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

  • #46
    Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    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.
    Wow, I always thought that a two years separation from JOB was going to open your eyes I guess I was wrong.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #47
      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.
      That didn't used to be the case with the best of 5 series in the first round. Of course the Lakers lost in the first round and then it was magically decided it would be better to be a "best of 7" across the board.

      /end side rant

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
        That didn't used to be the case with the best of 5 series in the first round. Of course the Lakers lost in the first round and then it was magically decided it would be better to be a "best of 7" across the board.

        /end side rant

        The first round became a best of 7 in 2003. That was after three straight Laker championships.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

          The clown had Murphy on Bynum and Dunleavy on Gasol at one time but he made the ECF with Boston so is ok, he had Posey on guys like Amare and Griffin but is ok because he made it to the ECF with Boston, he called Mcbob's irrelevant after having played the game of his life but is ok because he made it to the ECF with Boston......
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            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.

            Hopefully I can stop posting with this.

            I thought at the time and still think that getting those Pacers teams to win 36 games in each of Jim's first two seasons, was a good coaching job. Not coach of the year quality, but so far so good quality.

            Third season things fell apart to a degree, and I posted after that third season that Jim should not be brought back as I feared and figured season #4 would be worse than season #3.

            Does this indicate my head is in the sand?

            Many things I didn't agree with. Too many three point shots. his inability to get his players to buy into his defensive scheme a scheme which was fine a scheme which the Celtics used to great results in 2008. Never liked his wild subsitution pattern - I like a set rotation like Frank does it.

            So no, I don't agree that Jim was a horrible coach when he was here. Two good seasons followed by a bad season and a half and it should have only been 1 bad season - bad decision to bring him back by TPTB.

            Overall he was better than Isiah, Versace, Irvine. No where nearly as good as Brown, Carlisle and Bird. In the same class (sorry ChicagoJ) as Bob Hill.

            So I guess I view him as an average coach during his time with the pacers.
            Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-22-2012, 11:30 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

              The difference between the Celtic's JOB and the Pacer's JOB is that the NBA changed. And his gimmicks were not working in the current NBA. They worked then, and that was fine. They worked occasionally with the Pacers. But if a team got hot from the perimeter, they were toast on defense. And if we weren't hot, we were toast. Those were the only variables. We didn't have a player like Pierce who could get into the lane and break down his opponent.

              The Pacers of JOB were both not talented enough to break past the 8-10 seed in the East. And he wasn't good enough to take a rag tag bunch in the current NBA past that like he did with Boston.

              'Nuff said!!!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                I think O'Brien's negatives overpowered his positives.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                  My biggest beef with him was his approach to the end of the season. We've had chances at a top lottery pick, I believe at one point we were the 3rd worst team in the league. Out the playoffs and this guy has the audacity to try and "save the season" and we won a bunch of games to close out the year. He should have shut it down and let all the young guys play majority minutes. I understand it looks bad for the franchise to unofficially tank, but at some point when you miss the playoffs 3-4 years in a row and you aren't getting better, you need to take your lumps as a franchise to get better, because nobody remember what you do when your losing. Maybe thats more of a comment on Larry Bird though, but the general attitude and approach from JOB did not help.
                  Last edited by graphic-er; 08-22-2012, 11:57 AM.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                    Coach O'brien should coach the olympic team. All they do is chuck 3s for the most part.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                      Originally posted by JB24 View Post
                      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.
                      No, it's really not. I said what I've seen, I'll be fair..I never saw Isiah. But I do watch Women's basketball so I've seen some bad coaches..

                      Jim O'brien had some logical ideas that he took to extremes so that they wouldn't be logical any longer. Those few logical ideas were about the only positives of that guy.

                      Those one and a half years (that I saw) were easily the worst coaching job I've ever seen. I've never seen a coach that was literally terrible at essentially every aspect of coaching. From X's and Os, to offensive philosophy and defensive philosophy, to helping to develop team chemistry, adjustments, or something as simple as what players to play (come on, a ten year old wouldn't stick James Posey on Blake Griffin) or you know..motivating your players. Just awful.

