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

JOB got what he asked for

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

  • #16
    Re: JOB got what he asked for

    Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
    He is supposed to go with the lineups that work best. The Hibbert-Granger-Jones-Rush-Ford lineup won 5 straight games. They then lost to a New York team (that they had already beaten) on a back to back, followed by a tough loss to Cleveland (Cleveland was only able to pull away in the closing minutes). That lineup deserved the chance to keep playing. Nothing in practice could be more important than winning 5 straight games, something that hadn't been done here in almost 5 years.

    You seem to think that O'Brien has some logic behind his moves. There's nothing wrong with that, as we're all entitled to our own opinion, but I personally think you are giving him way too much credit. I think the only reason Murphy gets big minutes is because O'Brien is most comfortable with him. We know it can't be because of results on the court, as we are 5-1 (almost 6-0 if it weren't for that collapse against New York) without him and 1-7 with him.
    I'm still not sure whether or not that lineup would've worked. But oh well.

    My intentions were not to give the coach "way too much credit". They were to shut up a lot of people from this mindless drivel.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: JOB got what he asked for

      I don't think there's any question that DG is by far our best all around option at PF. Sure, there will be nights when he may be at a disadvantage. However, more often I think he'll be able to create serious mismatches to exploit.

      Other than a little weight and maybe an inch, he certainly gives you the 3 pt dimension of Murphy plus much better defense. His rebound numbers would probably naturally increase and he'd be more effective off the dribble.

      On nights where the opponent ran out a true bruising, low-post scoring machine next to a traditional C, Foster or Murphy could be inserted if need be.Roy, Solo, Foster would have to man the 5 minutes with the small lineup.

      Danny playing minutes at 4 also allows Jones, Rush, Dunleavey, and even Head, who I'd like to see get decent minutes, to stay in the mix. The wing spots are our most loaded position. This gets more of them on the floor more often.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: JOB got what he asked for

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        I'm still not sure whether or not that lineup would've worked. But oh well.

        Maybe it wouldn't have, but that's just it, all we can say is "maybe" when we should be able to answer this definitively. A lineup that leads the team to it's first 5 game winning streak in 5 seasons has certainly earned the right to keep playing in my book. A tough loss to New York on a back to back and a loss to Cleveland where you hung with them all game certainly isn't enough to butcher the lineup, IMO. But in all honestly, I doubt those losses had anything to do with the lineup change. Had we been on a 7 game winning streak, I still think O'Brien would have changed the lineup and put Murphy back in as a starter. That should tell you what I think of O'Brien as a coach.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: JOB got what he asked for

          JOB is the poster child for this old saying:

          If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

          JOB played those new young defensive players because it's the lineup he had available. As soon as his old standby lineup was available, it's business as usual.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: JOB got what he asked for

            I'd like to add in which I believe was said once before that we're rebuilding and we have a new team this year. JOB has some options with lineups.

            We now have everyone back healthy and I think he'll try out some different lineups until we have success with the players we have.

            Giving Dahntay some equal minutes as Mike can really balance out the offense and defense very well.

            I'm expecting a lineup of Roy-Troy-Danny-Brandon-TJ as the "main lineup", but Mike I think can get a turn at SG here and there.

            Also, Roy is beginning lose time again now that Jeff is back which is the main thing I'm not really liking with what JOB is doing.

            So to put it all together, any coach out there coaching a team like this would try out different lineups with the players he has so it's not JOB's fault on this.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: JOB got what he asked for

              Originally posted by travmil View Post
              JOB is the poster child for this old saying:

              If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten.

              JOB played those new young defensive players because it's the lineup he had available. As soon as his old standby lineup was available, it's business as usual.
              I've heard that saying before, and whether it is being used in business or sports, or whatever, it is just plain WRONG.

              You can not simply stand pat. Improvement should be a constant. Otherwise, in the meantime, your competition WILL be improving, leaving you to actually get less than you have gotten before. It is why innovation and change is so important.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: JOB got what he asked for

                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                I've heard that saying before, and whether it is being used in business or sports, or whatever, it is just plain WRONG.

