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

Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

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

  • Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

    I was looking back through some old threads and uncovered the thread where we found out Jim was hired and the first thread (1 month into his first season discussing whether Jim was going to be fired) and a few other threads, I thought were interesting.

    Jim hired -

    http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=31403

    (Is it time to fire Jim)

    http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.p...en+named+coach

    Some others

    http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=31423


    here is the offical Jim O'Brien poll
    http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=31412


    http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=31451

    OK - here is T-Bird's discussion of the three point shot and O'Brien
    http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=31460


    http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=31492
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-25-2010, 11:10 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien

    so what are you trying to accomplish by all this?
    I CANT SPELL!

    THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien

      Originally posted by the jaddler View Post
      so what are you trying to accomplish by all this?
      Just entertainment. I clearly labeled the thread, so if you aren't interested in reading any old threads about Jim O'Brien you can easily just skip the thread entirely.

      As I mentioned I found some of these old threads and were reading through them today and I thought maybe some others would be interested.

      No point is trying to be made.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien

        Well, well, well. Jermaniac L'd his FAO at the announcement. Who'da thunk it?

        http://pacersdigest.com/showpost.php...7&postcount=12



        But apart from that the interesting things is how many people thought O'Brien would be just like Carlisle.

        What ever else you want to say, he hasn't been that!

        .
        Last edited by Putnam; 01-25-2010, 11:22 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


        • #5
          Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

          seems like most people still have the same feeling for JOB as they did when they first heard the news...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

            Here is a great post by dipperdunk (for those who don't remember or weren't around) dipperdunk is a Sixers fan who used to be a regular in this forum and he was one of the best posters we had whether pacers fan or non-Pacers fan.

            He was dead on with this post.


            http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=31403&page=8

            dipperdunk
            Hi guys, I just heard about Jim O'Brien.

            Here is some info from his year in Philly.

            He definitely got the team to overachieve he was fired because he had a different opinion than Billy King about Dalembert & Webber.

            Iverson loved playing for him, he gives his stars freedom to freelance as long as they play hard for him. If the Pacers keep JO he will probably have a monster year.

            Defensively his likes to front the post but he also likes to have help behind the man fronting the post which makes it difficult for post entry passes. The Sixers frustrated Shaq that season despite having weak defensive frontcourt players.

            The downside to his defense by packing the lane the Sixers gave up a ton of three pointers when teams had good ball movement against them. The weak side baseline three is open all night with his defense but it is still a good defense because it forces teams to beat you from outside. The Sixers had trouble executing it consistently because Dalembert had a low basketball IQ and would miss rotations and Webber couldn't move.

            Offensively, a lot of "freelancing" and three pointers. He loves to play uptempo and push the ball. If you like basic fundamental offensive basketball you'll probably pull your hair out with O'Brien's system because you'll see some sloppy execution on 3-2 fastbreaks etc.,, He is pretty much the exact opposite of Carlisle in terms of managing the offense.

            I think he has a tendency to push the pace too much offensively for road games. I remember when the Sixers were playing at Phoenix it was their 3rd game in 4 nights on a west coast trip. They interviewed O'Brien before the game and he said he wanted to push the ball and play uptempo against them. I was thinking why would you want to play a fast tempo when your team is dead tired on the road against Phoenix? They ended up getting ran out of the gym so he is kind of stubborn in that regard.


            He loves good athletes who can pressure the ball and get up the court. Granger should flourish in his system. I think he has a good eye for talent and setting his 8 man rotation. The 1st thing he did in Philly in training camp was send Glenn Robinson home and insert Iguodala into the starting lineup even though he was only a rookie.

            Somebody mentioned him not playing youth in Boston. That wasn't a problem at all in Philly, like I said he started Iggy all 82 games as a rookie and he started Korver most of the games and he was only in his 2nd season.

            He isn't an elite coach but he is decent. He got a raw deal in Philly. He had the team competitive against a very good Pistons team in the playoffs and Cheeks took over the same starting 5 and the team went in the tank.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

              Congrats to DiamondDave for nailing it on the head.

              I miss Jermaniac.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

                dipperdunk gave an excellent description.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  Congrats to DiamondDave for nailing it on the head.

                  I miss Jermaniac.
                  Yes and yes. Those 2 tore this one up dead-on.


                  I don't get why I thought he was so close to Rick, I was defending Rick because I hated (and still do) his firing, mostly for the reasons Jermaniac was making about the defense. My points were that people were so happy to get rid of Rick because he ran too much iso (in the post especially) and was all about the defense (which was struggling post GSW)

                  JOB was talking big defense which he's now at an epic fail level with, and at the time was saying how he was going to use JO. Finally he had a big he could work off of. So it SOUNDED like a sloppier version of more of the same.


                  Since then he's failed to do this with JO and is being pulled kicking and screaming to do it with Roy.

                  His offense is just disgusting.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

                    I sure was optimistic at Jim's hiring, and I was positive Dick Harter was going to turn our defense around... my team spirit has been thoroughly crushed since then and I am now a jaded cynic. Thanks alot Jim

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Just entertainment. I clearly labeled the thread, so if you aren't interested in reading any old threads about Jim O'Brien you can easily just skip the thread entirely.

                      As I mentioned I found some of these old threads and were reading through them today and I thought maybe some others would be interested.

                      No point is trying to be made.
                      my bad unclebuck....i didnt read the whole title....my add got the best of me...
                      I CANT SPELL!

                      THERE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE AND THOSE THAT WILL!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

                        Dipperdunk Dead on?? Not always, I bolded the stuff of note.

                        They didn't overachieve, guys have given crap defensive effort and remained in the game with freedom to shoot at will, JO did not have a monster year, the Pacers aren't giving up tons of threes and in fact are forcing teams to shoot more long jumpers (which is a good thing actually), instead of giving up threes we've seen tons of lane violations with guys caught trying to help ball side more than just doubling the post.

