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

'11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

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

  • #91
    Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

    For those who are saying the recent success of the team is more due to strength of schedule than the difference in coaching, I think one thing is being overlooked.

    One of the primary frustrations with Obrien was the tendency to rely too heavily on veterans at the expense of developing our future core players, the justification was that these vets gave us the "best chance to win"

    Some have supposed that the team is not actually doing any better under Vogel, but instead that we are getting the exact same results.

    If we accept that as true, that still amounts to an indictment of Obrien's rotation decisions. If Vogel is relying on the youth and getting the same results, than this proves that Jim Obrien was in fact wrong to overuse the veterans. If Jim Obrien was right, we should be doing worse.

    Instead, we have young inconsistent players going through their growing pains before our eyes, and WINNING THE SAME AMOUNT OF GAMES.

    Many who criticized Obrien were not as concerned with the win/loss column as they were with player development. Why were we relying so heavily on veterans that had no future with the team? The most recent example? Posey over either McRoberts or Hansbrough for large portions of the year. Both of these players have been major contributors in recent weeks, and the team is certainly not any worse off. The justification that Posey gave us a better chance to win is bunk, we have done just as well if not better without him.

    I feel that anyone who said "these veterans stink" we should be playing the youth... and perhaps even suggested that we would be just as well off, or maybe better... should have a right to feel vindicated now.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      So now your going to argue stats.? You who is Mr. I don't need to see the stats. I watch the game.

      We both watch the games, you mean your going to tell me that you don't look at the club and see the difference between the time prior to Frank and after?
      Some things did change;He got rid of small ball (primarily using Danny at the 4). He committed to Tyler and Josh both getting minutes. He also pulled DJ off the shelve, for better or worse. Vogel also hasn't been afraid to play Josh and Foster together(allowing Josh to backup Tyler).The thing is small ball with Danny was effective and I am not certain it was a positive to completely eliminate it from are aresonal.

      Does any of this translate into wins, thats like asking an Owl how to get to the tootsie roll center of a Tootsie pop.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post

        Why were we relying so heavily on veterans that had no future with the team? The most recent example? Posey over either McRoberts or Hansbrough for large portions of the year. Both of these players have been major contributors in recent weeks, and the team is certainly not any worse off. The justification that Posey gave us a better chance to win is bunk, we have done just as well if not better without him.

        I think the part I put in bold is just not accurate. Besides Posey who else (and keep in mind Posey was averaging less than 20 minutes per game this season when Jim was the coach)

        Who else? Ford was benched. Dunleavy was gettign minutes but many are calling for him to move back into the starting lineup now.

        Isn't D. Jones a veteran, JOB didn't play him,

        Tyler had started 8 straight games And was getting good minutes.

        Josh had started up until the Janaury.

        So IMO besides Posey who was playing less than 20 minutes per game, I think your statement as you phrased it is simply not accurate.

        There were a lot of arguments to fire Jim, but this is not a good one

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

          UB I think he was talking about JOB during this three years, by the way starting and finishing games is a different thing, Tyler started 8 games but didn't play much and didn't finish games.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Tyler started 8 games but didn't play much and didn't finish games.

            Tyler averaged 23 minutes per game in the 9 starts under JOB. Then in Vogel's first 9 games as coach, Tyler averaged 22 minutes per game

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
              Some things did change;He got rid of small ball (primarily using Danny at the 4). He committed to Tyler and Josh both getting minutes. He also pulled DJ off the shelve, for better or worse. Vogel also hasn't been afraid to play Josh and Foster together(allowing Josh to backup Tyler).The thing is small ball with Danny was effective and I am not certain it was a positive to completely eliminate it from are aresonal.

              Does any of this translate into wins, thats like asking an Owl how to get to the tootsie roll center of a Tootsie pop.
              He also immediately got rid of the "stretch 4", and came out and stated that the team would not be taking bad shots anymore. The three point shot has resumed a far less prominent part of the offensive structure now (i.e. they are not chucking up threes early in the clock nearly as often) and are frequently outscoring the opposition at the line due to focusing on playing the game inside/out as opposed to outside/in.

              The point is that Mr. Owl actually got to the Tootsie Roll center of the Tootsie Pop by recognizing that licking and licking and licking from the outside in an effort to eventually open up the middle was not nearly as effective as simply going straight to the middle and opening the entire thing up quickly as a result allowing access to both the wonderful flavor of the perimeter candy as well as the fudgy goodness of the middle at nearly the same time.

              Mr. Owl was pretty smart...

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I think the part I put in bold is just not accurate. Besides Posey who else (and keep in mind Posey was averaging less than 20 minutes per game this season when Jim was the coach)

                Who else? Ford was benched. Dunleavy was gettign minutes but many are calling for him to move back into the starting lineup now.

                Isn't D. Jones a veteran, JOB didn't play him,

                Tyler had started 8 straight games And was getting good minutes.

                Josh had started up until the Janaury.

                So IMO besides Posey who was playing less than 20 minutes per game, I think your statement as you phrased it is simply not accurate.

                There were a lot of arguments to fire Jim, but this is not a good one

                It is a larger commentary over JOB's entire tenure here. Posey is the best example from this season. Posey was always in the rotation over either Mcroberts or Hansbrough... despite lackluster play, Posey seemed to be the one player that Jim refused to take out of the rotation.

