Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

JOB deserves some credit

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

  • #16
    Re: JOB deserves some credit

    All kinds of analytical problems here.

    If a player turns out well (e.g. Roy), it's self-improvement. If they turn out poorly (e.g. Brandon), it's Obie's fault. Prove to me that Brandon's inconsistency is because of Obie and not lack of effort and that Roy's newfound consistency is because of effort and not Obie. Could you?

    Then, there's the "he turned out well in spite not because of" arguments. These make no sense and are logically lacking. How would you set about proving, for example, that Roy's benching in favor of Rasho, etc. hurt his progress? How would you set about proving that the benching didn't help him?

    I'm not entirely invested in the Obie debate-in fact, I think this is my first Obie-centric post. I think he's an above average coach with serious faults (not everyone can be Jerry Sloan). More importantly, however, I think he's the best we can get at this stage of our franchise's development. I entered this debate because I'm sick and tired of the oversaturation of illogical, incoherent anti-Obie posts that now pervade this board. I think the detente approach that some posters have taken is a good one because the hate has gotten to the point with significant portions of this board that it transcends logical argumentation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: JOB deserves some credit

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      All kinds of analytical problems here.

      If a player turns out well (e.g. Roy), it's self-improvement. If they turn out poorly (e.g. Brandon), it's Obie's fault. Prove to me that Brandon's inconsistency is because of Obie and not lack of effort and that Roy's newfound consistency is because of effort and not Obie. Could you?

      Then, there's the "he turned out well in spite not because of" arguments. These make no sense and are logically lacking. How would you set about proving, for example, that Roy's benching in favor of Rasho, etc. hurt his progress? How would you set about proving that the benching didn't help him?

      I'm not entirely invested in the Obie debate-in fact, I think this is my first Obie-centric post. I think he's an above average coach with serious faults (not everyone can be Jerry Sloan). More importantly, however, I think he's the best we can get at this stage of our franchise's development. I entered this debate because I'm sick and tired of the oversaturation of illogical, incoherent anti-Obie posts that now pervade this board. I think the detente approach that some posters have taken is a good one because the hate has gotten to the point with significant portions of this board that it transcends logical argumentation.

      I don't blame any coach if a player like B.Rush doesn't devlop. That is his fault or poor scouting to find out he has no potential.

      I do think if we would have fired JOB at the end of the season we could have a better coach right now. Look at at Cleveland Byron Scott is looking pretty good right now.
      Last edited by pacers74; 10-28-2010, 03:26 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: JOB deserves some credit

        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
        All kinds of analytical problems here.

        If a player turns out well (e.g. Roy), it's self-improvement. If they turn out poorly (e.g. Brandon), it's Obie's fault. Prove to me that Brandon's inconsistency is because of Obie and not lack of effort and that Roy's newfound consistency is because of effort and not Obie. Could you?
        Hmm

        Roy - He didn't get to play enough his first two years in the league. He sat out some unfavorable matchups. His usage rate wasn't high enough in the offense. What was JOb thinking?! (His foul rate his rookie year was abysmal, last year was better...but he still had conditioning issues)

        Here he is, looking better and better, responding well in his first game with the "new body."

        Brandon - He was force-fed minutes perhaps due to injury, or because he's our best defender. His playing time was a bit sporadic...but definitely plentiful in his rookie year. Playing time spiked last year.

        Brandon now - Can't really say. He's a defender and a three point shooter, though there are still glimpses of something more, something better.

        So, um, JOb played Brandon but managed Roy's minutes. Yes, Jim gets some credit for Roy's development. Yes, he gets some credit for Brandon's development, be it good or bad.

        Ultimately the player is who should get the majority of the credit, but the coach DEFINITELY had a role with Roy's progression.

        *I'm a fan of easing along rookies and youth, putting them in positions they can succeed and giving them a specific role to carry out. This is what OB does.
        "man, PG has been really good."

