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 to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

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

  • #61
    Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

    I enjoyed the year when Jarrett Jack was here and the Pacers were competitive in each game. O'brien's final two years are another story BUT I am glad the Pacers won 30 plus games a year while they rebuilt. No way would I follow the team if they lost like the Bobcats have. The NBA needs to have relegation like Soccer. I wish the 2 worse teams in the league would get relegated to a lesser league each year to keep them from tanking.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

      Ahhh.... O'Brien discussion. Summer is just dragging right along.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
        I actually think JOB is better suited as an assistant.

        On another note, I find the word "reappear" a funny way to describe his return, as if he's some magician or he had literally become invisible.
        I took it more like a horror movie monster/villain.

        Poor DC, DJones and most of all, WTF does Bird have against Carlisle that he recommends JOB to him? (which you would have to assumed...)

        Freaking Rick just keeps getting crap deals.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          I refuse to re-"litigate" the Jim O'Brien years. But I will say that my silence on this issue doesn't mean I've seen the light and now agree with you all. Just that I said all I needed to say on the topic over the years and I still feel the same way. If for some reason I change my mind on things, I will be sure to post.
          There is no need to re-litigate. The case has been decided.

          We are just dancing on the grave at this point...

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

            Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
            And it still rubs me the wrong way when players openly deride JOB in the media. I understand the complaints, trust me, I just don't like the public airing of grievances. It's just unprofessional, it's been a year and a half, move on. And don't take any posts I've made in this thread of me being pro-JOB, I danced a jig when Larry finally fired him, I just don't like the crap slinging that so many players have taken part in. Think if JOB did multiple radio interviews bashing players he coached, this board would EXPLODE.

            But he hasn't said a peep. I literally haven't seen one single word quoted from him since he got fired. I give him credit for that.
            I think it really says what type of coach he is, that the players have done this.

            For the most part, unless they are superstars, players don't publicly say anything about a coach.
            For the most part, the Pacers players that dealt with him were 3/4 year college players, who were both intelligent and professional.

            And yet I've seen Roy, Brandon, DC, PG, Tyler (FREAKING TYLER), Danny, Dun, and I'm pretty sure Josh and TJ all "throw mud"

            At some point, you just have to figure it was "that bad."

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
              I think it really says what type of coach he is, that the players have done this.

              For the most part, unless they are superstars, players don't publicly say anything about a coach.
              For the most part, the Pacers players that dealt with him were 3/4 year college players, who were both intelligent and professional.

              And yet I've seen Roy, Brandon, DC, PG, Tyler (FREAKING TYLER), Danny, Dun, and I'm pretty sure Josh and TJ all "throw mud"

              At some point, you just have to figure it was "that bad."

              I don't agree with that at all. Remember all the negative comments once Carlisle left and from former Pacer players who were traded. Players critisize their former coach all the time. This is the NBA. It happened after Larry Brown left, happened after Isiah left. Only time I don't remember it happening here is when Bird left, but the team was changed so much that summer and they did just get to the NBA Finals.

              what is unusual is for a player to be critical of their current coach. But former coach - it is open sesason

              Was it worse with JOB, maybe, but I don't see it that much worse. Seemed pretty typical to me
              Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-21-2012, 08:59 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                You guys say OB won more games than he should, but as soon as he got canned, Vogel turned the team around. WITH THE EXACT SAME PLAYERS.

                You can counter that the team gave up on OB and that's why Vogel did so well. But Vogel did really well again the following year.
                They were 20-18 with an easier schedule the rest of the way. And yes the players gave up on O'Brien. So 20-18 isn't that big of a deal.

                I was not a believer in Vogel at all until the 2011 playoff series against the Bulls, that is what changed my mind about him. The February, March and April regular season was not impressive to me really.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                  You knew it was bad during the Season We Do Not Discuss when even the Mayor, Fred Hoiberg, was bashing Larry Brown after Brown quit. The lifecycle of an NBA coach is short. This is nothing new.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    You guys say OB won more games than he should, but as soon as he got canned, Vogel turned the team around. WITH THE EXACT SAME PLAYERS.

                    You can counter that the team gave up on OB and that's why Vogel did so well. But Vogel did really well again the following year.

