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

'11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

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

  • #46
    Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Thank god Gnome and I did that road trip. So worth it to catch the heart of that brilliant run.


    At least Denari, Paetz and co were nice to us. Someone from the Pacers org made an effort to make us happy.
    Is there something you want to tell us about you and Stacy Paetz.... or Denari?

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

      Can we just have a thread for UncleBuck to go on and on about how Jim O'Brien is a smart guy and good coach who makes very good basketball decisions?

      I just see the same argument poison too many threads, obviously the OB haters are at fault for this as well, but at least we are all one one page. If UB just had his giant "O'Brien is a genius who should be in the HOF thread" where he can constantly vent at all the OB haters, then we can keep this out of the 8/10 threads it gets into.

      Yes, I realize I exaggerated, no need to point it out.
      Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 04-02-2011, 03:41 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

        The players respect a normal coach.

        O'Brien just wasn't normal as far as coaching.

        I mean choosing to use an old James Posey who is not even a PF to play that position over Tyler and/or Josh.

        I'll admit, Vogel hasn't been a disappointment. He's a good teacher for the younger guys.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

          Add to that, there are still a number of posters who aren't willing to admit that JOB was a bad coach or that Vogel shouldn't have replaced him or that Vogel's coaching is the key component to the improved record after getting rid of Jim.

          You may be able annoy someone into not stating there thoughts, however what could possibly be said that is going to cause anyone to change there mind at this point? You talk about your opinions like they are facts, no one needs to admit anything. Maybe I am missing something but the only people I see bringing Job up are the ones trying to complain about him a bit more. I haven't seen anyone (not once) try and make the argument that getting rid of JOB was a mistake.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Hicks, I think I posted something like this year is like the past few seasons with a fast finish, it was an offhanded remark, not something I really believed in strongly, just throwing it out there for the fun of it. The worst thing about any forum or just the written word is impossible to determine how strongly the writer feels about something.
            He's responding to me.

            Much has been made about this team’s performance under Frank Vogel. Hey, they’re 15-14 since they fired O’Brien.

            Yippee.

            I’ve already outlined how bad many of those 14 losses are. The wins aren’t all that impressive, either. Only two teams have had an easier schedule than the Pacers (.463) between January 30th and March 25th. They’ve won five of their last eight games. The five wins have been by a combined 49 points. The three losses have been by a combined 50 points.

            The more you look at what’s happening now, the more you have to ask yourself if we haven’t seen this before. In 2008, the Pacers were 15-14 after the All Star break and won 11 of their last 16 ballgames. In 2009, Indy posted a 15-13 post All Star break record and won eight of their final 12. Last season, with one of the worst teams in franchise history, they won 10 of their final 14 games to go 14-16 after the break. These were all written off as a bad team playing hard after most other bad teams had pulled the chute, and broadly criticized as doing nothing but hurting their draft position.

            Is what we’re seeing now really any different?

            The immediate reaction will be to say, “Yes. They are going to make the playoffs, and that makes a world of difference.” Well, it does, and it doesn’t.

            They are going to make the playoffs. They probably only have to win three or perhaps four games to lock it up, and there are only four teams it the Association who have an easier schedule between now and the end of the season. But, really, the Pacers (like the Knicks) are going to the playoffs because they have to take eight teams from the East, and there are only six non-train wrecks in the conference.

            And going to the playoffs is a positive, both for the franchise and for the players. But this isn’t a “playoff team” by any stretch of the imagination.
            This was from the recap on 8p9s last Saturday after the lost to the Kings. Within hours after it was posted, the Pacers went out and lost to Detroit.

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            I just took exception to the idea that nothing's changed and that we're just mirroring the last 3 years. We're not.
            ___________


            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            That's a good point, too. This year the wins aren't 'meaningless' or 'empty', as they were before, when it was too little too late. There's more pressure to win this time, and we're doing it without leaning on the veterans.
            With the exception of last season, this is revisionist history. In 2008, the Pacers were eliminated after 81 games. In 2009, they were eliminated after 79 games. They were in big holes and were chasing, and large numbers of people on this board wanted the games to be meaningless, but the Pacers were trying to make the playoffs.

            There are differences between this finish and the three previous years, however, most of them are external to the Pacers. The biggest difference is that there is no real chase for the last spot. The Pacers have it, and there's no team coming hard and fast to take it.

            This team with this record would have been 3 1/2 games out of the playoffs on April 2nd last year. They would have been 1 1/2 games out in 2009, and 1 game out in 2008. That the Pacers are going to make the playoffs is at least equally a function of a lower hurdle as it is anything going on within the organization.

            The overall point wasn't that this is exactly the same thing - it's similar, but not the same. It wasn't that this was going to happen even under O'Brien - it would not have. The point was that this was a basketball team with a lot of problems. Way more than can be explained away by either bad coaching or youth.

            The point was that as they enter their summer of opportunity, I don't think they have a very sound foundation.

