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

  • #91
    Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

    Originally posted by danman View Post
    Blowing up a team to play youth, and get picks, is fine. That would be a GM at work with the blessing of owners.

    It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the coach. Playing guys who aren't your best players is an instant path to losing respect. A 15 win season is an instant path to ending your career.
    The funny part is that his career ended anyway
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Glad I have stayed out of this. I will always believe that getting 36 wins in each of his first two season was a very good job of coaching. He also did a very good job in changing the atmosphere of the franchise. He also speeded up the getting rid of some of the dead weight players around here.

      Beyond that he was a lot better coach IMO than most of you want to admit. But that isn't saying much since most of you think he is not only the worst coach ever, but almost seem to regard him as almost evil.
      No he's not. He played posey vs amare and Griffin. He sat PG and Tyler when not only are they the future, they were obviously better than the guys he was playing. Job was mindblowingly bad.

      And as others have pointed out, somehow we went from a laughingstocks to a 'young and deep team with a bright future '.
      Last edited by oxxo; 12-30-2011, 05:16 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        The funny part is that his career ended anyway
        doubtful coaches get recycled more than cans

        Normally the coach you hire for the rebuilding process isn't the coach who will be there for the winning years and normally they understand that. They are some coaches who basically are just rebuilding coaches.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

          I will say this, if Vogel's the future coach that I think he is, the Pacers organization will have a lot to thank JOB for.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

            Jim did a good job restoring order in Indy after the brawl. I give him credit for that. He probably deserved a couple seasons to do that.

            Beyond the first two years, all I can say is I disagreed with his decisions mostly on the court but also off of it. Although he had ample time to implement his system, his record got worse from year 2 to year 3 to year 4. This along with the fact the team played better under Vogel than it ever played under Jim O'Brien...and the fact comments were made by Bird and several players...IMO...clearly indicate Jimbo was doing a bad job and it didn't just start happening.

            With that said, I am no coach hater. I loved Rick Carlisle and Frank Vogel is good too.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

              If you only win 15 games because you want to play the young players is ok, but if you are losing games just because you don't have a chance to go to the playoffs that is a different story. Losing just to lose is bad, losing because you want to give your future playing time, although not ideal, is acceptable.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                The difference between winning 36 and 15 games is the same as having Kyrie Irving instead of George Hill.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  Last night's interview of Vogel reinforced a question I've been wanting to post for a couple of weeks.

                  He was asked about his main influences or mentors, and he named Rick Pitino and Jim O'Brien.

                  Pitino was all about working harder than anyone else, outlandish optimism, etc., while with JOB he mainly talked about how he got all his opportunities and chances through Jim. Nothing about coaching or basketball.

                  Truly one of the most remarkable developments in Pacer nation the past year has been the fact that JOB was replaced with his #1 disciple . . . who coaches completely opposite, it seems.

                  Just to name of few things:

                  - Vogel truly emphasizes defense over offense, it's not just lip service.

                  - Vogel has replaced all the complex weird over-thought out schemes with more simple, workable, realistic strategies.

                  - Vogel believes positive reinforcement is more powerful than being a hard @ss.

                  - Vogel demands good shot selection and immediately dethroned 3-ball.


                  There's more, I'm sure. But here is the question: what GOOD did JOB bring to the table for Frank Vogel? Is there anything noteworthy other than a negative example?

                  I can think of possibly a couple things: a strong work ethic in practice. And not letting prima donnas run the team.

                  But there has to be more. And I am truly interested in the answers.
                  He learned how to coach form Pitino and how not to do it from JOB. Vogel going to have his not so good moments thats goes with the learning curve but he is by far already surpass JOB in how to coach.
                  When I die I want to be buried upside down so all my critics can kiss my @$$ - Bobby Knight

                  I would walk thru hell in a gasoline suit to play the game of baseball - Pete Rose

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    I feel like I asked an honest question. One person so far has named one possible positive contribution: JOB demanded endurance and being in shape physically.