                        He has not favored athletes who can get up the floor, nor has he sent guys packing in favor of rookies. Is anyone seriously going to argue that McRoberts vs Murphy couldn't fall into this category, where Josh can get back on transition defense much better, is quicker completely and has hops to block shots. No matter what you think of Josh's defense you can't argue that he's worse than Troy one on one.

                        Better yet, let's talk about his treatment of Brandon Rush which borders on insulting in light of some "he love Iggy" idea where the kid gets to play because he can D up and hustle up and down the court.

                        He has struggled to accept playing the youth or go for options that would fall closer to rebuild and teach vs limp into playoffs.

                        Of course he's stubborn all right, and not just in regards to up tempo.


                        Things I see correct - Granger flourished and I did pull my hair out watching his "offense" in action.

                        And the AI love we understand now because his system appears to focus mostly on letting the PG just do whatever he wants, especially if it involves shooting the ball.
                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Here is a great post by dipperdunk (for those who don't remember or weren't around) dipperdunk is a Sixers fan who used to be a regular in this forum and he was one of the best posters we had whether pacers fan or non-Pacers fan.

                        He was dead on with this post.


                        http://pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=31403&page=8

                        dipperdunk
                        Hi guys, I just heard about Jim O'Brien.

                        Here is some info from his year in Philly.

                        He definitely got the team to overachieve he was fired because he had a different opinion than Billy King about Dalembert & Webber.

                        Iverson loved playing for him, he gives his stars freedom to freelance as long as they play hard for him. If the Pacers keep JO he will probably have a monster year.

                        Defensively his likes to front the post but he also likes to have help behind the man fronting the post which makes it difficult for post entry passes. The Sixers frustrated Shaq that season despite having weak defensive frontcourt players.

                        The downside to his defense by packing the lane the Sixers gave up a ton of three pointers when teams had good ball movement against them. The weak side baseline three is open all night with his defense but it is still a good defense because it forces teams to beat you from outside. The Sixers had trouble executing it consistently because Dalembert had a low basketball IQ and would miss rotations and Webber couldn't move.

                        Offensively, a lot of "freelancing" and three pointers. He loves to play uptempo and push the ball. If you like basic fundamental offensive basketball you'll probably pull your hair out with O'Brien's system because you'll see some sloppy execution on 3-2 fastbreaks etc.,, He is pretty much the exact opposite of Carlisle in terms of managing the offense.

                        I think he has a tendency to push the pace too much offensively for road games. I remember when the Sixers were playing at Phoenix it was their 3rd game in 4 nights on a west coast trip. They interviewed O'Brien before the game and he said he wanted to push the ball and play uptempo against them. I was thinking why would you want to play a fast tempo when your team is dead tired on the road against Phoenix? They ended up getting ran out of the gym so he is kind of stubborn in that regard.


                        He loves good athletes who can pressure the ball and get up the court. Granger should flourish in his system. I think he has a good eye for talent and setting his 8 man rotation. The 1st thing he did in Philly in training camp was send Glenn Robinson home and insert Iguodala into the starting lineup even though he was only a rookie.

                        Somebody mentioned him not playing youth in Boston. That wasn't a problem at all in Philly, like I said he started Iggy all 82 games as a rookie and he started Korver most of the games and he was only in his 2nd season.

                        He isn't an elite coach but he is decent. He got a raw deal in Philly. He had the team competitive against a very good Pistons team in the playoffs and Cheeks took over the same starting 5 and the team went in the tank.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-25-2010, 01:29 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

                          Wow, totally forgot that UB was already defending JOb 5mins into the hire. A lot hasn't changed. Everyone was shocked and disgusted that we were gonna watch a crappy offense.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

                            Jerm is just nuts in that thread, on fire...
                            I'm sure Danny will enjoy Obie, no driving to the bucket. Just launch them up Danny.
                            Or are we going to defend JOB here and say that 10 3PA in a game isn't that much.

                            And then he comes back with
                            What if we trade JO and have no stars

                            I'm going to have to STFU the next time Diamond says something instead of debating him after this which I still can't get over (and people are arguing with him even)
                            As Celtic coach he was critized for:
                            1. Playing favorites letting Walker and Pierce do as they pleased but coming down hard on the others.

                            2. Not playing young players - he was behind trading Joe Johnson to the Suns for vets Tony Delk and Rodney Rogers

                            His offense was chuck up 3's and isolate his stars Walker and Pierce.
                            And Buck for the win
                            He doesn't try to plug players into his offensive system, he builds the offensive system around his players. ------- you all should like that right?
                            Nailed it

                            Rush, Roy, Price, Jack, Jeff, McBob, Solo, DJones...none of these guys or others has ever been asked to take more long jumpers than they normally would, we've never had complaints about how Roy can't run like they need him to, we've never seen PGs asked to defend much bigger SGs they normally wouldn't.....

                            From day 1 it's been all about posting Roy and letting Rush fill in on offense when it fit (but not always), about PGs not just shooting low PCT threes, etc

                            Danny 3P/FG ratio with Rick = 19%, 33%
                            with JOB = 35%, 35%, 44%

                            Iggy's 3P/FG ratio = 31%
                            The next 4 years = 23%, 16%, 24%, 23%

                            Iggy's eFG% went UP the year after JOB left and his OffRat and OffWinShares did as well.

                            My point is that he does impact the style of the player more than catering to them. Iggy was a more effective offensive player when not encouraged to chuck as much, and while Danny was showing a knack for the 3 that has turned into a monster at this point.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Old threads about Jim O'Brien - for entertainment only - no point is being made

                              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