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

The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

    Originally posted by aaronb View Post
    I wish Larry Bird was able to coach this team. We've got 60-65 win talent on this roster.
    Is this supposed to be green font? I don't care if John Wooden was coaching this team, there isn't 60 wins in any combination of the players on this roster. I doubt if there's even 50 wins there.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

      Originally posted by travmil View Post
      Is this supposed to be green font? I don't care if John Wooden was coaching this team, there isn't 60 wins in any combination of the players on this roster. I doubt if there's even 50 wins there.
      Green font

      Comment


      • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

        Originally posted by cordobes View Post
        Let's just exclude contenders and include any team that is lottery/around .500/candidate to a playoff run.


        Actually, I'm pretty sure I did this exercise last season too. Does anyone know if that post can be found? (actually the first time I did it was in another board and was about... Doc Rivers. Most Celtics fans were irked with Doc because he wasn't playing Rondo enough and didn't like rookies, etc).
        Of course every team plays some vets over rookies. That's a given. We aren't playing our LOTTERY guys or guys that have shown potential (Price) and instead give garbage time to the vets and play Posey out of position at the 4.

        None of the teams listed are comparable to what we are seeing from JOB.

        ---

        Rondo had 25 starts and played ~24 minutes a game as a rookie.

        Milwaukee Bucks - Played Jennings, Bogut, Mbah a Moute, and even Joe Alexander plenty of minutes in their 1st/2nd year.

        Philadelphia 76ers - Turner is getting 24 minutes a game...

        Toronto Raptors - Ed Davis is playing now. Reggie Evans had one of the, if not the highest, rebounding rates in the league. Bargani had 25 and 23 minutes a game his first two years, even though back then people were questioning whether or not he was a bust.

        Charlotte Bobcats - Agreed. LB is gone now though, and young guys *seem* to be getting the PT now.

        Detroit Pistons - Charlie V and Maxiell are neither old nor worse than our youngs. Hamilton and Prince, while they've dropped off, are nothing like playing Posey or Dun like we do. I do agree that they're being pretty stupid not playing their young guys more... since they're obviously far from contending.

        New Jersey Nets - Terrence Williams had maturity issues and problems with the coach. Not sure who Larry Summers is... I've never heard of him and I can't find him anywhere. Ben Uzoh was undrafted and on a partially guaranteed contract...

        Cleveland Cavaliers - Christian Eyenga is one of those overseas project guys like Lorbek. Manny Harris was signed as an undrafted rookie. Samardo Samuels is another undrafted guy on a partially guaranteed contract.

        Washington Wizards - Kevin Seraphin is behind a 24 year old (Blatche) who has shown plenty of potential and shared garbage minutes with Yi and Booker, who are both young. Hamady Ndyaye is a 2nd round 'potential' pick and is behind 22 and 26 year old. Alonzo Gee was undrafted. The others are behind vets yes, but it's the young guys who get the PT and the starts. No one (including myself) said ONLY young guys should get PT, esp 2nd rounders and undrafted guys.
        Last edited by oxxo; 12-31-2010, 01:20 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

          Originally posted by aaronb View Post
          I wish Larry Bird was able to coach this team. We've got 60-65 win talent on this roster.

          Holy cow, JOB is worse than I thought, and that's really saying something.
          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

          Comment


          • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

            Originally posted by aaronb View Post
            I wish Larry Bird was able to coach this team. We've got 60-65 win talent on this roster.
            can i get what ur smoking must be some good ****

            Comment


            • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
              can i get what ur smoking must be some good ****
              He's being sarcastic, because he thinks that's how most people feel here.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread




                Last edited by BringJackBack; 01-02-2011, 05:16 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

                    FIRE OBRIEN!! GOD, AT THIS POINT, I'D RATHER HAVE THOMAS BACK AS COACH..
                    Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

                      I'm officially offering my services as an interim head coach for the Pacers.

                      Under my proposed system, the "stretch" 4 would be GONE, the team would be coached towards attacking the basket instead of Jack-up-a-3. Our younger players would receive more playing time immediately. Posey and Foster would be used more for mentors than nightly contributors.

