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

Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

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

  • Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

    Was at this and last friday's games and I am completely puzzled by his rotations. I understand many don't like the idea of tanking for a draft pick, and I can respect that position. But what I don't understand is that although we are mathematically not out of the playoffs, we might as well be. With that said, I'm not suggesting here that we tank, but given that the season (or at least the playoffs) are over for us, why isn't he playing the rookies? I can understand giving Stephen Graham a few minutes; he might actually turn into a decent 3rd guard or bench player. But tonight O'Brien put Maceo Baston in...my question is this, why? Baston has peaked, he will never be anything more than he is now, and after this season he will either retire or return to Europe. Same with Diener, he will always be relegated to a 3rd string role in the NBA, and won't get any better. Why not let Hibbert take some lumps, or Rush, or even McRoberts?
    It just seems to me that Coach O'Brien should recognize that the future lies in the rookies and maybe McRoberts...and the other guys are never going to get better, will never get you to the next level, and likely won't even be here if/when this team reaches the next level.

    Can anyone explain the logic with what he is doing?

  • #2
    Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

    Not another O'Brien thread...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      Not another O'Brien thread...
      No, this isn't a 'bash O'Brien' thread at all. It just doesn't make any sense to me. And with Bird attending games, surely he wonders what is going on, too.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        Not another O'Brien thread...

        Originally posted by kellogg View Post
        No, this isn't a 'bash O'Brien' thread at all. It just doesn't make any sense to me. And with Bird attending games, surely he wonders what is going on, too.
        I didn't call it a "Bash O'Brien" thread. Bash or not, there already is a huge thread of JOB comments/questions/criticisms/concerns.

        http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ad.php?t=43511
        Last edited by duke dynamite; 01-24-2009, 03:34 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

          Originally posted by kellogg View Post
          Was at this and last friday's games and I am completely puzzled by his rotations. I understand many don't like the idea of tanking for a draft pick, and I can respect that position. But what I don't understand is that although we are mathematically not out of the playoffs, we might as well be. With that said, I'm not suggesting here that we tank, but given that the season (or at least the playoffs) are over for us, why isn't he playing the rookies? I can understand giving Stephen Graham a few minutes; he might actually turn into a decent 3rd guard or bench player. But tonight O'Brien put Maceo Baston in...my question is this, why? Baston has peaked, he will never be anything more than he is now, and after this season he will either retire or return to Europe. Same with Diener, he will always be relegated to a 3rd string role in the NBA, and won't get any better. Why not let Hibbert take some lumps, or Rush, or even McRoberts?
          It just seems to me that Coach O'Brien should recognize that the future lies in the rookies and maybe McRoberts...and the other guys are never going to get better, will never get you to the next level, and likely won't even be here if/when this team reaches the next level.

          Can anyone explain the logic with what he is doing?
          By no means are we out of the playoff hunt. We are 3.5 games out of the 8th seed. How does that make us out of it? Did we magically fast-forward to the middle of April? My calendars still say January.

          You kind of are suggesting that we should tank, because apparently the season is over according to you. (Please tell me why.)

          Baston was put in tonight as a set of fresh legs, and to assess his defensive presence. He needed to give Murph/Foster a rest, and Rasho needed some help.

          I would like to know where you get your information, either that or you must be some kind of fortune teller.
          Last edited by duke dynamite; 01-24-2009, 03:41 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
            By no means are we out of the playoff hunt. We are 3.5 games out of the 8th seed. How does that make us out of it? Did we magically fast-forward to the middle of April? My calendars still say January.

            You kind of are suggesting that we should tank, because apparently the season is over according to you. (Please tell me why.)

            Baston was put in tonight as a set of fresh legs, and to assess his defensive presence. He needed to give Murph/Foster a rest, and Rasho needed some help.

            I would like to know where you get your information, either that or you must be some kind of fortune teller.

            I think his point is that barring some unforseen change we havent been playing well enough to make the playoffs even though we are only 3.5 games back. I would probably agree with this.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

              Originally posted by Peskoe97 View Post
              I think his point is that barring some unforseen change we havent been playing well enough to make the playoffs even though we are only 3.5 games back. I would probably agree with this.