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: JOB deserves some credit

          I am amazed that JOB alone made him get in better shape physically, lose weight, gain strength, help his balance, footwork, quickness, mental maturity, and confidence. JOB is not just a coach, he is a nutritionist, trainer, kinesiologist, and therapist. Who knew? /green
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: JOB deserves some credit

            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
            I am amazed that JOB alone made him get in better shape physically, lose weight, gain strength, help his balance, footwork, quickness, mental maturity, and confidence. JOB is not just a coach, he is a nutritionist, trainer, kinesiologist, and therapist. Who knew? /green
            How did we get there from "JOB deserves some credit"?

            This whole jumping to extremes thing and completely disregarding the middle ground is getting mighty old.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: JOB deserves some credit

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              How did we get there from "JOB deserves some credit"?

              This whole jumping to extremes thing and completely disregarding the middle ground is getting mighty old.
              Cite examples that helped Roy become the player. What directly helped.

              And I don't want "he help him understand how to play defense without fouling."
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: JOB deserves some credit

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Cite examples that helped Roy become the player. What directly helped.

                And I don't want "he help him understand how to play defense without fouling."
                Is it entirely impossible that a player not getting as much playing time as we'd like to see could push that player to work as hard as possible to get the playing time they want? It won't always make someone sit in a corner and sulk.

                I'm far from the Jim O'Brien defender, and I can see that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: JOB deserves some credit

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Cite examples that helped Roy become the player. What directly helped.

                  And I don't want "he help him understand how to play defense without fouling."
                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  Is it entirely impossible that a player not getting as much playing time as we'd like to see could push that player to work as hard as possible to get the playing time they want? It won't always make someone sit in a corner and sulk.

                  I'm far from the Jim O'Brien defender, and I can see that.
                  Do we know that Roy was working on everything with no input at all from O'Brien? That when he was sitting maybe O'Brien talked to him about what was needed for more playing time?

                  If we start with the assumption that O'Brien can't do a single thing right, then I guess that's impossible.

                  Can we prove it? Of course not. But if summer workouts and everything done outside of practice is only guided by the player, and if practices don't help the player get that guidance, why have coaches and practices in the first place? The players know what to do.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: JOB deserves some credit

                    This is too much like politics. People see what the want to see and derive the intentions and competence of the actors from that.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: JOB deserves some credit

                      Well I disagree that the loss was or wasn't entirely Jims fault. It was his as well as Manu Ginobli, Tim Duncan, and George Hill's. Would they have went on that run in the fourth if we would have kept Roy or DC in and not played small ball or play Posey and Solo together too long?

                      I don't know..

                      But I do think that Jim has somewhat helped Roy come along. I think that he has motivated him to use his mid range jumper and high post play as well as getting quicker.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: JOB deserves some credit

                        Excellent post rexnom. And follow ups by ozwalt and bulletproof.

                        I would like to add to the discussion in that the playing time that Brandon received early, because he was more ready, does it make his development "poor"?

                        People had higher expectations of his development solely because he was getting more minutes. Does this mean that he is a flop? Does this mean he hasn't worked as hard as Roy or developed just as much? People say they have seen no improvement out of him, is it because he still doesn't score as much as people want and assume a SG needs to score? I still look at net negative players like Ben Gordon who give up more points than they score.

                        Has Hibbert really developed as much as people have jumped on his "development bandwagon"? Or is Hibbert roughly the same player, but is generally more comfortable with the team concepts and speed in the NBA finally? Same for Brandon.

