Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

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

  • #16
    Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    I completely disagree with your philosophy when we're discussing our current veterans. Again, I WOULD agree with you if we were talking about one of those really good teams, but we are not, and it's not even close.
    Except I think we are agreeing in principle but disagreeing about that gray area where you determine if your "future" talent is better than your "current" talent.

    Factors that go into that gray area are things like:

    - who is going to be here vs. who is likely not to be here
    - valuation of potential vs. shown skills
    - valuation of consistency vs. inconsistent flashes of brilliance
    - value of the experience on the floor vs. value of not ingraining bad habits by trying to "play through" mistakes

    and so forth.

    As I said, the argument should be whether your young guys are as good or better than the veterans who are getting minutes. If the coach believes they are, they should get minutes. If the coach believes they are not, they will not. The outcome is on the ability of the coach to do the evaluation, not on the philosophy of who plays.

    Essentially, in my mind I can think of no circumstances where I would not put the best current team on the floor. I also, though, do not think there are many games in an 82-game season where time can't be carved out to give your future some floor space.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Except I think we are agreeing in principle but disagreeing about that gray area where you determine if your "future" talent is better than your "current" talent.

      Factors that go into that gray area are things like:

      - who is going to be here vs. who is likely not to be here
      - valuation of potential vs. shown skills
      - valuation of consistency vs. inconsistent flashes of brilliance
      - value of the experience on the floor vs. value of not ingraining bad habits by trying to "play through" mistakes

      and so forth.

      As I said, the argument should be whether your young guys are as good or better than the veterans who are getting minutes. If the coach believes they are, they should get minutes. If the coach believes they are not, they will not. The outcome is on the ability of the coach to do the evaluation, not on the philosophy of who plays.

      Essentially, in my mind I can think of no circumstances where I would not put the best current team on the floor. I also, though, do not think there are many games in an 82-game season where time can't be carved out to give your future some floor space.
      Bill, I think we will just have to agree to disagree, because the following is how I feel, and I don't think you will feel this way.

      When you are not dealing with a winning veteran team, your youth must be developed as quickly as possible. You do this for one of two reasons:

      1) You will benefit from their talent as quickly as possible.

      or

      2) You will learn that they were not as good as you had hoped, as quickly as possible. You would then move on from them and try something else.

      When you are in a scenario such as ours, I don't have a problem surrounding the youth with a supporting cast of veterans.

      But any time you have two players sharing the same position, one of which is a young piece, and the other is a veteran whom you know will never play such a role on a winning team, you must move the veteran out of the way.

      If that means making them a backup when they were starting, you do it. If that means making them 3rd string when they were the backup, you do it. If that means putting them in street clothes, you do it. If you can do them a favor and send them on their way to greener pastures, you do it. However it happens, they must get out of the way.

      Bill, it appears to me, and feel free to disagree, but I'm telling what it looks like to me, that you (and there are others; it's not just you) want wins however and whenever you can get them, regardless of the greater circumstances, and I think you're letting that desire allow you to tolerate a methodology that slows true progress towards being a winning team.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

        I hate Jim O'Brien. I mean, really, really, really ****ing hate him. Everytime he opens his mouth he makes it clear that he has no ****ing clue what he's doing.

        Listening to him constantly contradict himself would be hysterical if it wasn't so pathetic.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          But any time you have two players sharing the same position, one of which is a young piece, and the other is a veteran whom you know will never play such a role on a winning team, you must move the veteran out of the way.

          If that means making them a backup when they were starting, you do it. If that means making them 3rd string when they were the backup, you do it. If that means putting them in street clothes, you do it. If you can do them a favor and send them on their way to greener pastures, you do it. However it happens, they must get out of the way.

          Bill, it appears to me, and feel free to disagree, but I'm telling what it looks like to me, that you (and there are others; it's not just you) want wins however and whenever you can get them, regardless of the greater circumstances, and I think you're letting that desire allow you to tolerate a methodology that slows true progress towards being a winning team.
          First, let me say once again that I in no way believe that JOB does the things or looks at the situation the way I describe below. This is also not meant to say that our current veterans are better than our young guys - I think in some cases they are not and that there is room for our young guys to get into the rotation.

          I am talking about a general philosophy, and whether or not that philosophy is being executed properly (I don't think it is) has no bearing on the philosophy itself. This is not to defend a particular coach, nor is it to argue the merits of a particular veteran over a particular young player.

