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

Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

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

  • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

    Originally posted by d_c View Post
    Well, Bird picked up JOB's 4th year option, so evidently he really likes JOB or he has trouble following his own advice.
    Or, and I think this is the case, he did it to try to prevent the players from giving up on JOB.

    I think that's probably happened anyway, so it didn't work, but since it's not a big deal to fire him this summer should he choose to, I don't find it to be a problem.

    I don't blame him for the extension if that's truly why he did it. It didn't work, but he can still fire him at any time he chooses with little consequence, so I'm fine with it.

    Comment


    • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      I think that's probably happened anyway, so it didn't work, but since it's not a big deal to fire him this summer should he choose to, I don't find it to be a problem.

      I don't blame him for the extension if that's truly why he did it. It didn't work, but he can still fire him at any time he chooses with little consequence, so I'm fine with it.
      Yeah, as long as Bird lets him go this summer I don't care. But if he says "Well, we had a lot of injuries last year, so we're going to let him finish out his contract" then I'll go PFFL.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
        Yeah, as long as Bird lets him go this summer I don't care. But if he says "Well, we had a lot of injuries last year, so we're going to let him finish out his contract" then I'll go PFFL.
        I honestly don't know if I'll "go PFFL" or not. I'd be close, if I don't.

        Comment


        • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I honestly don't know if I'll "go PFFL" or not. I'd be close, if I don't.
          I sincerely have toyed with the idea of ripping up my remaining tickets along with my renewal package and mailing it all in to Morway because of this situation. That would be a pretty expensive statement and it feels a bit foolish, and yet....

          Is that PFFL? Not quite, but only because I'd hang with you guys here as we rode out this era.



          As for the extension and it's impact on the roster, I think it says quite a bit about your coach if you have to use that gimmick to keep the players involved with him, as I posted in response to Duke already today.

          You can't leverage the players with "he's here so you better get used to it" anymore than the big boss could make you like working for your jerk manager by doing the same thing.

          All that does is make the employee lose faith in the big boss too, and look to get out ASAP.

          It's up to JOB's coaching and attitude to make players want to work hard for him. That's his job, to manage players. If you are trying to trick them into being managed then he's having an epic fail at his work.

          Comment


          • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            I don't blame him for the extension if that's truly why he did it. It didn't work, but he can still fire him at any time he chooses with little consequence, so I'm fine with it.
            The consequence is that it's going to make a cash strapped franchise pay for 2 coaches at once.

            I suppose another consequence is JOB getting fired midway through next season and naming someone already on the staff as the interim.

            Comment


            • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              BTW, enough with the "showcasing" angle. Cleveland wanted no part of Troy after seeing him in action in Conseco while all the buzz was going on. He didn't have a good showing there, so why would they pay attention to box score stats from other games where he got 35 minutes instead of 25.
              IMHO....the Cavs used the Pacers/Murphy the same way that they used the Suns/Amare....both red herrings to pressure the Wizards into folding on Hickson and giving up Jamison for what boils down to the 30th draft pick and Savings. You really have to wonder what his trade value is or even if the Pacers overvalued him too much.

              Given Morway's recent comments about the # of discussions that they were in and not making a move that would improve the team long/short term while worsen the Team's financial situation for the immediate future....I really wonder if the Pacers really got any deals that involved Expiring Contracts and if all the deals were to dump long-term contracts on us.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                I really wonder if the Pacers really got any deals that involved Expiring Contracts and if all the deals were to dump long-term contracts on us.
                Probably the latter.

                For instance, most likely Sac showed interest in Murphy because they were hoping to dump Beno Udrih's contract on the Pacers. What other reason would they have to talk to the Pacers? Certainly not because they wanted to dump Thompson or Greene. They could talk to anyone in the league if they wanted to do that.

                If they offered Thomas' expiring deal along with one of those young guys for Murphy, I don't see the Pacers as the ones to turn that down.

                Comment


                • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  Probably the latter.

                  For instance, most likely Sac showed interest in Murphy because they were hoping to dump Beno Udrih's contract on the Pacers. What other reason would they have to talk to the Pacers? Certainly not because they wanted to dump Thompson or Greene. They could talk to anyone in the league if they wanted to do that.

