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

Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

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

  • #16
    Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

    If it was actually such a problem to him, you would think this would have come up about 5 years ago.
    Time for a new sig.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
      So maybe Jim called David a name because he didn't like how he did something.

      Whats the big deal in that?

      After all isn't that why some of you are calling Jim names . . . . . . because you didn't like how he coached?
      Nope. We hate him because of how he interacted with what appeared to be pretty decent guys in a completely d***head manner. He's being judged by his "F that guy's effort, he's not really that good" comments, not by his massive incompetence as a coach.

      Don't believe me? Look at the comments about Vogel with the slow start. NO ONE CALLS VOGEL A D-BAG, even with the poor play. Seems to me most people that are worried about Vogel's skill level still like him and want him to succeed.


      Calling a jerk a jerk is like calling a fireman a fireman. I strongly suspect Harrison is not in fact gay and that JOB was not saying "David, because you date men you are a homosexual". It's pretty much not the same thing in any shape at all.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

        Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
        Yea, so we shouldn't call MWP a nut case either! Actions and interviews just aren't enough info to suspect a mans character!
        Yep. And for that matter we should also stop saying that Roy's a good kid, that Andrew Luck seems nice, that Vogel is a very positive person, etc. We definitely need to stop handing out character awards to people who aren't direct family or very close friends. Who really knows if Mark Jackson was a good guy? Just from some interviews? We just can't really know.




        So frustrating. JOB has had many opportunities to shape his PUBLIC PERSONA. I'm not out there feeding him quotes to give to the public, nor am I telling players what to say. Yes, we COULD BE WRONG, but that's true in every POSITIVE image too. At some point you must judge on the limited evidence you have, and frankly I've yet to see much of anything in the way of "JOB was sure a good guy to me."

        Freaking Jack and Rick fought like dogs during games, and yet Jack talks up Rick with tons of positives. Ron even was positive about Rick in the long run. Where is the McRoberts quote of "really JOB was right to insult my game and keep me on the bench, I kinda sucked and deserved to be put in my place"? JOB trashed the idea of Roy's improvement; Carlisle praised Artest's defense to the point that other coaches got ticked off by Rick's statistical campaign to win Ron DPOY....ie, just a tad bit supportive of a player that gave him every reason to not be.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

          Who was more of a jerk to the players? Jim O'Brien or Larry brown? I don't know, but I've heard worse about Brown. But brown gets a pass because he's a better coach.

          overall I think this is a non-issue. But if you want to know all the names NBA coaches call players, it would be. Very long list. And a lot saltier than what is being discussed here

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

            It had to be a big misunderstanding, right?

            Perhaps the esteemed and highly intelligent coach O'Brien was paying Mr. Harrison a compliment, referring to his tremendous strength being similar to those who came before us on the evolutionary tree.

            Maybe after hearing the words "David, you went after that rebound with the strength and drive of Homo erectus, great job!", the exceptionally attentive and obviously clearminded Mr. Harrison simply failed to make the connection, and mistakenly assumed that both Homo and erectus were somehow unflattering references to his sexual preferences. Then when referencing it on Twitter, for the sake of brevity due to the shortage of available characters, David chose to omit "erectus" because he thought it simply was redundant and therefore irrelevant.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

              Originally posted by gummy View Post
              Not so shocking really - at least not in the sense of it being surprising.

              Sports are still rife with expressions of homophobia - it comes as part and parcel of the machismo.

              Not disagreeing that JOB is a turd though.
              Classy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                Is this thread a joke?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                  I am sorry, but everyone in here is being a homosapien...
                  Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                  I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    overall I think this is a non-issue. But if you want to know all the names NBA coaches call players, it would be. Very long list. And a lot saltier than what is being discussed here
                    I 100% disagree. I think we're at a point now where anti-gay and sexist slurs have joined racial slurs as off limits.

                    O'Brien crossed the line imo, and quite frankly as both a leader and as a parent of a special needs child, he should be even more tolerant and understanding of others situations/lifestyles than the average person.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      I 100% disagree. I think we're at a point now where anti-gay and sexist slurs have joined racial slurs as off limits.

                      O'Brien crossed the line imo, and quite frankly as both a leader and as a parent of a special needs child, he should be even more tolerant and understanding of others situations/lifestyles than the average person.
                      And you are crossing the line for choosing to believe in gossip and the credibility of what appears to be a disgruntled former employee without harder facts to back it up.

