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

Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

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

  • Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

    I was listening to the radio pre-game show and Mark said something that got my attention.

    After saying JOB is a good coach, smart man..... Mark said that Jim's style was not working with this group and it is clear a more traditional approach is now working and then he said that no one else wanted to play that style none of the players or any of the coaches.

    Whether Jim's style, system or approach is the best thing ever, that does not matter if the players don't buy in and if the other coaches are not 100% behind the head coach it makes it impossible.

    I think history will show that the fact the players never bought into what Jim was trying to do was the biggest factor in the struggles the past few seasons, and now we learn that the other coaches weren't on board. (obviously not suggesting this was a real talented team, but probably didn't max out the talent)

    Considering this I'm surprised the Pacers did as well as that did
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-06-2011, 11:58 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

    Yeah, that's some pretty profound insight. I wonder when he truly lost everyone.
    Last edited by Rinuven; 02-06-2011, 11:52 AM. Reason: forgot the word "lost"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      I was listenig to the radio pre-game show and Mark said something that got my attention.

      After saying JOB is a good coach, smart man..... Mark said that Jim's style was not working with this group and it is clear a more traditional approach is now working and then he said that no one else wanted to play that style none of the players or any of the coaches.

      Whether Jim's style, system or approach is the best thing ever, that does not matter if the players don't buy in and if the other coches are not 100% behind the head coach.

      I think history will show that the fact the players never bought into what Jim was trying to do will be the biggest factor in the struggles the past few sesons, and now we learn that the other coaches weren't on board.

      I'm surprised the pacers did as well as that did

      How the hell did the guy keep his job this long? I wonder when everyone started tuning Jim out? It seems pretty hard to believe that not at least one of the players/coaches went to Bird and said something and this was all a giant revelation to Bird.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        I was listenig to the radio pre-game show and Mark said something that got my attention.

        After saying JOB is a good coach, smart man..... Mark said that Jim's style was not working with this group and it is clear a more traditional approach is now working and then he said that no one else wanted to play that style none of the players or any of the coaches.

        Whether Jim's style, system or approach is the best thing ever, that does not matter if the players don't buy in and if the other coches are not 100% behind the head coach.

        I think history will show that the fact the players never bought into what Jim was trying to do will be the biggest factor in the struggles the past few sesons, and now we learn that the other coaches weren't on board.

        I'm surprised the pacers did as well as that did
        Some of us have been telling you that for years now.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          I was listenig to the radio pre-game show and Mark said something that got my attention.

          After saying JOB is a good coach, smart man..... Mark said that Jim's style was not working with this group and it is clear a more traditional approach is now working and then he said that no one else wanted to play that style none of the players or any of the coaches.

          Whether Jim's style, system or approach is the best thing ever, that does not matter if the players don't buy in and if the other coches are not 100% behind the head coach.

          I think history will show that the fact the players never bought into what Jim was trying to do will be the biggest factor in the struggles the past few sesons, and now we learn that the other coaches weren't on board.

          I'm surprised the pacers did as well as that did
          And to that I say: You're a bad coach if you keep trying to force it on this group for 3 years. A good coach needs to get a clue much, much sooner than that and move on to a style that will work for everyone.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

            Originally posted by Shade View Post
            Some of us have been telling you that for years now.
            I suppose I respect mark's inside opinion more.

            I questioned whether the players ever fully bought in to what Jim was coaching.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

              Thanks for posting this. I'm unable to listen to any of the pre-game or regular week radio shows, so I always miss this kind of insight.

              I think it's interesting for a couple of reasons. One, I guess I'm surprised the players tried to run the system for as long as they did. I mean, if a team unilaterally disagrees with a system, there's absolutely nothing the coach can do to stop all of the players from doing what they want.

              I'm going to consider the system as being what we were running when Jim was fired. We were running something completely different at the beginning of the season and the players seemed to buy into it.

              Maybe this explains some of the shot selection. I think Seth pointed out last year that Danny appeared to be saying "F it, you want me to take an open shot, here's an open shot" by just chucking bad shots after he crossed halfcourt, which was similar to something Chuck Person did while he was here. I think there's something to that.

              I also think James Posey bought into the system, or at least appeared that way. I thought he was the smartest guy on the team because he knew exactly what he needed to do to earn playing time from Jim. He tried to steer the offense when he was out there. I think that's why he continued to receive a lot of playing time despite his terrible (and our terrible) offensive production.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

                Is funny how we(the haters) have been saying this for years, everybody and their mom knew that the clown was playing losing basketball, I even got blasted by a poster in a thread for saying this

                Again, the more I learn about how everything happened I question why in the F*** Larry Bird stay with this clown for so long? I just makes me mad to know that Larry could have fix the problem long time ago but his stubbornes didn't let him do it.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Mark said that Jim's style was not working with this group and it is clear a more traditional approach is now working and then he said that no one else wanted to play that style none of the players or any of the coaches.
                  Mr. Obvious is in the house!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

                    I'm not suprised that the players didn't want to play that style but the coaches?