                  If they offered Thomas' expiring deal along with one of those young guys for Murphy, I don't see the Pacers as the ones to turn that down.
                  Sort of related...but listening to one of the SacTown radio shows when the Murphy SacTown rumor started....the SportGuy said that Murphy is the prototypical type of Big Man that Geoff Petrie likes to have on his team. Think Vlade, Miller and Spencer Hawes. I doubt that any legit talks went beyond offering Kenny Thomas for Murphy....cuz ( as you suggest ) if it was more...the Pacers SHOULD have been all over that deal in a second. More then likely.....it was some deal including Beno....which is a no-no.

                  Just pure speculation....but with the apparent rift between Hawes and Wesphalt that occured recently....I'd hope that the Pacers FO revisits sending Murphy to SacTown in the summer...possibly to swap down in the draft while sending Murphy for a Trade Exception and maybe Hawes.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    The consequence is that it's going to make a cash strapped franchise pay for 2 coaches at once.

                    I suppose another consequence is JOB getting fired midway through next season and naming someone already on the staff as the interim.
                    This team was losing money even when it was winning, and we're assuming Jim's money is fully guaranteed anyway. Even if it is, it's small fry for one year. We paid Rick more and longer after he was fired.

                    If Jim's going to get fired, it's almost certainly going to be during an off-season, not mid-way through.

                    If Lester Conner takes over, I don't think he's the Jim clone people think he is, either. I have to be cryptic on that last point, but I'm "fairly confident" about that.

                    If Larry really thinks Jim needs to go, but doesn't want to shell out big bucks on a replacement, he should give Lester the 2011 season to see what he can do with it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Just pure speculation....but with the apparent rift between Hawes and Wesphalt that occured recently....I'd hope that the Pacers FO revisits sending Murphy to SacTown in the summer...possibly to swap down in the draft while sending Murphy for a Trade Exception and maybe Hawes.
                      I seriously doubt a coach like Westphal is going to dictate any kinds of moves the Kings make. He was more or less brought in to be a throwaway coach.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                        We did not pay Carlisle after he was fired, he did Bird a favor by having Assistant Vice president added to his name. After he was fired Carlisle did not stay on as A.V.P.

                        This team has no chemistry.

                        JO'B has lost the team. I'm not sure he could get the Lakers above .500

                        The only games we will win the rest of the year are against teams below .500 and maybe a few above .500 (barely) if we are at home.

                        We suck, truly the only player on this team to make progress this year is Hibbert. McBob has not been given enough minutes.

                        Play the starters on the road one qtr., 24 minutes maximum. Play them more at home to appease the fans. It's not tanking it's giving young guys a chance to prove themselves.
                        "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                        Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                        Comment


                        • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                          Originally posted by aceace View Post
                          We did not pay Carlisle after he was fired, he did Bird a favor by having Assistant Vice president added to his name. After he was fired Carlisle did not stay on as A.V.P.

                          This team has no chemistry.

                          JO'B has lost the team. I'm not sure he could get the Lakers above .500

                          The only games we will win the rest of the year are against teams below .500 and maybe a few above .500 (barely) if we are at home.

                          We suck, truly the only player on this team to make progress this year is Hibbert. McBob has not been given enough minutes.

                          Play the starters on the road one qtr., 24 minutes maximum. Play them more at home to appease the fans. It's not tanking it's giving young guys a chance to prove themselves.
                          I think the fans WANT to see the younger guys.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                            Originally posted by aceace View Post
                            The only games we will win the rest of the year are against teams below .500 and maybe a few above .500 (barely) if we are at home.
                            I've not examined the remaining schedule closely but typically we'll meet some teams tanking at the end trying to improve their own draft position. So that could be a real battle royale seeing which team wants to lose more. Or we could try and beat a team that's not trying to win and claim it's for 'momentum' for next season.. to end the season on a positive note.

                            And then there will be the teams with nothing to play for resting vets in a meaningless game against the Pacers down the stretch. Once again, we'd have the option of trying to beat a team that's not really trying to win and claiming it's for pride or momentum next season.

                            But considering the coaching and state of the franchise right now I have faith we can run the table.... and lose to everyone....
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                              We couldn't beat the Washington Generals with the rotation that played tonight.
                              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                              -Lance Stephenson

                              Comment


                              • Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                                Does anybody else find it funny that Denari and Kellogg both were saying that the Blazers had to go out and get Camby because they need another big.

                                I kept thinking to myself, well why? I mean couldn't they just play Aldridge at center and then play Webster and Fernandez at the 4? Then I realized I had seen Jim O'Brien coached teams for so long that I had actually forgotten that getting size and an inside presence is actually part of winning.


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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X