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

Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

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

  • #16
    Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

    He certainly helped them stay in Indy during the playoffs.


    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

      Well, by the end he'd united a fanbase. So there is that.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

        Ummm tanking isn't a coaching decision. It comes from upstairs. As a coach, your job is to win games. So I don't see how JOB is keeping the Pacers in town or not. Sure Larry may not have said, hey play this guy more or less. But he didn't say, hey we are gonna tank. JOB just did his job.

        Aside from the fact that I don't think the Pacers were ever going to move, I just don't see how JOB, just by coaching, kept the team in Indiana.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

          I want to try and define an acceptable form of tanking. It's sound and logical for a franchise to face reality and say "hey, we stink, time to jettison every asset and rebuild." I can support and probably encourage that stance. But I can absolutely not support not playing your best players, putting them in situations to fail (out of position, roles they absolutely cannot fill, that stuff).

          I'm fine with a front office putting a bad team on the floor in the hopes of drafting a superstar. I'm disgusted by a mediocre team just not playing to win.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

            Originally posted by Hoop View Post
            I don't buy the idea that tanking would have made any difference with the fan base. They sucked, sucking a little more would not have mattered, IMO.

            I think you under estimate the large group of fans that wanted the young guys to play regardless. Some thought that would be tanking. Some thought we would win more games, growing pains and all, I was in that group.

            Some thought just having JOB in charge was tanking.

            Personally I'm not opposed to tanking depending on the situation. We should have tanked at the end of the season JOB's 2nd and 3rd season. The season Vogel took over we did the right thing going for that 8th spot.

            The problem is "young guys" primarily consisted of Josh mcroberts with a side of AJ Price. Roy kept himself off the floor with foul trouble and Asthma as a rookie. PG only played for him for half a season. Most the fans don't even like Tyler anymore so there really wasn't young talent ,at least not that was relevant to this organizations future, on the roster.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?


              The response seems to always be, "well, you didn't risk messing up the whole season so you are clearly satisfied with being competitive and being the 'under dog'. Wouldn't it be better to spend 5 years winning 10 games a year and finally win the lottery and get the superstar so the Las Vegas Pacers will be champions? After all, that's the ONLY WAY to win!"
              Here is an example post to those that don't know what I'm talking about.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                Where's the he-- no option?! I understand the concept of the question but I think other cosches could have led us to 9th place finishes also. The last two years of the JOB era was downright atrocious to watch/enjoy as a fan.

                I don't think JOB is as bad of a coach as he seemed to be here, but he should never work with a team that's trying to rebuild with younger talent.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Here is an example post to those that don't know what I'm talking about.


                  The point wasn't that not tanking "saved" the franchise. The point was that the most common recent "success story" being OKC is tainted by the fact that they moved once they hit their goal.

                  Think about this - had Chicago not won the lottery from the 10th position to get DRose, how many more years would they have had to suck before getting a high pick? Pacers were in nearly as good a position to win the lottery and didn't have the luck to do it. It isn't like within 4 years we were guaranteed to get a pick who would have been a franchise-changer. An injured EJ is still an injured EJ - otherwise, where is the Clippers' ring since they got him?

                  I'm with Heisenberg. You play the best players you have, you don't bench them so you can essentially lose on purpose. Reboot the team, trade your assets and rebuild from scratch, fine - but I think trading away the only players who had any remaining popularity might well have been the last straw for many fans who were sticking around.

                  People also forget that during JOB's first year he really was credited with getting the team to play a more exciting up-tempo style than the grind-it-out half-court offense Rick was running. It was really not until nothing particularly improved the second year that his stock started dropping with most fans - and, yes, I am aware that there were people here who hated him from day one, but it was in no way universal.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Where's the he-- no option?! I understand the concept of the question but I think other cosches could have led us to 9th place finishes also. The last two years of the JOB era was downright atrocious to watch/enjoy as a fan.

                    I don't think JOB is as bad of a coach as he seemed to be here, but he should never work with a team that's trying to rebuild with younger talent.
                    He showed that was exactly what he was best at. He showed them discipline and they had to do it his way or walk. He did a great job of rebuilding this team on the run..... ...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post


                      The point wasn't that not tanking "saved" the franchise. The point was that the most common recent "success story" being OKC is tainted by the fact that they moved once they hit their goal.