                    I'm glad to hear the coaches see things different from Jim but it does suprise me.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

                      Originally posted by Shade View Post
                      Some of us have been telling you that for years now.
                      Hell, we ALL knew JOB's system would ONLY work in a dream world of Kareem Abdur Jabbar at Center surrounded by Amare Stoudamire (PF), Reggie Miller (SF), Ray Allen (SG), and Steve Nash (PG).

                      Worst, every year WE all got excited by our athletic (long & lean) Draft picks but JOB wouldn't develop the young guys and our slow-twitch Veteran starters looked pathetic against elite NBA athletes.

                      To make matters even worst, Darren Collison had that 'deer-in-headlights' look, Roy Hibbert's 'mental attitude' left the building, Paul George was chucking 3 pointers that missed everything, Tyler Hansbrough looked liked a freshman in high school, Brandon Rush was 'hoping' to get injured or traded, and James Posey found himself STARTING and playing major minutes at age 34.

                      JOB and LB were the laughing stock of the NBA and deservedly so. It got so bad that I thought about that book we all read in school about the 'Emperor With No Clothes' and LB was the dumb Emperor with JOB telling him we were gonna make the playoffs. I kept hearing Jim Mora in my mind saying Playoffs? What Playoffs....heh heh heh.

                      Thank God LB finally heard it, too!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        I was listening to the radio pre-game show and Mark said something that got my attention.

                        After saying JOB is a good coach, smart man..... Mark said that Jim's style was not working with this group and it is clear a more traditional approach is now working and then he said that no one else wanted to play that style none of the players or any of the coaches.

                        Whether Jim's style, system or approach is the best thing ever, that does not matter if the players don't buy in and if the other coaches are not 100% behind the head coach it makes it impossible.

                        I think history will show that the fact the players never bought into what Jim was trying to do was the biggest factor in the struggles the past few seasons, and now we learn that the other coaches weren't on board. (obviously not suggesting this was a real talented team, but probably didn't max out the talent)

                        Considering this I'm surprised the Pacers did as well as that did
                        UB this is

                        Yes, if the players didn't buy into it, clearly that hurts. But it's not the biggest factor.

                        The biggest factor is that several key players have talents that don't mesh with Jim's offensive style. Hibbert is not built for this system because he's not athletic enough. That is, Hibbert is not Tony Battie.

                        Also, Tyler Hansborough is not Walter McCarty. Jim tried to turn Josh into Walter but it failed...and Jim failed along with that move.

                        So my point is, if Jim had implemented a system that played to the strengths of the players, he's going to maximize how good this team can be. The players would naturally buy into a system like that and they would maximize their chances to win.

                        Don't blame the players. This is on Jim and he was fired because of it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                          Larry Bird stay with this clown for so long? I just makes me mad to know that Larry could have fix the problem long time ago but his stubbornes didn't let him do it.

                          I'll play devil's advocate for Bird. I know don't faint, but if you start to feel light headed please just lay down for awhile.

                          Herb Simon was NOT going to spend the money last year or earlier in this season for another coach. That pretty much tied Bird's hands when the owner won't sign off on firing Jimmy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I was listening to the radio pre-game show and Mark said something that got my attention.

                            After saying JOB is a good coach, smart man..... Mark said that Jim's style was not working with this group and it is clear a more traditional approach is now working and then he said that no one else wanted to play that style none of the players or any of the coaches.

                            Whether Jim's style, system or approach is the best thing ever, that does not matter if the players don't buy in and if the other coaches are not 100% behind the head coach it makes it impossible.

                            I think history will show that the fact the players never bought into what Jim was trying to do was the biggest factor in the struggles the past few seasons, and now we learn that the other coaches weren't on board. (obviously not suggesting this was a real talented team, but probably didn't max out the talent)

                            Considering this I'm surprised the Pacers did as well as that did
                            For Jim's sake I hope Mark is wrong, because if he is right (which I suspect he is) this will be the second job in a row he will have been fired from that he has been terminated for the exact same reason.

                            His immediate NBA coaching prospects will lessen significantly if this starts to become common knowledge.


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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Mark Boyle just said something very interesting - pre-game show

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              And to that I say: You're a bad coach if you keep trying to force it on this group for 3 years. A good coach needs to get a clue much, much sooner than that and move on to a style that will work for everyone.
                              McKeyFan was way ahead of the curve on Jim. Jim O'Stubborn. I didn't really buy it and tried to think of why he would coach the way he did. I went back and analyzed his Boston and Philly teams. Finally, I came to the conclusion that McKeyFan was correct. Jim wanted to implement what worked for him in Boston. Problem is, he forgot that the players were different and had different talents. Tony Battie is nothing like Roy Hibbert. Tyler Hansborough and Josh McRoberts are nothing like Walter McCarty...his buddy sitting next to him on the bench. Call it a blind spot. Boston didn't have a player like Collison. Jim didn't care though because he was going to force it no matter what. Square peg in round hole.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X