                      I have no coaching experience, and my last basketball experience was doing color commentary for the Ben Davis Giants basketball team 5 years ago. I still think I can do better than the idiot we have now.

                      Best of all, I'll work for the league minimum. Let's make this happen:

                      SANDMAN (or Vogel) FOR COACH TODAY!
                      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

                        Holy freaking ****, fire his worthless @ss, I can't take it anymore. FU JOB, Just FU!

                        I'll take Isiah, with Dick Versace and George Irving as his assistants at this point. Sadly I'm not even kidding.
                        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          There are many, many players that fans know are better than the alternative on the floor, but the alternative plays anyway. There are reasons for this and they have nothing to do with basketball and a lot to do with money or what the team has decided is the "big picture".

                          So many people seem completely oblivious to the business aspects of the NBA, the pecking order in the locker room in terms of salary, the relationship issues. The NBA is not exactly like the business world, but this is not the pure days of 1965 Indiana high school basketball folks.
                          The problem with that is that it is illogical, especially when many of those more expensive players are in the final year of their contract. Just because a player makes $5 million more doesn't mean they should play. No matter if they play or not they are still going to make that money, so why play them? Why not play the better player? When someone plays because of money it has nothing to do with business and everything to do with ego, and not willing to admit to making a mistake. It is one thing to say these guys are our future they need to be playing, that is business, and smart business. Playing a guy because he makes more has nothing to do with business. The only excuse for that is to hope that he can be traded, which can be done with limited time.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            The problem with that is that it is illogical, especially when many of those more expensive players are in the final year of their contract.
                            A player in the final year of a contract is a player motivated to play well for their next deal. This is not the reason they are played, but it doesn't hurt.

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                            Just because a player makes $5 million more doesn't mean they should play. No matter if they play or not they are still going to make that money, so why play them? Why not play the better player?
                            This is the part a lot of people don't get. Especially young people with limited experience in the business world. Here is how it works:

                            In the NBA if you have a rookie and a vet who bring basically the same thing to the game, the coach is motivated to play the vet for several reasons:

                            1) If the vet sits, the owner has less room to negotiate a trade. It may not change the perceived value in the market, but it can change the negotiating positions of the parties anyway. One man's junk is another man's treasure. If you treat it like junk, it is less likely you can claim it's valuable. Thus, you hurt your negotiating position.

                            2) If the rookie plays well, it will be more difficult and costly to re-sign him. It may also make the vet look worse at the negotiating table. Sometimes it's a matter of timing with contracts. Millions of dollars are at stake and more is going on here than pure basketball decisions. It's complicated and I don't think anyone here is privy to the details.

                            3) The boss forked out millions on the vet. If the coach sticks his neck out and sits the vet and the rookie performs poorly, the coach is entirely to blame. If he plays the vet, he takes less heat. It's an easy decision by a risk averse coach. ...especially one who has been fired before like Jim O'Brien.

                            4) This is rare, but I think happens. If the rookie plays well, there are some instances where it might make the owner look foolish for investing so much in the vet. This is not the case with our players, but I do think this is a factor at times.

                            5) There is a pecking order in the locker room just as in any business. Sometimes it's experience level...sometimes relational/friendships...sometimes financial....sometimes it's a matter of respect for elders. Many times, the young dog is the smarter one but does not lead the pack because doing so would show a lack of respect for the old dog. The chemistry in the locker room is most definitely affected in different ways when rookies start taking the jobs of older players. Many older players don't think they are as done as they are (See JO). One guy with a huge contract has the argument that he's better simply because his contract is bigger. That argument will win the day at times. If a rookie is quiet (like AJ Price) and the vet is an extrovert, the coach may be careful or he will poison the stew.

                            Coaching is as much about psychology as it is X's and O's...

