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

  • #31
    Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

    Solo is more of a center than Murphy is.

    McRoberts is more of a center than Murphy is.

    Hell, I'm staring to think Danny Granger is more of a center than Murphy is. I'd wager Danny is stronger, more willing to fight, and has a longer wingspan than Troy. I know he guards the post better on PFs than Troy.

    *edit*

    And I surely start Roy Hibbert over Troy Murphy 10 times out of 10. One is blatantly a center, and one is blatantly not. It's not about Roy stopping or not stopping Bynum.

    By the logic of "no one would stop him, so what does it matter", why not start an even smaller player if it "doesn't matter"? If you've decided you're defensively screwed, why not start a swingman since you're only concern is the offensive mismatch?

    Which, by the way, isn't as much of one as you'd think when you consider that Troy is an extremely low threat to drive on anybody.

    And as for "Roy would just get in foul trouble", he played his usual minutes in the first half, and had exactly one foul, as I recall. This isn't last season; Roy isn't a guaranteed quick two fouls anymore. He's gotten a lot better at that.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      Regarding the rest of your excellent post . . .

      Yes. JOS is slowly getting around, through the back door, of making the right adjustments.

      I would like to have seen Roy and Solo on the floor together last night. Why do we NEVER see that combination? For that matter, why not Roy and McBob?

      I know the answer, but I guess what we are all saying is that the evidence is in that we need to experiment with two big men line ups other than Roy and Troy. JOS has certainly tried every other combination.

      It's amazing how stubborn he is. You know, if Foster was around, we'd be thinking that Solo and McBob sit because Foster is available.

      But that ain't it, folks.
      I have no idea. Solo and Roy would seem to compliment each other, to me. They both can have bouts of bad bad plays, but also offer a nice compliment of defense/offense.

      The rim would be protected better too.

      Solo can hit the 15 footer, ala, Udonis Haslem.

      Obie has said basically that Solo isn't really a Center but a PF.

      I don't understand really what the downside is that is so bad to not have EVER tried it.

      If you played Bosh/Bargnani every night, I'd guess it's not doable, but otherwise against most match ups you have to be better defensively.

      I think the current school of thought is one BIG and 4 shooters, which I guess the flaw to me is that Murphy isn't a BIG, he should be in that shooter category. I'm rambling....

      In short, I don't know, but why not try it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

        is this guy stubborn or what?..............

        How could you be confused about O'Brien being stubborn? There is a reason for the coined name Janes O'Stubborn. His stubbornness to be right about his coaching philosophy causes a horrible case of tunnel vision.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

          Stubborn? I don't disagree, but where does 18 starting line ups fit into the stubborn persona?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Stubborn? I don't disagree, but where does 18 starting line ups fit into the stubborn persona?
            his stubbornness over the efficacy of troy murphy.
            Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

              Originally posted by Speed View Post
              I have no idea. Solo and Roy would seem to compliment each other, to me. They both can have bouts of bad bad plays, but also offer a nice compliment of defense/offense.

              The rim would be protected better too.

              Solo can hit the 15 footer, ala, Udonis Haslem.

              Obie has said basically that Solo isn't really a Center but a PF.

              I don't understand really what the downside is that is so bad to not have EVER tried it.

              If you played Bosh/Bargnani every night, I'd guess it's not doable, but otherwise against most match ups you have to be better defensively.

              I think the current school of thought is one BIG and 4 shooters, which I guess the flaw to me is that Murphy isn't a BIG, he should be in that shooter category. I'm rambling....

              In short, I don't know, but why not try it.
              i asked conrad brunner about this at some point
              something about we'd be too slow or something. i dont quite remember.
              Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Stubborn? I don't disagree, but where does 18 starting line ups fit into the stubborn persona?
                He's never not started Murph, except due to injury.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Solo is more of a center than Murphy is.

                  McRoberts is more of a center than Murphy is.

                  Hell, I'm staring to think Danny Granger is more of a center than Murphy is. I'd wager Danny is stronger, more willing to fight, and has a longer wingspan than Troy. I know he guards the post better on PFs than Troy.

                  *edit*

                  And I surely start Roy Hibbert over Troy Murphy 10 times out of 10. One is blatantly a center, and one is blatantly not. It's not about Roy stopping or not stopping Bynum.

                  By the logic of "no one would stop him, so what does it matter", why not start an even smaller player if it "doesn't matter"? If you've decided you're defensively screwed, why not start a swingman since you're only concern is the offensive mismatch?

                  Which, by the way, isn't as much of one as you'd think when you consider that Troy is an extremely low threat to drive on anybody.