                    Also, Vogel didn't just lead the same system and players with new attitudes. He changed all the stupid stuff OB was doing that all of us were complaining about. He emphasized defense and tough play. He cut out the silly bazillions of substitutions. He spoke positively of his players in public instead of negatively. He predicted wins rather than a losing season. He immediately spoke publicly about the need to take high percentage shots. He immediately benched Posey.

                    You guys spin it however you want. The truth is completely obvious.
                    His 3rd year the expectations were higher. We were to make the playoffs and that was voiced from Bird. And it wasn't "I hope to one day be in the playoff". It was "I expect us to be in the playoffs". We got DC and Paul George. Hibbert was expected to step up. Tyler was expected to play for the entire season.

                    So please do not assume we had the same team in all three years with JOB. PG's first year was JOB's best, Jack's only year was the second, and Watson was the worst (granted I blame JOB for not getting TJ acclimated better).

                    Vogel didn't coach a rag tag bunch. They were suppose to get there in the first place. Vogel just erased the debt that the West Coast trip caused.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                      I knew UB was still in love with JOB I knew it.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                        Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                        His 3rd year the expectations were higher. We were to make the playoffs and that was voiced from Bird. And it wasn't "I hope to one day be in the playoff". It was "I expect us to be in the playoffs". We got DC and Paul George. Hibbert was expected to step up. Tyler was expected to play for the entire season.

                        So please do not assume we had the same team in all three years with JOB. PG's first year was JOB's best, Jack's only year was the second, and Watson was the worst (granted I blame JOB for not getting TJ acclimated better).

                        Vogel didn't coach a rag tag bunch. They were suppose to get there in the first place. Vogel just erased the debt that the West Coast trip caused.
                        I think you mean his 4th year.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I think you mean his 4th year.
                          Yeah his 4th year. Honestly the 3rd and 4th kinda ran together. I supported him in the 3rd year, but that support was waning. I did not want him back in the 4th year, but there was not a clear guy (Shaw maybe) out there. But the January of 2010 was the biggest disappointment as a Pacer fan.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                            Major, Jim said right before he was fired that the Pacers couldn't make the playoffs. He was then let go, Vogel took over, and as we all know, made the playoffs. So yes, it was literally the exact same roster, because it was only about a month and a half between Jim putting his foot in his mouth and the Pacers shoving it in further for him.
                            Last edited by Since86; 08-21-2012, 12:20 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Major, Jim said right before he was fired that the Pacers couldn't make the playoffs. He was then let go, Vogel took over, and as we all know, made the playoffs. So yes, it was literally the exact same roster, because it was only about a month and a half between Jim putting his foot in his mouth and the Pacers shoving it further for him.
                              Regardless what Jim said, the expectation was for them to make the playoffs. The team was better than previous years, or in a better climate to make the playoffs. I understand that Vogel had the same roster. I am not debating that. What I am saying is that Vogel did not exceed preseason expediencies, until the Bulls series.

                              Jim failed to take a better roster to the playoffs. When he (and SVG) said they were not good enough, or they were as equally as bad as previous years.

                              No the 10-11 Pacers were better than the 09-10, 08-09, and the 07-08. And to say that those teams should have made the playoffs is farce. They were horrible grouped together with no chemistry (I blame JOB for this). And if it weren't for the gimmicks of JOB they would have been in the top 6 pick area. There was no sustainable model to JOB's winning. It was a flash in the pan. And I do not fault him. He was hired to win, not to lose.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: JOB to reappear as Mavs assistant coach?

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                And it still rubs me the wrong way when players openly deride JOB in the media. I understand the complaints, trust me, I just don't like the public airing of grievances. It's just unprofessional, it's been a year and a half, move on. And don't take any posts I've made in this thread of me being pro-JOB, I danced a jig when Larry finally fired him, I just don't like the crap slinging that so many players have taken part in. Think if JOB did multiple radio interviews bashing players he coached, this board would EXPLODE.

                                But he hasn't said a peep. I literally haven't seen one single word quoted from him since he got fired. I give him credit for that.
                                Usually I would be in the same boat as you.

                                However, O'Brien was such a prick about them in the media, that I think he deserves every last word spoken about him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X