                    I'm still looking for more positive contributions from JOB. Or were there none?
                    There were none. I say that with all seriousness.

                    Perhaps O'Brien could talk and explain the game of basketball with the best of coaches, but he couldn't see the forest for the trees and had a maddeningly inconsistent approach that was a GIANT contradiction on the other side of the floor... Let alone inconsistent approaches with players between what he'd preach versus what he'd do.

                    Maybe Vogel could remain open-minded and sort out the good from the crazy.

                    .
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      Yeah I think JOB's influence in Vogel is similar as having an alcoholic uncle, he treads you good, he teach you about life and gives you a job but at the end of the day you don't want to be an alcoholic like him.

                      In Vogels case he got to see how his mentor was a sucker for stretching the floor and shooting threes(his alcohol) and not only that but he also got to see pretty much what not to do when running a team so as soon as he took the team he pretty much did a 360 on it without thinking about it.

                      So yeah JOB's influence in Vogel was important because he got to see how not to suck, who knows how good of a coach Vogel would be if he didn't get to watch a horrible coached team by the clown
                      I have nothing really to contribute, but I couldn't let this go onto another page without noting this. Let's hope Vogel doesn't do a 360 with this team.

                      Comment


                      • Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        For Gods sake Phil Jackson was just outright making fun of him here for using Murphy & Dunleavy at the 4 and 5.
                        Ah...another great JOB moment.

                        I was just thinking about something else. The one person that I feel the most sorry for is Josh McRoberts, because he tried "hard" to fit JOB's idea of what a PF should be. I was just thinking about the game against Chicago that JOB was ejected from. Josh McRoberts was on fire early in the game, then JOB took him out of the game for whatever reason for an EXTENDED amount of time. I remember one of the announcers saying...

                        "O'Brien must have forgotten about McRoberts, and I wonder why he hasn't put him back in the game."

                        There was a brief discussion about it, and JOB FINALLY puts McRoberts back in the game. 2-3 plays later, McRoberts gets posterized which basically (in the eyes of fans) erased his entire good game.

                        If JOB didn't get fired, I would have probably stopped watching Pacers game, because I was getting tired of JOB misusing our players.

                        Here's the game thread....
                        http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...pacers+chicago
                        Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 12-31-2011, 11:17 AM.


                        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                        Comment


                        • Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                          I firmly believe that his mis-usage of McBob that night was the absolute final straw. If the former head coach of the Pacers doesn't play his chosen one 17 minutes (even with Tyler out sick), his reign of terror doesn't end permanently when he got ejected that night.
                          "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                          "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                          Comment


                          • Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                            Yeah. The excuse that Jim didn't play younger players because he wanted to win 36 games instead of 15 to keep his job just doesn't hold water. One of the main reasons he was fired was because he didn't play the younger guys. Bird said it in the presser and frank came right out and started playing them.

                            Bird wanted them to play and grow. Jim wanted them to sit. Its pretty obvious.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                              I think we saw a little of JOB's influence in tonight's Piston game.

                              Small ball the whole 4th quarter or at least the parts I was able to stand watching. Which was a horrible decision. The Pistons are a small team and instead of exerting our strength and forcing them to adjust we tried to match up with them and actually gave them the size advantage.

                              That's some classic JOB ball there. JOB would never have played Tyler that long though.

                              Comment


                              • Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                                Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                                I think we saw a little of JOB's influence in tonight's Piston game.

                                Small ball the whole 4th quarter or at least the parts I was able to stand watching. Which was a horrible decision. The Pistons are a small team and instead of exerting our strength and forcing them to adjust we tried to match up with them and actually gave them the size advantage.

                                That's some classic JOB ball there. JOB would never have played Tyler that long though.

                                You must have missed the first thre quarters because the 4th quarter was the only quarter where the Pacers were able to put forth the effort needed to get back into the game.

                                Sometimes a small lineup works

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X