                  And as for "Roy would just get in foul trouble", he played his usual minutes in the first half, and had exactly one foul, as I recall. This isn't last season; Roy isn't a guaranteed quick two fouls anymore. He's gotten a lot better at that.
                  You are acting like Troy played the whole game. Troy played 27 minutes and Roy actually played more minutes with 28. The game was not lost in the first half, btw. Do you actually believe the Pacers would have beaten the Lakers if Roy had started? How many minutes do you think Roy is capable of playing? You act like he is getting 5 minutes a game.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    Please note Hibbert got abused by Bynum as well, so it isn't like starting Roy would have put us in the lead. Honestly, don't you think that being within 3 at the half against the Lakers would be a positive thing?

                    Everyone screams "defense sucks, defense sucks" when we lose a game like this, but the turning point was when the OFFENSE went back to its old habits of bricking long 2s and 3s as if that was the only way to score. The small lineup was actually working offensively when people were worming their way into the lane or at least into mid-range.

                    My disclaimer - I want Roy on the floor for his offense. I want the team to stop thinking the way to win is to throw up a long-range shot. Both of these things can certainly be placed at the feet of the coach. BUT the focus everyone has that somehow we were destined to lose the game because of the starting lineup makes me wonder if they really watched the first 2-1/2 quarters of the game.
                    I agree 100%
                    Go Pacers!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      There you go again, trying to make simple sense out of JOS's actions.

                      What about veteran respect for Dunleavy? He doesn't start.

                      What about veteran respect for TJ? He was exiled.

                      What about veteran respect for Dahntay? He's been in/out of the doghouse.

                      Nope. The veteran respect thing does not hold water. JOS has a strange obscession for Murphy as a basketball player. HE REALLY THINKS MURPH NEEDS TO BE ON THE FLOOR MOST OF THE GAME. It does NOT make sense. JOS is a mystery.
                      Plain or salted crackers?

                      You might actualy want to watch the game before throwing out the same parrotting bs. I guess you did not know or understand that Roy actually played 28 minutes to Troy's 27. So saying JOB plays Troy the whole game is plain old bs.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                        Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                        You might actualy want to watch the game before throwing out the same parrotting bs. I guess you did not know or understand that Roy actually played 28 minutes to Troy's 27. So saying JOB plays Troy the whole game is plain old bs.
                        It's generally true.

                        Last night, Roy did not play during important stretches in the second half. He played the garbage time in the last 3.5 minutes. Troy got more real minutes.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                          I guess I'd say this, I do see Murphy's offensive value. I actually think he's played well and is a distinct weapon. I mean I can see why Murphy is liked by the coach. He's essentially been the 2nd or 3rd best player on the team this year.

                          Now with that said, he is a liability guarding starting caliber PFs and starting caliber Cs. The combo of him and Roy, who is not a defensive stopper either, is well, frontcourt defensive poison.

                          So, what do you do? Well you start Roy with a defensive minded true PF. This isn't an epiphany we've talked about the next Davis for years now.

                          So, what can you do right now? Well do we like Murphy as a gunner on offense and a back up PF/C guarding the other teams back up PF/C's?

                          I'd like to see Roy with Jeff (out), with Tyler (out), that leaves you Danny. I'd be perfectly fine with Danny and Roy starting PF/C. With Murphy and Solo coming off the bench, if it's a smaller PF I'd put McBob with Murphy, since McBob is more athletic and more likely to guard a perimeter type PF.

                          This allows you to put Murphy with a player who absolutely doesn't need shots, allows him to guard a back up player or at the least a tired starting player.

                          It allows Danny to be encouraged to drive to the basket against a bigger player instead of jacking up 3s.

                          It allows Roy to grow and get minutes against front line centers or even teach him how to deal with exploiting PFs posing as Centers in today's NBA.

                          It allows Solo to get on the court or McBob for that matter and focus on defense and rebounding or if not those things it let's them be role players, which is really what they are right now.

                          When/if Tyler and Jeff come back you plug them right into that McBob/ Solo rotation slot and you are even better.

                          So, what now with the second unit with the Dunleavy/Murphy defensive history. They'll be okay actually, they'll be playing against back ups or starters who have been playing several mins already.

                          I'm not pretending to have the answers here, but I think this makes sense, except Obie wont' bring Murphy off the bench...

                          Where is the downside?
                          Last edited by Speed; 01-28-2010, 11:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            Hey, I've been meaning to ask you for quite a while now. I have been a proud member of the Dark Side like you recommended long ago, and this question has been eating away at me for nearly as long as I have been here.

                            Where are the freakin' cookies, man? I have looked and looked, and I just can't find them. YOU PROMISED!
                            Cookies? I don't know what you're talking about.

                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              It's generally true.

                              Last night, Roy did not play during important stretches in the second half. He played the garbage time in the last 3.5 minutes. Troy got more real minutes.
                              Oh come on, you are better than this. One of these days you are going to run out of straws to grasp.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Mike Wells blog on JOB's decision making

                                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                                Cookies? I don't know what you're talking about.

                                I also did not sign a release for you to use real life images of me on here, either, o' bearer of all lesser-illuminated wisdom and truth. Where are your hidden cameras located here on the Dark Side? I swear, that "banana" looks just like me .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X