          I think this whole "we can look at veteran and know he'll never be a backup on a winning team" evaluation is much more iffy than people would like it to be. The idea that just because someone is a role player they aren't as good as a young guy because the young guy is the future is also overrated.

          I think you never moves a better player back for someone else just because that new guy is younger or may be around longer, keeping in mind that there may be different interpretations of "better". People talk about consistency, what are you teaching your young guys if you essentially say "if the team isn't doing well playing time will be determined by age, not skill"?

          I think there are two specific things we may at least be close on:

          - if team management thinks a veteran isn't part of the future or needs to be set aside to give a (currently) less talented young player time, they should move the veteran, for picks or pieces if they have to. That is the Front Office's job. A coach's job is to use the current assets in the best way possible right now, and not using the better player is an abrogation of his responsibility to the people that paid for today's ticket.

          - except in very close games, there is always time to put your younger players on the floor. You might run a 9-man-plus rotation where, depending on the game, an additional 2 players see floor time and those two players will change from game to game. You use this time to evaluate them, to pull them and point out their mistakes if they make them but leave them in and reinforce their good moves if they make them instead. A rookie does not need 8th man (or certainly starter) minutes to develop. He needs consistent treatment and minutes, yes.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

            Anybody who doesn't believe that there is a PR guy working with O'Brien is fooling himself. I saw this quote (in context, I might add) and combined with Wells' story about OB saying he expects the Pacers' to make the playoffs and it is confirmed: The front office has their PR machine in place with O'Brien.
            Two common sense quotes coming from O'Brien in less than a week is too much!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Even a broken clock is right twice a day....
              What if just the second hand broke? Or if its just running fast or slow? don't get me started on digital clocks? b jk

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

                Wow. There are some strange thoughts in this thread regarding the responsibilities of a coach in using his young versus his veteran players.

                I don't think a coach has any responsibility whatsoever in who to play and when to play them other than to utilize his players in such a way that it maximizes his opportunity to win each game as it is played.

                Now, I would say that most of us have a different perspective than the present coach in how to accomplish that goal of winning. And, many of us would use different players or combinations of players and certainly would distribute the minutes differently than the present coach. But again, that is because we have a different perspective regarding how a win can be achieved.

                I don't doubt that O'Brien attempts to win games, but I do oftentimes disagree on who is playing and how O'Brien is going about trying to achieve that win. That's not to say that he is wrong, that's just a statement that from my perspective, using different players or lineups than what he is using could provide a better chance of winning.

                But to say that there should be set guidelines of when he should use a younger player over a veteran does not necessarily coincide with the goal of winning. And, the same could be said for playing a veteran over a youngster. Instead, I simply believe you play whomever gives you a greater chance of winning.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

                  But when you've been getting the same results from OB as we have from the previous three and a half years, everyone begins to question the man making the decisions. And, after all this time he makes a statement (in context, of course) that goes against his actions from the previous years, I can only say that someone is working with O'Brien to give Mike Wells the story.
                  I don't believe for a second that O'Brien believes this statement based on his actions from his body of work (coaching). He is simply attempting to influence the fanbase. Of course we all recall his statements last year re: McRoberts' breakout game ("It's irrelevant"). Or his statement re: A.J. ("I need to find him some playing time") and then A.J. sits for weeks. Or his jacking of Hibbert's PT last season.
                  O'Brien may well have been playing the guys he thinks give him the best chance to win. It's simply a case of the results proving that this coach's judgment has been flawed, based, of course, on those results (his record since he's been here).
                  The only guidelines are the won-loss record.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: O'Brien said. "The only way they're going to learn is by getting a lot of game experience."

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Bill, it appears to me, and feel free to disagree, but I'm telling what it looks like to me, that you (and there are others; it's not just you) want wins however and whenever you can get them, regardless of the greater circumstances, and I think you're letting that desire allow you to tolerate a methodology that slows true progress towards being a winning team.
                    Winning a few more games while missing the playoffs...at the expense of developing players is not a good trade-off...so I agree. But that assumes that playing Posey, for example, actually helps you...which I don't believe is true.

                    Even if it were true, how many games are we talking about...and at what cost? The cost might be a lot less effective team next year due to not enough court time this year.

                    IMO, giving the young ones a huge dose of minutes this year is key because our contracts are dropping off and we need those young guys to contribute next year.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X