                You can not simply stand pat. Improvement should be a constant. Otherwise, in the meantime, your competition WILL be improving, leaving you to actually get less than you have gotten before. It is why innovation and change is so important.
                Isn't that exactly what the quote is saying?

                JOB is doing what he has always done, and getting what he has always gotten.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: JOB got what he asked for

                  Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                  Isn't that what the coach is supposed to do? Put in the best players he thinks he has?

                  One thing people don't realize is that the coach is around during practice, and to everyone's surprise leading such practices. He sees things that we don't during the games. Am I wrong?
                  There's a difference between playing the best Players available and playing those that he is most comfortable with.

                  I understand the whole "earn minutes on the court by showing that you earned it during practice" principle that JO'B goes by and that we don't see what's going on at practice...so we don't know the real motivations of why he runs certain lineups and who plays with who. But if I am to believe that what lineups we see and who plays with who during Real Game Time is the "best lineup available" and therefore an extension of "whose earning the playing time cuz they are doing the right things"....then something is clearly being "lost in translation" between "practice time" and "game time".

                  I guess what I'm trying to say is that if there is something that he sees in practice which leads him to believe that it will work in a real game situation and we've lost our last couple of games...then something must not be right. This isn't a situation where we lost games by a few points and we were in it til the end ( and therefore something is working, we just weren't the "better team" ). Most of the losses were a result of game situations where we dug a deep hole early in the game and couldn't dig our way out....which IMHO loosely translates into a systemic problem....not an anamoly.

                  For now, I know that we should "wait and see" what happens. I will have to give JO'B the benefit of the doubt since it takes time to assimilate key rotational players like Dunleavy/Murphy/Foster back into the lineup.

                  But would it really surprise you if we all of a sudden see Inferno's minutes to the point where he does become a mere "roleplayer" in favor of Dunleavy taking over the bulk of the backup SG/SF minutes?

                  Would it surprise me if we ended up going with a primary PF/C rotation of Murphy/Hibbert/Foster/Granger?

                  Although I would hope that we don't see that as much....I wouldn't be surprised if we did. Why? Because....in the end....I feel that JO'B will always default to playing players that he is most comfortable with. This goes back to what I was saying about JO'B going to a 9 or 10 man rotation.....when I see him do it, I'll believe it....until then...it's all "talk".
                  Last edited by CableKC; 11-28-2009, 03:52 PM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: JOB got what he asked for

                    Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                    I'd like to add in which I believe was said once before that we're rebuilding and we have a new team this year. JOB has some options with lineups.

                    We now have everyone back healthy and I think he'll try out some different lineups until we have success with the players we have.

                    Giving Dahntay some equal minutes as Mike can really balance out the offense and defense very well.

                    I'm expecting a lineup of Roy-Troy-Danny-Brandon-TJ as the "main lineup", but Mike I think can get a turn at SG here and there.


                    Also, Roy is beginning lose time again now that Jeff is back which is the main thing I'm not really liking with what JOB is doing.

                    So to put it all together, any coach out there coaching a team like this would try out different lineups with the players he has so it's not JOB's fault on this.
                    One of the only reasons that I can see why Dunleavy would get more minutes over Inferno is because of ball-movement on the offensive end. I can see that there are times when I see the ball go to Inferno and it doesn't go to anyone else. I can see this as a valid reasons to play Dunleavy at certain times over Inferno ( if not more ) since he has a tendency to "turn on the blinder" ( while ignoring everyone else on the Team ) when he gets the ball....thus causing the offense to be stagnant. But since he's a very solid finisher and coupled with his defense....I can ( sometimes ) give Inferno the benefit of the doubt.

                    The only other sticking point about the SG/SF rotation is when to play BRush. For now, I do not see much of a reason to play BRush over Inferno as BRush hasn't shown that he can be as much of an impact on the offensive end as Inferno has.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: JOB got what he asked for

                      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                      Over the summer, JOB complained that he couldn't win because he didn't have good defensive players.

