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

Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

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

  • #31
    Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

    And the beat goes on
    And the beat goes on.


    Retaining O'Brien was the only tanking strategy the Pacers had available short of infecting their players with various communicable diseases during the course of his regime. Their talent level was too good. The instant turnaround for the one game under Lester Conner where they played correctly and in the proper positions as well as the remainder of the season of the great emancipation where the Pacers could easily have ousted the Bulls in the first round of the playoffs were clear illustrations that either O'Brien was a willing participant in a brilliantly disguised tank, or that the game of professional basketball had long ago passed him and his rigid and completely predictable strategies by.

    O'Brien's poor rotations, playing his available talent out of position and away from their strengths or not at all for absolutely no basketball reason other than being young, as well as his complete lack of clock and momentum management were each maddening, but the combination of all of them did what even the brawl and the events that transpired after could not - namely, drive away a good portion of the remainder of the core of the fanbase as paying customers. Even Isiah Thomas didn't accomplish that.

    Debate settled?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

      Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
      He isn't a loser. He never was. He had a winning record in the NBA until he took on rebuilding the Pacers. He will do a good job for Dallas too....
      You don't put *** in the word looser. Pretty sure he meant something else. Try something with an f. I bet he has done it at least once so he is one:-)

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

        While I don't like JOB as a coach, I think he's not as bad as some people think. Heck he has a pretty decent coaching record than most of his peers in the business.

        The thing with JOB is that he's a coach that's like a fixed shape, meaning his philosophy is fixed, his pattern is fixed, his style of coaching is fixed, etc. That is why he clicked on some teams, like Boston for example, while did not on a team like Indiana. While this is obvious to all, his coaching style revolves around these:

        - He likes a big man who can shoot from outside the perimeter. Walker and Posey flourished under his coaching. Stretch 4 is somehow synonimous with JOB.

        - He loves 3-pointers. Pierce and Granger for example, made a living outside when JOB was their coach.

        - He does not rely on point guards to set plays, and never likes them to be ball-dominant. Ball-dominant point guards, like DC and TJ, never had a great career under him. And he likes continuous ball movement, although mostly from outside the arc.

        - He likes to play veterans. Veteran teams like the Celtics and Sixers made the playoffs without too much fiasco over playing time. In the Pacers, well Roy Hibbert as a rookie never had much of a significant career mainly due to Rasho playing more. And the PF spots mainly belong to Murphy and Posey duing his era as Pacers HC, both are veterans and outside shooters, as opposed to Josh and Tyler.

        - His rotation is fixed. Regardless of how good you were the last game, a bench player will always be a bench player for him. A starter, even though struggling, will still get the bulk of the minutes.

        In Dallas as an assistant coach, I think his offense will be well-suited because Dallas not only has Dirk as the stretch 4, and also the main guy, but that team is also loaded with veteran role players that will have little problems with regards to offensive roles and playing time (although it's still Rick's call when it comes to PT and plays). Aside from that, JOB won't have problems working on defense because Rick has been there sharpening their defense, which is one of the best in the league. It will be interesting how Rick and JOB, 2 guys that are good and bad on opposing fields, will be coaching that team.

        So to summarize, JOB before the Indiana coaching gig was a good one. JOB in Indiana is a bad coach, one of the worst in recent Pacers history. JOB with Dallas can potentially be good.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
          I've been a fan of basketball for the past 12 years, and I'm somewhat obsessive compulsive so I've watched a lot of it. :P

          He's the worst coach...in every sense of the word..I've ever seen. Period. I don't even think I've got an accurate picture of what a bad coach is anymore because O'brien is my standard.
          Yeah sorry, but this is just some serious hyperbole. Ok, he should have been let go at some point during his third season, and definitely should not have been extended, but he did a fairly decent job in his first two seasons.

          do people actually forget the 08-09 season? There were a few coaching brain farts, but go look at that roster and tell me if they had any business being in that many close games/ coming close to securing a playoff spot. If the goal was to tread water (and that appears to have been the FO's goal) then by that measure he did all he could and maximized the strengths of that squad. Sure, as a fan I probably would have done a better job in developing the young guys. But by doing that I probably would have finished with ten less wins and been let go by bird at the end of the season.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

            Originally posted by cdash View Post
            I pose a different question: Can we please stop talking about this ****er? It's been almost two years. Move on.
            I was wondering how he made his way back to this site...
            Why so SERIOUS

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

              No.

              (In answer to the original post.)
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                They hated him Philly, for most of the same type things people hated him here for. I've read alot about his stay in Boston and Philly not many good things have been said about either stop.

                Have you ever thought that Boston was a fluke, you now those things do happen. You honestly think he would have duplicated that the next season.

                He resigned in Boston, after they got rid of his security blankets (Walter and Fatoine). They were not exactly mad that he left, they got rid of him without having to pay him. He again had the same criticisms in Boston.

                He's a one trick pony with a flawed trick.
                I made a post a few months back with some very positive comments from players about his time in Boston. He was well liked in Boston and he did I believe by any objective measure a very good job in Boston.

                Hoop, you are one of my favorite posters, but I strongly disagree with you that gettign to the Eastern Conference finals is a fluke - it is never a fluke. This isn't the NCAA - the better team almost always wins the playoff series. No, Jim did a great coahcing job to get that Celtics team to the ECF.