            Oh, yeah, somebody mentioned strength of schedule - here are SoSHR's (SoS adjusted for home/road games) for these stretches (last game in Jan thru 1st game in Apr) in each of the last three years:

            2008 - .495
            2009 - .467
            2010 - .536
            2011 - .457

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

              Well look who decided to come out of his ESPN loft to give us stats. Good to see you count.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                Yep, if the vast majority of posters observe an improvement in performance overall with a better record and a decided difference in playing style, differences in rotations that happen to coincide with the prevailing opinion the board has had for about two years prior to the change having been made, differences in how much time is being given to younger and more effective players which also matches what many here had been calling for, and an overall positive difference in player and team attitudes (except when Lance got inserted and apparently caused issues, which was then quickly corrected) that has been very evident even beyond the honeymoon period, there is no way anyone could possibly reach any type of conclusion who the better coach is, when even the players who have played for both have all but come straight out in the media with their own conclusions that appear to be the same ones that most of us, as posters, seem to be coming up with.

                Nope, there is no way that any of us can conclude anything ever, really...
                Exactly.

                At some point, you have to tell your buddy Descartes to get a life. You exist, dude.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                  Well, the only thing that going to bridge that divide is the Pacers going to the playoffs and winning some games. It would be kind of hard to say they're not a playoff team at that point...winning a couple against one of the non-trainwreck clubs.


                  [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                    Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                    Is there something you want to tell us about you and Stacy Paetz.... or Denari?
                    While it would be a juicy story, sadly the bar for keeping me happy is a lot lower than that. Saying hello and not getting stomped by 25 points is about all it takes.

                    No offense to Chris, but he's not my type.

                    No offense to Stacy, but my wife might read this.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                      Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                      I'd interview everyone and their uncle, and then pick the best.
                      Let's leave out the uncle. Too complicated.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                        Originally posted by geetee View Post
                        Didn't I read somewhere that Frank consults Larry quite a bit about coaching the team. I think it's great he utilizes a mentor, but it leads to the question of how many of the decisions are his alone. I really like what Frank has done, but I'd feel better about him if I knew for sure he was the one with the original ideas for the changes that have been made.
                        Given his inexperience and the circumstances by which he got the job Frank should consult LB. I would not be as impressed with him if he didn't.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          2008 - .495
                          2009 - .467
                          2010 - .536
                          2011 - .457

                          Thanks count, your whole post is great.

                          Wow I didn't realize this years schedule was so front loaded, and if I remember correctly, November wasn't too bad so December and January as far as strength of schedule is concernd were murder

                          I've always said that if a team didn't win at least 40 games they don't deserve to be in the playoffs

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            Given his inexperience and the circumstances by which he got the job Frank should consult LB. I would not be as impressed with him if he didn't.
                            Honestly I would expect every coach to consult with the GM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              He's responding to me.



                              This was from the recap on 8p9s last Saturday after the lost to the Kings. Within hours after it was posted, the Pacers went out and lost to Detroit.



                              ___________




                              With the exception of last season, this is revisionist history. In 2008, the Pacers were eliminated after 81 games. In 2009, they were eliminated after 79 games. They were in big holes and were chasing, and large numbers of people on this board wanted the games to be meaningless, but the Pacers were trying to make the playoffs.

                              There are differences between this finish and the three previous years, however, most of them are external to the Pacers. The biggest difference is that there is no real chase for the last spot. The Pacers have it, and there's no team coming hard and fast to take it.

                              This team with this record would have been 3 1/2 games out of the playoffs on April 2nd last year. They would have been 1 1/2 games out in 2009, and 1 game out in 2008. That the Pacers are going to make the playoffs is at least equally a function of a lower hurdle as it is anything going on within the organization.

                              The overall point wasn't that this is exactly the same thing - it's similar, but not the same. It wasn't that this was going to happen even under O'Brien - it would not have. The point was that this was a basketball team with a lot of problems. Way more than can be explained away by either bad coaching or youth.

                              The point was that as they enter their summer of opportunity, I don't think they have a very sound foundation.

                              Oh, yeah, somebody mentioned strength of schedule - here are SoSHR's (SoS adjusted for home/road games) for these stretches (last game in Jan thru 1st game in Apr) in each of the last three years:

                              2008 - .495
                              2009 - .467
                              2010 - .536
                              2011 - .457
                              Actually, I really was just responding to Unclebuck. LOL Nice to see you posting again, though.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                                Anyway, count et al, you make some great counterpoints, and I acknowledge what you're pointing out.

                                With that said, I still feel better about the team now than I did with O'Brien in charge. Though I wasn't anti-O'Brien from day 1 as some were, by last year I was done with him, and it wasn't fun having him around this year at all, for me.

                                I like what Vogel is trying to do, I'm glad the youth on this roster are getting more experience under their belts, and I don't necessarily think things are as gloomy as they can sometimes appear to be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X