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

"We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

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

  • "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

    Pacers' new blue-collar mentality is a hit

    MIAMI -- The only things missing when the Indiana Pacers take the court are their hard hats, jeans and lunch pails.

    The Pacers may not look like blue-collar workers, but they are playing with that spirit lately.

    The days of being a finesse, jump-shooting team are slowly going away. They have replaced that style with a more rugged mentality.

    It seems to be working, too, as the Pacers are 4-0 since Frank Vogel took over as coach for the fired Jim O'Brien last week.

    The Pacers will have their hands full tonight, though, when they take on the Miami Heat.

    "I've been trying to figure out the best use of our talent for 31/2 years," Vogel said.

    "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working. This is an approach I think is necessary to try. I believe it's working."

    Pacers forward Danny Granger was dressing after Sunday's victory over the New Jersey Nets and pointed across the locker room at the players he feels are responsible for changing their style -- Josh McRoberts and Tyler Hansbrough.

    "They're rugged, smash-mouth players," Granger said. "We're using them to our advantage, where previously power forward was looked at as our weakness."

    McRoberts is an athletic, highflier who can handle the ball like a guard. Hansbrough has a motor that never stops and is known to get under the skin of opponents.

    Hansbrough and McRoberts team with centers Roy Hibbert and Jeff Foster in the frontcourt.

    "Since the coaching change, they're not looking to shoot the 3(-pointer) as much," New Jersey coach Avery Johnson said of the Pacers' new approach.

    "They're still capable, but they're looking to play more inside out than outside in. With the four horses they have inside, those guys understand what their jobs are. There's no child's play inside the paint with those guys."

    The Pacers are holding teams to 41 percent shooting and outrebounding them by 14.5 during the past four games.

    It was that style that helped the Pacers get off to a solid start.

    "The old adage in the NBA is that you win with defense and rebounding," swingman Mike Dunleavy said.

    "That's what coach is trying to stress to us. We need to win in the trenches. That's what we did at the start. I think we're trying to take advantage of our strengths."

    Vogel said the Pacers are still an offensive-minded team. They have scored at least 100 points in each of his games as coach.

    It's how they get those points that's different.

    Vogel simplified the offense and moved Hibbert from the foul line area to the low post.

    "We're in the process of changing the identity of our team," Vogel said. "We're not just a defensive team. We're going to have poise and patience offensively."

    Who gets Wade?

    Vogel said he has not decided who will guard Miami's Dwyane Wade.

    O'Brien often moved Dunleavy to the bench when the Pacers faced an explosive scorer on the wing. That could open the door for rookie Paul George to start.

    Indy Star- Mike Wells

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...|text|Sports|p
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

    How do you guys think our rebounding vs. their rebounding will play into this game?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

      If Danny and Paul can somewhat contain Lebron and Wade, we will really need Roy and the "Bruise Bros." to impose their energy, hustle, and will in the paint if we are to win this game..

      I think it can be done, as Miami really wouldn't have an answer for us at the 4 and 5 spot IMO ...
      I don't think Bosh is much to worry about, as long as we can keep out of foul trouble.. He is gonna go for the easy buckets.... aka ft's from drawing fouls.. since he is somewhat injured and not even close to 100%


      Not to mention our P.G. position is CLEARLY better than theirs by leaps and bounds..

      I think Dahntay can really help in this game at the wing to try and contain Lebron and/or Wade since Rush is gonna be out as far as I know.. I think after his performance last game , DJ has earned some minutes tonight IMHO
      .
      Last edited by Kemo; 02-08-2011, 05:39 AM.
      "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

        I'm calling it right now. We will beat the Heat. We will out rebound them and hold them to around 41% shooting.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

          Who is this man?!? Is he a basketball angel?

          Seriously, even beyond this season, this is exactly how our team should play. This is INDIANA. We don't play that wimpy three point, finesse, motion basketball. We play INDIANA basketball. We go straight at you, and never back down. We rule the paint. If you want to win, it's a guarantee you'll have to work for it. The team should represent our city, and in my opinion we are a hard working city.

          This all SHOULD have begun right after DG's teeth were knocked out. I know he's on board. I know Tyler and Josh are on board. PG24 is ready. Big Roy is ready to prove his tougness.

          I'm still unsure if Vogel should be coach next year, but i really really hope his vision of this team continues.

          More now than ever, GO PACERS!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

            If Rush isn't ready to play. Then hopefully we can see D. Jones and P.George on Wade. Please no Dunleavy!!!
            I'm not perfect and neither are you.

            Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
            Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

              Originally posted by sportfireman View Post

              If Rush isn't ready to play. Then hopefully we can see D. Jones and P.George on Wade. Please no Dunleavy!!!

              So if Dun isn't playing against Wade, are you advocating he not play at all, b/u SF in relieve of Granger against James, or only minimum minutes to rest players?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

                Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
                If Rush isn't ready to play. Then hopefully we can see D. Jones and P.George on Wade. Please no Dunleavy!!!
                I'm not off the Dunleavy bandwagon. I think he gets to much of the blame. He was a product of the Jim Obe coaching and his defense has been much better since Vogel took over. It is still his weakness, but it is better. Add to that all the other things that he does and he is still an important part of the team.

                I have been saying for years that this team needs an identity and I think we are now finally getting one. It appears that the only people who new we should be playing tyler and Josh were the people on this board. They are our identity.
                Good is the enemy of Great


                We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
                -- Frank Vogel.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

                  For continuity sake, start Dun... just decrease his minutes and let DWade chase him around the court for a while... then bring in Rush and George to finish him off...

                  It'll be interesting if DC2 and Roy step up...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

                    Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                    "Bruise Bros."
                    .
                    Hey, that's got potential.

                    Animal Crackers is fun, but won't be used publicly, too controversial.

                    But Bruise Brothers is fitting, and could even include Foster. All three white guys.

                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

                      it will also be interesting to see how josh and tyler do vs bosh. bosh is not a power player, but he is much more skilled and talented that either josh or tyler. as long as the heat do not try to post the pacer PF, things should be ok. but i am worried that putting bosh in the post [or near post like danny does] will result in easy shots for MIA.

                      mike might spend some time guarding mike miller, he is getting 20 mpg.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

                        Especially in big games, I worry about early foul trouble. Nothing sucks the energy out of the room faster than watching the weaker of the two teams get a bunch of early fouls, essentially ruining their chances at competing. I think if we were to start Paul George tonight, he could easily get hit with 2 quick fouls if he's not very careful.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

                          Originally posted by MaHa3000 View Post
                          I'm calling it right now. We will beat the Heat. We will out rebound them and hold them to around 41% shooting.
                          Man, I love your enthusiasm! Hopefully you will be right!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            So if Dun isn't playing against Wade, are you advocating he not play at all, b/u SF in relieve of Granger against James, or only minimum minutes to rest players?
                            I don't like Dun's defense at all. And his offense will not make up for his lack defense against LeBron or Wade. I say play him very little. I just don't like Dun. Never have. Use Granger, Jones and George as the wings. IMO
                            I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                            Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                            Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: "We tried some things with coach O'Brien that I was on board with. Those weren't working."

                              I have a feeling we'll compete hard in this game. Maybe not well enough for a win, but we'll give them a run or two.

                              With that said, who wouldn't love to say, "We beat the Heat twice on their own floor!"

                              Even if we lose, I am still happy to say that we are 4-1 under Vogel. That is impressive by far compared to what we could've been if O'Brien was still at the helm. If that were the case, I'm sure we would've lost the Portland game and Sunday's game at NJ, no doubt.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X