of the pudding is in finding a coach who can get the team to rise above the problems, something O'Brien clearly knows less than nothing about...

              /end rant
              Jim O'brien is a very good coach. He got a team with Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker (most maligned all-star player in recent memory) along with a bunch of old sneakers and spare parts to the eastern conference finals. He obviously got that team to rise above the problem of not having that much talent.

              He got fired by the 76ers. He didn't quit on them. The quitting part for O'brien came when he resigned on Danny Ainge during the start of Ainge's rebuilding campaign in Boston, of which JOB wanted no part of.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

                It was just another episode in a long history of episodes where Chris Webber
                showed that he was perhaps the biggest chronic career crybaby in NBA
                history.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

                  Anyone else see the irony in JO'B coaching CWebb ( a player that had limited mobility that ultimately affected his game ) and the current version of JONeal ( who has issues with mobility throughout the season that may affect the rest of his career )?
                  Last edited by CableKC; 01-22-2008, 06:04 PM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    Anyone else see the irony in JO'B coaching CWebb ( a player that had limited mobility that ultimately affected his game ) and the current version of JONeal ( who has issues with mobility throughout the season that may affect the rest of his career )?
                    It's like rain on your wedding day. Don't you think?
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      It's like rain on your wedding day. Don't you think?
                      I don't know...it's more like a coincidence. Also, rain on your wedding day is just a bad event...nothing else really.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

                        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                        I don't know...it's more like a coincidence. Also, rain on your wedding day is just a bad event...nothing else really.
                        Maybe it's more like a free ride when you've already paid?
                        You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                        All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                        - Jimmy Buffett

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

                          either way... who would've thought... it figures...
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            Interesting that he would say this now.
                            I hope it's just the timing of a game in Philly and natural that they would ask about any issues that were openingly going on at the time he was there. But a connection to JO is tough to overlook. Hopefully those two are on the same page.

                            Whatever JO's health situation I think JOB could deal with it as long as it was discussed and communication was clear.


                            Man, I really need a but all I've got is a bunch of
                            What an ironic turn of events.

                            (we are going with the standard pop star definition of irony=crap luck, right?)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: O'Brien details clashes with Webber (SI.com)

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              It's like rain on your wedding day. Don't you think?
                              Originally posted by Doug View Post
                              Maybe it's more like a free ride when you've already paid?
                              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                              either way... who would've thought... it figures...
                              Good God...you guys kill me......

                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X