                      Think about this - had Chicago not won the lottery from the 10th position to get DRose, how many more years would they have had to suck before getting a high pick? Pacers were in nearly as good a position to win the lottery and didn't have the luck to do it. It isn't like within 4 years we were guaranteed to get a pick who would have been a franchise-changer. An injured EJ is still an injured EJ - otherwise, where is the Clippers' ring since they got him?

                      I'm with Heisenberg. You play the best players you have, you don't bench them so you can essentially lose on purpose. Reboot the team, trade your assets and rebuild from scratch, fine - but I think trading away the only players who had any remaining popularity might well have been the last straw for many fans who were sticking around.

                      People also forget that during JOB's first year he really was credited with getting the team to play a more exciting up-tempo style than the grind-it-out half-court offense Rick was running. It was really not until nothing particularly improved the second year that his stock started dropping with most fans - and, yes, I am aware that there were people here who hated him from day one, but it was in no way universal.
                      So according to you what saved the franchise from moving to Las Vegas? and nope nobody is asking to tank to "win the lottery".
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                        One more year of O'Brien, in my view, could have led to a disbanding of the franchise, with a re-emergence of another franchise in another city to replace it, and the Fieldhouse sitting vacant for a while.

                        Don't forget that the Pacers still pay a hefty chunk of their TV revenue to the former ownership of the St. Louis Spirits from the ABA merger agreement, and that could have been partially broken if the Pacers ceased to exist. The huge penalties to the CIB in the event of leaving or simply stopping probably were instrumental in saving the franchise during that time.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                          One more year of O'Brien, in my view, could have led to a disbanding of the franchise, with a re-emergence of another franchise in another city to replace it, and the Fieldhouse sitting vacant for a while.

                          Don't forget that the Pacers still pay a hefty chunk of their TV revenue to the former ownership of the St. Louis Spirits from the ABA merger agreement, and that could have been partially broken if the Pacers ceased to exist. The huge penalties to the CIB in the event of leaving or simply stopping probably were instrumental in saving the franchise during that time.

                          I don't think O'Brien was ever coming back for another year. He completed the rebuild and his job with the team was done and done well. I do think that the fans calling for his head too soon led to the hiring of an inexperienced coach who is costing the Pacers games every year, especially in the playoffs. If JOB had finished the year, the man sitting next to Vogel might have been the coach and the Pacers would be even better prepared to win..... ...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                            Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                            I don't think O'Brien was ever coming back for another year. He completed the rebuild and his job with the team was done and done well. I do think that the fans calling for his head too soon led to the hiring of an inexperienced coach who is costing the Pacers games every year, especially in the playoffs. If JOB had finished the year, the man sitting next to Vogel might have been the coach and the Pacers would be even better prepared to win..... ...
                            Crediting JOB for the rebuild is like crediting Mrs. O'Leary's cow for the city that Chicago has become.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                              Crediting JOB for the rebuild is like crediting Mrs. O'Leary's cow for the city that Chicago has become.
                              I wouldn't credit him for the rebuild, however he did a good job helping change the culture and instilling discipline. Jim Obrien also can be credited with bringing the Pacers Frank Vogel. Credit for the rebuild mostly goes to the Legend.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Do you think JOB helped the Pacers stay in Indy?

                                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                                I wouldn't credit him for the rebuild, however he did a good job helping change the culture and instilling discipline. Jim Obrien also can be credited with bringing the Pacers Frank Vogel. Credit for the rebuild mostly goes to the Legend.
                                How hard can it really be to "instill discipline"? It is possible to have a coach who can both coach well while being a tough disciplinarian. It's not a one or the other thing. O'Brien should have been gone long before January 2011.

                                And how did he change the culture? The culture was changed for him. Players like JO and Tinsley were shipped away. The culture he then developed was one in which the players despised playing for him. That's not a positive culture.
                                Last edited by Sollozzo; 08-19-2012, 05:14 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X