                Last season after Hansbrough went down, we were subjected to all kinds of goofy small ball lineups, particularly those including D. Jones or Dunleavy playing power forward. Apparently Josh Mcroberts was SO bad that he couldn't even get off the bench behind Murphy... based on what we have seen this year, that assertion seems laughable now.

                What about AJ Price's inexplicable benching last season?

                Many young players on this team, while not necessarily out of the rotation, have been on a consistently short leash. Hibbert was still getting jerked around as recently as last season, being replaced with Murphy as starting center at one point.

                There has been a consistent theme of good stretches of play going unrewarded, and a single mistake being justification to be yanked out of the game. These complaints are nothing new they have been made loudly and consistently over the past couple of seasons.

                It has also been confirmed since the firing that the players felt the exact same way.
                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                - ilive4sports

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                  Ugh... still defending J'Ob are we?

                  The only statements I need to make regarding J'Ob and my desire to have him removed are below:

                  1) I endorsed the guy for a long time when he came here. It wasn't until about... the "irrelevant" scenario that I started to harbor the idea of showing him the door.
                  2) Over time, I disagreed with the style of basketball he was trying to install here.
                  3) I disapproved of how he handled himself in public statements and statements about his players.
                  4) I disapproved with his overall record while he was here.

                  That's all I really need to say. It's my stance on J'Ob, and "Frankly", I don't feel like I should have to keep defending the stance. He had his chance, he didn't meet what I expected out of the team, his style of ball did not fit my desire in what I'd like to see the Pacers play, his comments to the press were baffling and surly, and ultimately, he lost a lot.

                  If the J'Ob-defenders don't like those reasons, then I don't know what to tell ya. All the hypothetical situations and second-guessing in the world by his defenders really have no effect on me. He's gone and I've moved on.

                  I felt it was time for him to go. Nice guy, good mind --- needed to move on. I had a wait-and-see approach with Vogel when they brought him on, had a ton of questions, but I was ready for change. He came in and immediately said things that made me perk up as a basketball and Pacer fan, mainly with the style changes. I like his demeanor in press statements, I like the way he treats his players. He's won more games than he's lost, which is saying quite a bit when you consider the dude has never been a head coach, and he was thrown a train-wreck of a team that had lost a majority of it's games over the previous weeks.

                  Am I ready to officially hand over the keys to him? I'm still evaluating him. I think he's done a decent job so far, but I'd like to keep options open, also. If he ends up being our coach, I wouldn't be upset. But I know this --- I feel the removal of Jim O'Brien was the right decision --- all the arguing in the world doesn't change that fact. I know how to think for myself and make logical decisions and that is the decision I came to early in this season.
                  Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-04-2011, 12:55 PM.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Tyler averaged 23 minutes per game in the 9 starts under JOB. Then in Vogel's first 9 games as coach, Tyler averaged 22 minutes per game
                    And who was finishing close games? Tyler or James Posey?

                    James Posey.

                    In crunch time, Jim ran back to his vet while Josh and Tyler rode the pine. Who finishes games is a lot more important than who started, or how many minutes they got. It shows who the coach trusts, and who he thinks executes his schemes the best.

                    James Freaking Posey.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Tyler averaged 23 minutes per game in the 9 starts under JOB. Then in Vogel's first 9 games as coach, Tyler averaged 22 minutes per game
                      ...and for the record, Tyler has averaged over 27 minutes per game under Vogel versus 12 minutes per game under Jim factoring in 11 DNP's.

                      The result? Frank has won 18 games in 34 chances for a .529 winning percentage versus Jim's 17 games in 44 chances for .386.
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 04-04-2011, 09:58 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        ...and for the record, Tyler has averaged over 27 minutes per game under Vogel versus 12 minutes per game under Jim factoring in 11 DNP's.

                        The result? Frank has won 18 games in 34 chances for a .529 winning percentage versus Jim's 17 games in 44 chances for .386.
                        A few weeks before the season started people were saying he would never play again. Are you trying to say he didn't develop at all this year? You should be ashamed of what you did to those numbers. lol

                        Comment


                        • Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                          Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                          A few weeks before the season started people were saying he would never play again. Are you trying to say he didn't develop at all this year? You should be ashamed of what you did to those numbers. lol
                          I did not realize the insane asylum had internet access.

                          Comment


                          • Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                            I'm sure whomever throws out the final statistic in the face of their opponent will 'win' this basketball argument, as is often the case.

                            Comment


                            • Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I'm sure whomever throws out the final statistic in the face of their opponent will 'win' this basketball argument, as is often the case.
                              Do it and close the thread, then you win. Like you did in the last person to post in this thread wins thread, which was quite funny btw.

                              Plus you should do it as I believe we are on the same page so if you win, I win

                              Comment


                              • Re: '11 Frank versus '10, '09, and '08 Jim: Last game of Jan through First game of April

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I did not realize the insane asylum had internet access.
                                You're the one still worried about firing a man with no job. Honestly anyone who is still rocking that mood has an opinion that has 0 value to me. Only children, the unfortunate, and those with nothing to say resort to name calling.
                                Last edited by spazzxb; 04-05-2011, 04:52 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X