                The Siixers were better the season Jim coached them then they were the season before or the season after. He wasn't well liked by the players there, but a lot of coaches are not well liked.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                  I also remember the time he was leaving Melo open because his book told him to..... Of course we could forget that because he made it to the ECF with Boston right?
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    I also remember the time he was leaving Melo open because his book told him to..... Of course we could forget that because he made it to the ECF with Boston right?
                    Melo's three point shooting % was low, so the Pacers allowed him to get a few three pointers. That strategy is certainly within the bounds of reasonable NBA coaching. Happens all the time, teams still give Lebron the open threes. Does that mean every coach who tells his player to give Lebron a little room at the three point line, the worst coach of alltime.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

                      Hoop, you are one of my favorite posters, but I strongly disagree with you that gettign to the Eastern Conference finals is a fluke - it is never a fluke. This isn't the NCAA - the better team almost always wins the playoff series. No, Jim did a great coahcing job to get that Celtics team to the ECF.
                      The 2002 Eastern Conference was without question one of the weakest conferences in the history of the NBA. Just an abysmal collection of teams. The Celtics beat a 43 Sixer team and a Detroit team with a Stackhouse/Atkins/Ben Wallace/Corlis Williamson core. That year, a red-hot Pierce and Walker was enough to get them to the ECF's. In most seasons, however, they would not have had a prayer at the conference finals. The following season, the Nets swept them out of the playoffs.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Melo's three point shooting % was low, so the Pacers allowed him to get a few three pointers. That strategy is certainly within the bounds of reasonable NBA coaching. Happens all the time, teams still give Lebron the open threes. Does that mean every coach who tells his player to give Lebron a little room at the three point line, the worst coach of alltime.
                        Letting a player continue shooting once he's established that he's hitting the shot isn't not a reasonable coaching strategy. If he's mising, you take a step back and encourage it. When he's hitting, you don't keep your strategy and allow him to bury you.

                        Strategy shifts can happen during games. That's what good coaches do. It's what bad coaches don't do.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Letting a player continue shooting once he's established that he's hitting the shot isn't not a reasonable coaching strategy. If he's mising, you take a step back and encourage it. When he's hitting, you don't keep your strategy and allow him to bury you.

                          Strategy shifts can happen during games. That's what good coaches do. It's what bad coaches don't do.
                          I don't remember, how many threes did he hit that game . And how are we going to determine whether Jim did make an adjustment. We all know that once a player gets hot sometimes even double teaming they continue to hit shots.

                          When was this game. I am curious, i'd like to see the box score. Was this in Jim's last season or third?


                          OK - I located the game it was 1/23/10 - in the middle of a 6 game losing streak 3 games before his firing.

                          He shot 6 for 8 from threes. One thing the play-by-play does not detail is missed three point shots.

                          But here is when He hit the threes.

                          1) 4:19 - first quarter
                          2) 9:16 - third quarter
                          3) 8:40 - third quarter
                          4) 3:08 - third quarter
                          5) 2:25 - third quarter
                          6) 1:03 - third quarter


                          So there was no reason to make any adjustments at halftime - 5 of the 6 threes came in the third quarter when the Nuggets went from a 10 point halftime lead to a 20 point end of third quarter lead. Seems to me the threes came really quick in what was a blowout.

                          The question is did Jim make any adjustments in the 3rd quarter - I don't know how we can ever determine that. he had lost the team by then, so who knows if he told the players after the first two threes in the 3rd to get up on Melo, or if we was content to play the percentages.
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-22-2012, 09:51 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            I don't remember, how many threes did he hit that game . And how are we going to determine whether Jim did make an adjustment. We all know that once a player gets hot sometimes even double teaming they continue to hit shots.

                            When was this game. I am curious, i'd like to see the box score. Was this in Jim's last season or third?
                            He hit a bunch of 3's wide open with nobody on his face because "that was the strategy", at the end of the game they asked Melo about they "strategy" and he laughed his a** off, then they went to the clown and he said pretty much that his book told him to and that he would do it again.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                              Melo is a .322 career three point shooter, so yes if I were coaching against him I would be thrilled if he took 8 threes - whether open or not. Miuch better than his wing jumper or getting into the lane and getting to the free throw line/.

                              I would guess every coach's gameplan on melo is "give him the threes", pray he is three happy tonight.

                              I'll repeat, at the very least it is within the realm of NBA coahcing reasonableness to allow Melo to get some open threes.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I made a post a few months back with some very positive comments from players about his time in Boston. He was well liked in Boston and he did I believe by any objective measure a very good job in Boston.

                                Hoop, you are one of my favorite posters, but I strongly disagree with you that gettign to the Eastern Conference finals is a fluke - it is never a fluke. This isn't the NCAA - the better team almost always wins the playoff series. No, Jim did a great coahcing job to get that Celtics team to the ECF.

                                The Siixers were better the season Jim coached them then they were the season before or the season after. He wasn't well liked by the players there, but a lot of coaches are not well liked.
                                I agree with you, basically. You can't discount Jim's successes in Boston. I understand your wanting to argue against the proposition that JOB has always been and will forever be a horrible coach.

                                On the other hand, it is equal annoying to me that you can't seem to acknowledge that he was a bad coach here at Indianapolis. I don't know why he was so bad here, but he had some nice successes in Boston. I'm sure there's reasons. But to just stick your head in the sand forever and ever about this problems here . . . well, that annoys me as much as people annoy you who say he never had good moments as a coach.
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X