                      Larry Bird went out and got him Watson, DJones, and Solo.

                      When Murphy and TJ were injured, the new defensive players, much needed in order to win according to JOB, got lots of minutes and went on a five game winning streak, the longest in JOB's career as the Pacers coach.

                      The last few games, JOB has decreased the minutes of the defensive players he asked for over the summer to win games: Watson, DJones, and Solo.

                      For me, JOB does not back up his talk with action.
                      I would like to see O'Brien's quotes because I don't know if he said they would win with better defensive players or would they be a better defensive team with defensive players.

                      a big problem that many of us have been discussing for months is that except for Granger our best offensive players are not our best defensive players and vice versa.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: JOB got what he asked for

                        For the record, I don't blame everything on JOB. It certainly isn't his fault that Brandon has been such a wuss on offense this season.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: JOB got what he asked for

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I would like to see O'Brien's quotes because I don't know if he said they would win with better defensive players or would they be a better defensive team with defensive players.

                          a big problem that many of us have been discussing for months is that except for Granger our best offensive players are not our best defensive players and vice versa.
                          Overall, this team now has better defensive talent than offense, and it's not even close when Dunleavy isn't 100%. Goodness, D Jones, a defensive specialist on just about any other team, but he is our #2 option on offense. He's probably averaging more on the Pacers than he would on just about any team in the league.

                          That gets to the root of the JOb issue. He is not playing the best players possible to win games. He has been handed a very good defensive PG, an outstanding defensive wing who can score some too, and a young athletic PF who can block shots and intimidate anyone entering the lane. Watson and D Jones are better than any Pacer not named Dunleavy or Granger because they play BOTH sides of the floor at a high level. Why that is not valued as much as it should be, I simply cannot answer.

                          In any event, the line-up that won 5 games in a row should have been given more time to prove that it was a fluke. This is common sense, not rocket science X and O's. Sometimes it's a lot smarter if you stop thinking and simply do what works. That did not happen...and honestly, that's inexcusable.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: JOB got what he asked for

                            Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                            I've heard that saying before, and whether it is being used in business or sports, or whatever, it is just plain WRONG.

                            You can not simply stand pat. Improvement should be a constant. Otherwise, in the meantime, your competition WILL be improving, leaving you to actually get less than you have gotten before. It is why innovation and change is so important.
                            Well, I stand corrected...I think. Or, maybe you should go back and read it and understand it first before you comment about it. In your assertion that the saying is wrong, you agreed with it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: JOB got what he asked for

                              Well I think that us fans are getting what most asked for.

                              TPTB felt the fans wanted a run and gun style. We got that with Jim. There is a lot of talk about defense but little of it on the court. What there is a lot of is 3s and scoring...for both teams.

                              I love to see run and gun basketball but when it fits the team's personnel. That is not the personnel of this team. Rick Carlise, while I think it was time for a change a fresh start, was very underappreciated here IMO. He was not perfect but the guy has an amazing basketball mind and put players in situations to succeed. I hope those people that were so hard on him realize how lucky the Pacers were to have him and how good he was.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: JOB got what he asked for

                                Originally posted by rommie View Post
                                Well I think that us fans are getting what most asked for.

                                TPTB felt the fans wanted a run and gun style. We got that with Jim. There is a lot of talk about defense but little of it on the court. What there is a lot of is 3s and scoring...for both teams.

                                I love to see run and gun basketball but when it fits the team's personnel. That is not the personnel of this team. Rick Carlise, while I think it was time for a change a fresh start, was very underappreciated here IMO. He was not perfect but the guy has an amazing basketball mind and put players in situations to succeed. I hope those people that were so hard on him realize how lucky the Pacers were to have him and how good he was.
                                I thought the world of the way Rick coached the team. He's a smart guy who is one of the better coaches in the league. I think he has a good number of proponents here, but like you I heard a lot of RC bashing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X