                      Harrison sounds bitter towards his last employer. We all know people like this. I'm sure he'd be less bitter if he had been capable of landing an NBA job since 2008. Maybe he should have spent more time focusing on improving his rebounding and less time stewing. Seems that years later he still hasn't grown up. Say what you want about O'Brien, but I haven't heard a peep from him since his firing in 2011.

                      And please tell me... How do you know that O'Brien isn't more "understanding" of other situations compared to the average person? I do know that the man has spent a considerable amount of time helping and advocating on behalf of the homeless. He hasn't tossed the downtrodden aside or looked down upon them. I do know that he is devoted to his daughter who yes, has faced and overcome the type of challenges that most of us have never had to face. I do know that the man is not perfect, but I have always respected his work ethic and dedication to his craft.

                      I'm sure we could play this game with any player and any coach. As has been posted on this board previously, In 2007 Paul Pierce had this to say about the 6 seasons he spent with O'Brien in Boston.... ""He's a straight shooter type of guy," said Celtics forward Paul Pierce. "He demands a lot of his players. I'm surprised he has been out of coaching that long. I think we had a good relationship. We had an open relationship. He was real demanding of his players. I looked at him as one of those old-school coaches. He's a throwback coach. He preaches a lot of defense. He always preached about that."

                      http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...ht_in_indiana/

                      And yet Paul Pierce was critical of Coach George Karl in 2002. So what? Sometimes players like coaches and sometimes they don't and they are apt to try and smear them. When you win, as Pierce did with O'Brien in Boston when they advance to the conference finals, you tend to remember favorably the demanding mentors. But when we are ultimately unsuccessful, we are less likely to remember fondly the most demanding of mentors or teachers.

                      If five years from now a bitter Lance Stephenson were to throw a few shots at Frank Vogel, I'm sure that more of us would be embracing the presumption of innocence. Because the majority of us like Frank Vogel as a person. Remove your anti-O'Brien bias and don't let it color your entire perception of what is fair and what is right. We are better than that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                        I have a rule that anything that David Harrison says should be ignored. That same rule applies to MWP and Jamaal Tinsley. That rule has served me well since they started destroying the chemistry of my favorite team.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                          What a thread. A coach uses a homophobic slur to a player, and some posters are more worried about other posters using the term "turd." Wow.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Who was more of a jerk to the players? Jim O'Brien or Larry brown? I don't know, but I've heard worse about Brown. But brown gets a pass because he's a better coach.

                            overall I think this is a non-issue. But if you want to know all the names NBA coaches call players, it would be. Very long list. And a lot saltier than what is being discussed here
                            I have never once though heard a single player ever say a negative word about Brown in the long term. In fact most players go very far out of thier way to not say anything bad about a previous coach.

                            However in Jim's case the list of players who will line up to talk bad about him are long and wide.


                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                              Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
                              And you are crossing the line for choosing to believe in gossip and the credibility of what appears to be a disgruntled former employee without harder facts to back it up.
                              The last two words of my first post.


                              Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
                              And please tell me... How do you know that O'Brien isn't more "understanding" of other situations compared to the average person? I do know that the man has spent a considerable amount of time helping and advocating on behalf of the homeless. He hasn't tossed the downtrodden aside or looked down upon them. I do know that he is devoted to his daughter who yes, has faced and overcome the type of challenges that most of us have never had to face. I do know that the man is not perfect, but I have always respected his work ethic and dedication to his craft.
                              That's what makes humans complicated beings. Al Capone opened a soup kitchen; not a good defense for his other behavior, just like Jim's work with the homeless doesn't excuse his press comments about our players or his reported behaviors.


                              Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
                              Remove your anti-O'Brien bias and don't let it color your entire perception of what is fair and what is right.
                              I can't stand David Harrison. I think he's one of the biggest wastes of talent, but he just wrote something that could get him sued if not true. I don't know if it's true, but that's a very risky thing to say if not. And you're talking about what is fair and right, and I think that's way off base.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Jim O'Brien called David Harrison a 'homo' during film sessions?

                                This seems like the kind of thread you might see in the late summer. ...and I'm really trying to forget those two guys...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X