                        I said in the Summer Gathering of 2009 that Hibbert was going to be an excellent center and nobody wanted to hear it because there was no knee-jerk bandwagon to jump on. T-bird sat and shook his head in agreement to the things I had said. I saw the same player then that I do now. Better conditioned, yes. Better awareness, yes. More confident, clearly. I think a lot of these developmental issues entail factors of much greater significance across the organization than just the coach. The coach has got to communicate well with these players and the organization to help them as much as their effort warrants. These players are not to be interpreted based only on how much a coach plays them. Their development goes far beyond that. Are the things that everybody dismisses Brandon for now going to be relevant concerns at the end of this year. He had a list of priorities to work on this summer and I am absolutely positive he has done well adapting his game. I think the problem we had with Hibbert is that he didn't see the floor because of his conditioning, per our coach. Now that we will see him play 30+ minutes per game and moreso that he is actually READY for 30+ minutes per game, we will see it in his stats. Those stats are the stats that many here justify a player being good or not. Will we ever see the increase in stats for Brandon like we would with Hibbert? Probably not to that degree, but the things Brandon has to work on are different than the things Hibbert has to work on. If Brandon was a consistent 20 point scorer, we probably wouldn't get the same defense. And then everybody would be jumping on his bandwagon. Brandon will put up 15 points per game this year if he gets the minutes to do so, because of the things he worked on this summer. Congratulations to Hibbert for his own hard work and his dedication to himself. That shows emotional maturity and personal growth within the individual.
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: JOB deserves some credit

                          PS - Thank you BillS for your consistency and rationality.
                          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: JOB deserves some credit

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Do we know that Roy was working on everything with no input at all from O'Brien? That when he was sitting maybe O'Brien talked to him about what was needed for more playing time?

                            If we start with the assumption that O'Brien can't do a single thing right, then I guess that's impossible.

                            Can we prove it? Of course not. But if summer workouts and everything done outside of practice is only guided by the player, and if practices don't help the player get that guidance, why have coaches and practices in the first place? The players know what to do.
                            Sure, I can buy that. But then we're going to have to get in a +/- game.

                            Hypothetically, if Jim tells Roy that in order to be a better player, he needs to learn how to shoot 3s and only 3s. So Roy practices and practices. The season starts, and all Roy does is stand at the 3pt line and shoots 20% from 3 for the season, never venturing into the paint.

                            And I supposed to give him "credit" for teaching Roy how to shoot 3s, or am I supposed to be pissed off that he turned Roy into a player that he shouldn't be?

                            Sure, he's obviously became a better 3pt shooter, but it hurt his overally value for the team. So, in my eyes, he shouldn't be given any credit. In fact, he should be fired for it, eventhough he made Roy better in one area.


                            That's the argument in regards to playing time. You're argument is that Roy learned how to adjust because Jim didn't play him as much as he could of. That conclusion doesn't stand on it's own, because it's a judgement call.

                            Who's to say that Roy would have been even better if he got more playing time?

                            Sure, players learn by sitting on the bench and watching. They also learn by playing. So do you sit them longer than you should and have them learn that way, or do you play them longer than your should? Which is better? Which deserves credit?

                            And I know the answer you're going to give. Both are right. Well not really. Sure both are right, and should be used differently for each player.

                            But Roy could have learned more by getting more PT. And if he would have been better now, if he got more, why should I give Jim "credit" because he isn't AS GOOD as he could have been? Shouldn't I be doing the opposite and being frustrated because Roy could be better than what he is?

                            Sure, Jim has SOME effect on the development of players. But just because they have grown, doesn't mean they're as good as what they could be with a different coach or doesn't mean they're worse.

                            So basically Jim gets credit because he's the coach, and he's the one making the decisions. Great job Coach.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: JOB deserves some credit

                              I think Larry Bird is been the one helping on Roy's development, he is the one that got Walton for Roy to practice his downlow game, I think if JIM had a choice to bring somebody to teach Roy how to play the game he would have bring Antoine Walker instead.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: JOB deserves some credit

                                Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                                The 3's were shot at a reasonable rate yesterday. I believe we only took one more than the spurs and shot at a reasonable percentage. They weren't the problem.
                                Halfway through the 3rd we were 5-11 on 3's, after that we went 3-10. We were in the lead and went down by 3 after shooting and missing 4 threes in a row. That's a problem. They should of kept playing the way they were.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X