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

  • #16
    Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

    As to the question is he The worst coach ever. I use the 2002 Boston Celtics to prove otherwise. The job he did there was coach of the year worthy. Taking that team to game 6 of the ECF was remarkable. He all coached rings around Isiah in the 2003 playoffs

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      No, he really is that bad of a coach. He has no idea how to use the players he has to the best of their ability unless they are a stretch 4, and had no concept of consistency.
      And was a total d*** to his young players for no good reason, probably trying to pull the old (terribly outdated) "break 'em down and then mold them" approach.

      He was Isiah Thomas with a bad attitude. 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".

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

        I remember the time Dukedinamite called him, that was some funny s***
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          As to the question is he The worst coach ever. I use the 2002 Boston Celtics to prove otherwise. The job he did there was coach of the year worthy. Taking that team to game 6 of the ECF was remarkable. He all coached rings around Isiah in the 2003 playoffs
          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.
          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            As to the question is he The worst coach ever. I use the 2002 Boston Celtics to prove otherwise. The job he did there was coach of the year worthy. Taking that team to game 6 of the ECF was remarkable. He all coached rings around Isiah in the 2003 playoffs

            His style is okay when you have a red hot Pierce and Walker to jack up bunch of shots against a team of mental midgets like the 2003 Pacers, a squad which had completely imploded. But the Celtics were swept the next round by NJ because that style can't compete against an elite team. And couldn't virtually anyone coach rings around Isiah?

            I'm not going to give him an abundance of credit for getting the 02 Celtics to the ECF's in an absolutely pathetically weak Eastern Conference. The Nets were the only legitimate team in the East that year. That was the year before the Pistons added Billups, Hamilton, and Prince. Detroit won 50 games that year, but that was a much different roster than the teams that went on those deep playoff runs in later years. The Sixers, who had made the Finals the previous year, only won 43 games in 02. The Bucks collapsed and didn't even make the playoffs. Then you had teams like the Hornets, Magic, and us, which were basically .500 teams. The fact is, the 2002 Eastern Conference without question has to be one of the worst conferences in the history of the modern NBA. The fact that Pierce, Walker, and the rest of that team jacking up a bunch of threes was good enough to make the ECFs tells you just how bad that conference was. That team wouldn't get close to the conference finals in most years.

            In route to the ECF's, Boston beat a 43 win Philly team and a Detroit team with a core of Stackhouse/RObinson/Corliss Williamson/Chucky Atkins/Ben Wallace. That's hardly remarkable, IMHO. You can't control who is on your schedule, but that has to be one of the easiest routes to the conference finals ever.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-21-2012, 10:11 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

              I can't believe this guy STILL brings up so much conversation and controversy from Pacer fans! I'm hoping the reason he's being brought up and talked about is merely a coincidence bc he just signed as an assistant with the Mavs.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                I also remember the time Hicks and Gnome interviewed and took a picture with the clown, he told them that he was going to change and Was going to play Roy in the post more often
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                  Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                  Bingo!!!!

                  That's really the only thing we need to agree to... That we not talk about JOB... Ever again. As a matter of fact, I propose that his name never again be used in a forum post. This would please the majority of us very, very much.

                  Thats what I have wanted for the last year.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                    He doesn't even make the three worst coaches in the Pacers all-time history.

                    Last: George Irvine
                    Second Worst: Dick Versace
                    Third Worst: Isiah Thomas.

                    Jim O'Brien is a below-average to average coach, who happened to be coaching a very below-average team in Indianapolis.

                    He ain't as bad as those three clowns, though.

                    If you want to change the order of cotton-ball head and Zeke, okay. But they were both worse than O'Brien.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                      Originally posted by neosmndrew View Post
                      Sorry for the strongly worded title, but I don't think I've ever seen a not great coach get treated like the worst coach ever like this, and I cannot understand why. He forwent a weakness so we could focus on a strength. Its worked for other teams in the past, the difference with us that we weren't super talented. He never had us as anywhere near a cellar dweller, despite that we did not have great talent. Sure he was stubborn, but he at least got results, albeit pretty mediocre ones.

                      My point: He was a very, very average coach. People treat him here like the anti-Christ, sent to Earth to eradicate all the post-Brawl Pacers fans. He had an up-tempo style that got us an average amount of wins. He was an old-schooler, which obviously young guys don't like. He did what was expected until the end, when we got a coach that could better utilize a more talented roster. I just want us to settle like gents why we really hate this guy, because I feel complaining as much as people here do about JOB makes us sound like spoiled brats when compared to teams with a good amount more talent, such as the Warriors or Wizards.
                      If he was not a very good coach, he would not have been hired to be the Dallas assistant head coach. JOB did a GREAT job with the talent he was given and he brought discipline to a team that sorely needed it.....

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.

                        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....

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          He coached rings around Isiah in the 2003 playoffs
                          This is the correct answer.

                          Isiah in the 2003 playoffs - remember game one?

                          Dear God.

                          Don't make me pull that play-by-play out of the PD archives.

                          Remember - he ran out of timeouts because he burned one to prevent one of Ron's meltdowns, "accidentally" took Reggie of out the game when the C's were at the line -- in the last 24 seconds when the Pacers had 0 timeouts and the Celtics missed the freethrow. The Pacers rebounded and the only way they could stop the clock to get Reggie back in the game was to commit a turnover.

                          That's awful.

                          I didn't like Jim O'Brien's emphasis on perimeter play, but he wasn't THAT bad.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                            James Posey..... that is all

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                              JOB was a bad coach. He did not know how to utilize talents of the players.

                              Plain and simple - he got fire, Vogel stepped in and got us to the playoffs in 2011. Vogel went 20 - 18 in the last 38 games with the same roster that JOB had
                              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Can we settle this anti-JOB debate once and for all?

                                Not our problem anymore.

                                Nothing to see here folks... thanks for stopping by.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X