              According to this article posted in IndyStar after the win over Houston:

              http://www.indystar.com/article/2009...TS04/901240445

              Mr. Granger believes his team is just a win streak away from being in the
              mix of things. I would probably agree with this.

              Taking this a step further, if they can get on a streak and continue to play
              slightly better than .500 ball for the rest of the season, they definately will
              be in the mix of things. They very well could end up being one of these
              teams even a top seed "doesn't want to see" come playoff time.

              This is a pivotal moment for this team and I am wagering they recognise it,
              and will seize the opportunity.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

                Let me go a slightly differant route here and say that the pacers would have been better off all along giving Maceo Baston some quality min. on the floor.

                Did anybody notice something vs. the Rockets? We didn't go small all game long and guess what, it worked. No not just again Yao, in the second half he didn't play. But we actually played with two big men for most of the game and by God our defense was better for it.

                Maceo, IMO, should have been getting some spot min. all season long as far as I'm concerned because other than McRoberts he is our only big who plays above the rim on defense. I have never understood why he has been relegated to the 12th man role on our team.

                I know I am in the vast minority on this but I believe that if you are going to run then you need to use a deep bench and not just play guards and small forwards.

                Maceo is fairly quick and somewhat athletic, I have never questioned his basketball I.Q. and he can score at the rim.

                Does Troy Murphy really need 38 min. a game? How about we cut Troy some slack and give about 5 min from him to some of the others and as far as I'm concerned Jeff can give up about 5 a game as well.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

                  I noted Maceo playing and immediately figured it was because we are nearing the trade deadline.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

                    Originally posted by kellogg View Post
                    But what I don't understand is that although we are mathematically not out of the playoffs, we might as well be.
                    3 1/2 back with 39 games remaining. We might as well NOT be.


                    Originally posted by kellogg View Post
                    With that said, I'm not suggesting here that we tank, but given that the season (or at least the playoffs) are over for us, why isn't he playing the rookies? I can understand giving Stephen Graham a few minutes; he might actually turn into a decent 3rd guard or bench player. But tonight O'Brien put Maceo Baston in...my question is this, why? Baston has peaked, he will never be anything more than he is now, and after this season he will either retire or return to Europe. Same with Diener, he will always be relegated to a 3rd string role in the NBA, and won't get any better. Why not let Hibbert take some lumps, or Rush, or even McRoberts? It just seems to me that Coach O'Brien should recognize that the future lies in the rookies and maybe McRoberts...and the other guys are never going to get better, will never get you to the next level, and likely won't even be here if/when this team reaches the next level.

                    Can anyone explain the logic with what he is doing?
                    While I've had some frustrations with the rotations, I don't at the moment. For the first time all year, it looks like our key players are healthy. Even Ford and Daniels look like they're turning the corner. The rookies, like every other player, should have to earn their minutes. In my opinion, they haven't.

                    As far as play Baston goes, I don't know. I do know, however, that it's nice to reward a professional with some playing time. It's the second game in 35 that Baston has played, and by all accounts he the consummate professional. Why not reward him?

                    Maybe there's another reason Baston played (trade showcase). I really don't know.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post


                      As far as play Baston goes, I don't know. I do know, however, that it's nice to reward a professional with some playing time. It's the second game in 35 that Baston has played, and by all accounts he the consummate professional. Why not reward him?
                      Rewarding for what? Because he's the consummate professional? There is the belief that the rookies need to earn their minutes, so what has Baston done to earn his other than JO'B thinks the same players shouldn't constantly be the ones not dressing?

                      Kellogg was a valid point about playing the rookies. There are two thoughts about this, and his is just as valid as the opposite view. The same applies to the Pacers making the playoffs. The Pacers might be only be 3-4 games out of the playoffs but they are still in 14th place in the EC(next to dead last.). As Pesoke said the Pacers haven't been playing well enough to make the playoffs. Sure things can change same as things could change for me winning the lottery tonight. I'm way overdue. The reality is with the way the Pacers have played the 1st half of the season they won't. Some of the teams ahead of the Pacers are going to get on a some winning streaks too. The Pacers can't play .500 ball the rest of the season and slide into the playoffs. It will have to be better than that to get the job done. Can they truly win 60% or more of the remaining games? Remember, the Pacers won 36 games last year and failed to make the playoffs. The Pacers would have to win 20 games to just = last seasons record. It's possible, but not probable that the Pacers will match last seasons record let alone make the playoffs. If the make do, it will be b/c things have changed from how things have been done the 1st half of the season. Sometimes change can be a positive thing.

