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

JOB's influence on Vogel

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

  • #46
    Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    ...However all you have to do to know the one single difference between Vogel & O'Brien is know this...
    In response to your original post of this thread, I think we should all realize why you subconsciously chose not to post your JOB thread.

    It was too soon. Not too late. There is still a lot of anger and emotion there.

    By the way, I am the pot calling out the kettle.

    Edit:

    I recognize the emotion very well, because that is exactly how I felt watching Jalen Rose not play defense. And, after the Phoenix game, that is exactly how I felt every time I saw Tinsley in a Pacer uniform.
    Last edited by beast23; 12-29-2011, 05:55 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

      Yeah I remember the time when the strategy was to leave Melo open by the 3 point line because his shooting porcentage from there was low



      edit: Or the day he decided to watch up with the Lakers by playing Murphy at center and Dunleavy at power forward
      Last edited by vnzla81; 12-29-2011, 05:55 PM.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

        Here is a video of Roy when Jim got fired, he looks so happy.


        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

          Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
          No, he got fired last season for giving Posey more minutes than Tyler or McBob depending on which one he decided to sit that night. Go back and listen to Bird's presser when he got fired. That was definitely a part of the reason he was removed.
          I was being sarcastic...but anyway, there was plenty of reasons to fire JOB not just that one as the previous poster was stating.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

            Peck, you should post it, I always enjoy your insight.

            The biggest difference between the two coaches is the positive enthusiasm Frank brings. Look up the last few post game interviews Jim had before he was fired. He was a miserable, beaten man. They are hard to watch. Jim had no feel for chemistry and he always negated the identity of the team.

            Frank saw the team's players wanting to play "smashmouth" and has been spot on so far in being able to implement that style.

            Unlike some of you guys, I don't think playing Troy 36mpg gave us the best chance to win. He consistently led the team in +/- with emphasis on the -.

            We saw time and time again whenever Troy was out from injury, the team played much better!









            Five Game Win Streak... just sayin!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I need to figure out how to change a sig in tapatalk.


              Edit: Fixed it, but my phone is still awesome
              Last edited by spazzxb; 12-29-2011, 07:30 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                The truth is JOB let players sit on the bench who ultimately weren't part of this franchises future, it didn't matter.

                Ever thought that maybe why they ended up not being part of the future was because our coach did not know how to properly coach them? Rush has every bit as much pure talent as Granger if not more, yet he was told just to sit in the corner (he wasn't the only one). This team always played better when McRoberts started over Murphy, or received significant minutes. Maybe with the right coach McRoberts would have received the playing time to become a much better player than he is, or we could have had a coach who knew how to get the most out of Rush. JOB was a major reason why these two players did not have a future here, not the sole reason, but a big reason.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Your entitled to your opinion.

                  sent from a tiny keyboard

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    The day that Blake Griffen scored 47 points against us, Tyler played two less min. that Posey and Josh did not play at all due to coach's decision. That's right you have a young energetic jack rabbit power forward so to counter him let's make sure to put old out of shape small forward who we will call a power forward.

                    But only thing worse was the time that he had James guard A. Staudimire for three straight possesions in N.Y. only to have him score at will on him three straight times. That is the day I lost my mind and that is the day he should have been fired.
                    I don't know if the game was televised but I was there; O'Brien had Hibbert guarding Blake Griffin for the entire game.

                    At one point he may have been an honorable coach but by January of last season, O'Brien had no business even sniffing a basketball court.

                    I believe the development we saw at the end of last season could've happened in 2009 if O'Brien hadn't been such an obstacle to the team.

                    I believe he coached here for 2 1/2 years too long, so that's probably a fair amount of time for potshots. In other words, two more years of potshots at O'Brien is probably what you'll get from me.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                      All I have to say is that the public comments, including those that have leaked, all show that I view Jim O'Brien very similar to the players.

                      They have criticized him directly and indirectly on both the way he coaches and the way he treats the players. Make your own conclusion...whether it's right or wrong...but don't deny what the players have already said.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        All I have to say is that the public comments, including those that have leaked, all show that I view Jim O'Brien very similar to the players.

                        They have criticized him directly and indirectly on both the way he coaches and the way he treats the players. Make your own conclusion...whether it's right or wrong...but don't deny what the players have already said.
                        Which mean Bird deserves a good bit of the pot shots.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Oh God someone is going to get on here and talk about strength of schedule, this was a big twitter thing last year for the last few remaining O'Brien supporters and the rare (but out there still) Vogel haters.
                          There is nothing to be gained from that. I simply want people to get over it and move on. I have have been a Bird supporter and have never been against Vogel. I just didn't like the whole team being minimized to a discussion of one man, that was always what irked me. I didn't see value in scrapping the active coaching staff to bring in a new person mid season unless they were the long term replacement. We were told at that point in time no one was qualified to take over from with in. These positions were accused of being a JOB fanboy which was unfair and entirely inaccurate. The JOB fanboy is nothing but a figment of the Haters imagination (except for flox).

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            Which mean Bird deserves a good bit of the pot shots.
                            I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I suppose Bird deserves a little blame for keeping Jim around for years...or at least for too long.

                            With that said, I have Bird's back. I think he's done a good job with personnel and it might have been difficult for him to fire Jim...because Jim had important Pacer connections.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                              I believe it was Simon's decision to fire Jim midseason. Bird didn't want to do it.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I suppose Bird deserves a little blame for keeping Jim around for years...or at least for too long.

                                With that said, I have Bird's back. I think he's done a good job with personnel and it might have been difficult for him to fire Jim...because Jim had important Pacer connections.
                                I have Bird's back as well. He has done a great job. But not a perfect one. Exhibit glaring A is his keeping JOB around far too long.

                                It's just one of those blind spot anomalies that make you scratch your head.
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X