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              This is the part a lot of people don't get. Especially young people with limited experience in the business world. Here is how it works:

                              In the NBA if you have a rookie and a vet who bring basically the same thing to the game, the coach is motivated to play the vet for several reasons:

                              1) If the vet sits, the owner has less room to negotiate a trade. It may not change the perceived value in the market, but it can change the negotiating positions of the parties anyway. One man's junk is another man's treasure. If you treat it like junk, it is less likely you can claim it's valuable. Thus, you hurt your negotiating position.

                              2) If the rookie plays well, it will be more difficult and costly to re-sign him. It may also make the vet look worse at the negotiating table. Sometimes it's a matter of timing with contracts. Millions of dollars are at stake and more is going on here than pure basketball decisions. It's complicated and I don't think anyone here is privy to the details.

                              3) The boss forked out millions on the vet. If the coach sticks his neck out and sits the vet and the rookie performs poorly, the coach is entirely to blame. If he plays the vet, he takes less heat. It's an easy decision by a risk averse coach. ...especially one who has been fired before like Jim O'Brien.

                              4) This is rare, but I think happens. If the rookie plays well, there are some instances where it might make the owner look foolish for investing so much in the vet. This is not the case with our players, but I do think this is a factor at times.

                              5) There is a pecking order in the locker room just as in any business. Sometimes it's experience level...sometimes relational/friendships...sometimes financial....sometimes it's a matter of respect for elders. Many times, the young dog is the smarter one but does not lead the pack because doing so would show a lack of respect for the old dog. The chemistry in the locker room is most definitely affected in different ways when rookies start taking the jobs of older players. Many older players don't think they are as done as they are (See JO). One guy with a huge contract has the argument that he's better simply because his contract is bigger. That argument will win the day at times. If a rookie is quiet (like AJ Price) and the vet is an extrovert, the coach may be careful or he will poison the stew.

                              Coaching is as much about psychology as it is X's and O's...
                              Don't underestimate me just because I'm young. As well just because someone has more experience doesn't mean they know better. Conventional wisdom may not always be right, it is only the best thing people were able to come up with at the time for those times. I will admit there are some times win playing the vet is better for business, but the Pacers aren't in that situation.

                              I know why a coach is motivated to play the vets over the young guys my argument isn't that there isn't motivation, my argument is that the motivation is often times stupid.

                              1) I understand this point of view, but this can be accomplished without complete disregard to the younger players like it has been seen on the Pacers.

                              2) If the young player is better than the vet and will help to bring more wins to the team, most likely the team will benefit far more monetarily in the long run from the players success than they will by playing the vet. I won't argue with playing the vet more if the vet and young player are similar in skill or the vet is better. I have a problem when the young player is obviously better like we have constantly seen with the Pacers the past 2 seasons.

                              3) This comes back to ego of those in power. As well this comes with recognizing that young players, especially rookies need to be handled with a delicate hand. The coach shouldn't just blinding give the young player minutes. The coach needs to play him more when he is playing well, and less when he isn't.

                              4) In fact I believe that is exactly the case. McRoberts made the investment in Murphy look foolish almost every time he stepped on the floor over the past 3 seasons. Price made the decision to play Ford over him this year look foolish by how he played last year and in pre-season.

                              5) A locker room hierarchy should not always be the same as the on floor hierarchy. In fact I would argue that 90% of the time it should in no way correlate to the floor. I understand that player management is just as important for a coach as the X's and O's, but if it is costing you wins at a certain point you have to put in his place. If he can't accept it you shouldn't want him on your team anyways. Typically the best vets aren't the Allen Iversons of the world, but the those who are willing to accept they only have a bigger contract because at the time they signed it they were better and/or more proven than the young player and they are willing to accept a lesser role.


                              I wouldn't have half the problem with playing vets over young guys on this team if the vets were actually better than the younger players. That is why I don't mind Dunleavy playing over George. At the same time though I recognize that George can potentially be 20 times better than Dunleavy today when the stars align, and when that happens he needs to play. The problem is he hasn't been given that chance after Rush's suspension was over.

                              Honestly I would say this team did a better job tanking by playing the veterans than they would have playing the young guys. So maybe it is better to play the vets.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official "Fire Jim O'Brien!" Thread

                                This thread is fun reading:
                                http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=35591
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X