                      No, Kellogg I can't explain O'Brien's logic behind a good many of his decisions, and there are others who can't either. My feeling is that he and Bird are truly feeling the heat of a losing season, and are now trying to salvage what they can of this season for their own personal reasons.

                      No, Peck you aren'the only one who thinks in order to play a running game you need a longer rotation.

                      It was nice to have won this game against Houston, but lets face it Yao went out injured early in the game and Artest and T-Mac didn't play. No use getting excited about this win. If those 3 players had been playing and the Pacers had won, that would be different. Let's see how they play against Charlotte and Orlando, 2 teams that have beaten them previously. JMOAA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

                        Originally posted by Peskoe97 View Post
                        I think his point is that barring some unforseen change we havent been playing well enough to make the playoffs even though we are only 3.5 games back. I would probably agree with this.
                        The key word is unforeseen: "Barring an unforeseen change, we haven't been playing well enough to make the playoffs."

                        That is true. But it is foolish to suppose that changes will not occur because they were not foreseen. It flies in the face of human experience. Milan beat Muncie Central, and similar surprising events have happened times beyond counting.

                        I am not talking about any blind optimism about the Pacers. It is as clear to me as to anyone that the Pacers aren't playing well enough to reach the playoffs. But circumstances change and events intervene. Not "may change" but "will change". Unforeseen things happen all the time.

                        Notice this: even if you think, "barring unforeseen changes" you can't really bar them. They will happen. They often do.
                        Last edited by Putnam; 01-24-2009, 10:38 AM.
                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

                          Two coments I want to make

                          1) - Hibbert suffered a concussion in practice earlier this week, so he was not available to play.

                          2) Put yourself in O'Brien's shoes. How can he look Granger in the eyes, if you do anything other than try to win every game.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Does Troy Murphy really need 38 min. a game? How about we cut Troy some slack and give about 5 min from him to some of the others and as far as I'm concerned Jeff can give up about 5 a game as well.
                            Absolutely. If you're not going to give those minutes to McBob then give them to Maceo.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...

                              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                              By no means are we out of the playoff hunt. We are 3.5 games out of the 8th seed. How does that make us out of it? Did we magically fast-forward to the middle of April? My calendars still say January.

                              You kind of are suggesting that we should tank, because apparently the season is over according to you. (Please tell me why.)

                              Baston was put in tonight as a set of fresh legs, and to assess his defensive presence. He needed to give Murph/Foster a rest, and Rasho needed some help.

                              I would like to know where you get your information, either that or you must be some kind of fortune teller.
                              First of all, please calm down... FYI, Lithium might help.

                              Again, if you read my post, mathematically we certainly are not out of the playoffs, but there has been only one time we have made the playoffs after starting the first half of the season this badly. (I hate to mention that the push for the playoffs (Flip Murray signing) last year knocked us from maybe the 9th pick (i.e. D Rose) and we still didn't make the playoffs...but that's beside the point).

                              The post was not a call to tank the season...this has been debated yearly on this and other message boards...and it boils down to a genuine difference of opinion among fans (brown shoes/black shoes, Hannity/Colmes, whatever).

                              My point was simply that the season has not gone particularly well, that the team would have to gel (i.e. play D) in a way they have not all year (and with the same guys), have no injuries to key players the remainder of the season, have no off-court distractions and do what it has done only once in the history of the franchise (finish the second half of the season winning 60% of their games...in other words play like Boston/LA/SA). Certainly none of this is impossible, but just unlikely.

                              Given "these" circumstances...my only point was what harm would it be to have O'Brien play guys more who fit into the long range plans and success of the Pacers than those who will (not likely) NOT be with the Pacers at the end of April. That's all...I'm not fortune telling or anything and didn't claim to have any inside information; nothing more than a casual look at the history of the Pacers since their inception.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X