                      It says enough that a lot of fans get riled up about him...but players still do too.
                      Last edited by Sookie; 08-22-2012, 04:15 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Overall he was better than Isiah, Versace, Irvine. No where nearly as good as Brown, Carlisle and Bird. In the same class (sorry ChicagoJ) as Bob Hill.
                        That's fair. We've got our three all-time best: Slick, Brown, Bird.
                        We've got our three all-time worst: Versace, Irvine, Isiah

                        Then there are a bunch in the middle, including Carlisle, Hill, Dr. Jack, Vogel, McKinney, and O'Brien. All significantly better than the bottom three, but O'Brien is also at the low end of that list. (I guess Staverman belongs on this list too, if anybody remembers him?)

                        Of those, only Carlisle and Dr. Jack could have done as much with the Spurs as what Bo Hill did. And even Bo's last NBA appearance with the Sonics -- a thankless task at that time -- I'm not sure any of those other guys could have gotten 53-81 out of a season and half of that roster. Yuck!

                        Bo was a turnaround guy - that middle coach that stops the bleeding, helps the front office maximize its assets, and then gets replaced when somebody "sexier" gets interested in taking over what he has done. Was Bo ever going to get them to the ECFs? Probably not, because the roster changed a LOT over Brown's first 15 months with the team and getting Byron Scott, Tony Davis, Derrick McKey and even Workman and later Mark Jackson helped a lot with making that team an ECF contender.

                        If Jim O'Brien has just been fundamentally sound, not using all those damn gimmicks and statistics, he might be solidly in the middle of the pack. And IMO, that's what he was better at in Boston and Philly - yes they shot a lot of 3's but those teams were more fundamentally sound. He'd gone off the deep-end with regards to fundamentals with the Pacers.

                        But he still wasn't as bad as Versace, Irvine, or Thomas.
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          It says enough that a lot of fans get riled up about him...but players still do too.
                          I actually think this is what's most damning about his legacy. Even casual fans often couldn't stand JOB. Current Pacers players are *still* talking about him. You certainly don't hear that level of disdain for many others.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                            How is Isiah Thomas considered one of the worst. He got a freshly broken up team off an NBA finals Appearance, rebuilding on the fly. Made stars out of players like Brad Miller and JO. He got a team rebuilding on the fly into the playoffs, playing .500 ball. Probably his most egregious error was how he handled Croshere.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              How is Isiah Thomas considered one of the worst. He got a freshly broken up team off an NBA finals Appearance, rebuilding on the fly. Made stars out of players like Brad Miller and JO. He got a team rebuilding on the fly into the playoffs, playing .500 ball. Probably his most egregious error was how he handled Croshere.
                              He was awful.

                              Disorganized, terrible use of timeouts, often running out of them before the last minutes of the game, often playing the starters the entire second half of games. Reggie at his advancved age averaged more minutes per game under Isiah than any other coach.

                              Using Bender at the point guard.

                              Using Mercer at point guard.

                              Players lost respect for him in his first year 9 still remember the Atlanta Constitution article in April of his first season. The article suggested he was not a hard worker, showing up late for practices. Not getting the team in good physical condition. Practice was very lax.

                              By his own admission, not working on defense until late December

                              The Quick - more than that though, the players didn't know what they were supposed to be doing.

                              The 2003 Pacers were the most talented NBA pacers team since I started following the Pacers.

                              But perhaps most damaging to him were the comments made by Mark Boyle and Slick after isiah was let go. They were extremely critical. Both said they doubt he'd ever work in the NBA again. They both seemed to have a distain for him that surprised me. (remember they travel with the team and see a lot of the behind the scenes that we don't)

                              I was very interested to hear what Mark and Slick said about JOB after he was let go. Sure they didn't rave about him, but nothing like Isiah
                              Last edited by Unclebuck; 08-22-2012, 04:07 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                And to top it off he was just as arrogant with the fanbase. If he touted a stat that said to play Troy and a fan called into his show and brought it up when it backed playing someone else then he'd berate them and dismiss the issue with "there's more than one stat".
                                Wasnt that dukedynamite who did that? (i was still living in deep southern indiana outside of radio's reach at the time)
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X