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

JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

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

  • #91
    Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

    Individually, O'Neal wants to move away from the perimeter and into the post in hopes of shaking a 13-of-45 shooting slump in the last three games. O'Neal has totaled four free-throw attempts in that span while averaging just 9.7 points.

    "I'm a post-up player," O'Neal said. "I want to be able to mix it up more and get the ball in the low post and put these teams in foul trouble. In the previous six or seven games I've been pretty much on the perimeter. That's one of the things I've been disappointed in about myself. Defensively, I think things are going good for me but offensively this team needs me to score and I need to be a little bit more aggressive in the low box area."

    As for the postgame meeting in Boston, the key parties involved shrugged it off.

    Carlisle described it as "a conversation" and not "a yelling match as portrayed by some members of the media."

    O'Neal said he felt "the need to vent a little bit" after a frustrating loss.

    "It's not a negative. It's a positive," O'Neal said. "In order to achieve the goal we want to achieve, especially a guy in my position, you've got to be willing to state your opinion. Whether you agree or not at the end of the day, you have to figure that out. But at the end of the day last night we agreed things needed to be altered a little bit in our approach and we walked away from it."
    I've got no problem with this. Rick has over-compensated away from things that work, and we're not playing well at all with JO on the perimeter. I'd like to think Rick could figure that out on his own, but he seems a bit dense to me.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Did anyone else hear Al on WIBC about 20 minutes ago. He said that there was a lot less tension at practice today because JO got some things off his chest last night.

      What in the world does that mean
      It means that the inmates are once again running the show.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Did anyone else hear Al on WIBC about 20 minutes ago. He said that there was a lot less tension at practice today because JO got some things off his chest last night.

        What in the world does that mean
        I'm not entirely sure how we should take that comment.

        What could have possibly been the cause of tension during practice, that could be resolved during a sit-down with Rick & Larry? I'm inclined to believe that it has something to do with the plays we run. Maybe Jermaine realized he's only at a 15ppg average? Oh no!

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

          Hey, guys. This is NOT a very talented team. I'm not saying none of the players have talent, but the fact is, the TEAM is not very talented. We don't do the things that talented TEAMS do. We're not a good defensive unit, we don't block out, just the oldest guy on the squad moves without the ball, and almost no one takes care of the ball.

          IMO, we're in a rebuilding phase, even though the front office won't say so outright. It will be a couple more seasons before we have a competitive team (defined as playing in the Eastern Finals).

          Our needs are pretty obvious. We don't have a quality point guard. We don't have a real SG and we're playing a 6'8" 'shooting' forward at C. Our biggest and strongest starter isn't "comfortable" playing offense under the basket, and our biggest player on the bench (Dave the college boy), hasn't learned basics like blocking out nor playing defense with his feet. It will take at least two more seasons before we can fix more then two of these problems.

          Meanwhile, take pleasure in watching our younger players develop. Enjoy the occasional opportunities to see the new NBA standouts like Lebron and Wade. And, be thankful we play in the East where 500 ball will get you into the playoffs so we can showcase our franchise on ESPN at least once a year.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

            Geez, noone is talking about Bird's comments regarding the Celtics players. Seems Delonte would be a perfect fit here, though outside of Jeff Foster I dunno who the Celts would want in return (maybe Foster would be enough?).

            I'm a Jermaine O'Neal fan, but he needs to shut up and perform. Lead by example and pass the ball if you're shooting 33%.

            Also, when are they going to open up the offense for Granger to get involved more? And Marshall, for that matter, but Granger taking 5 shots in an entire game is not good.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

              I can't believe that we have a franchise player and we don't know where to get him the ball. Either we should design the team around him and play to his strengths, whatever they may be, or trade him.

              I hear so much talk that we should compensate for the strengths and weakness of a back up point guard, when really what we should be doing is building the team around our max player, letting him play his game or decide that he is not our franchise player and trade him asp.
              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                No, individual plus/ minus is influenced by many, many other factors (such as who else is on the court.)
                Every stat is influenced by that. So none of the stats count?

                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                For example, JO's high (relative) season-to-date +/- is affected becasue he didn't play at all in the Washington blowout.
                That's an argument against relying on too few games when considering the data. This is not an agrgument against the stat itself.

                Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                I can't find the Celtics game +/-, but I think you're referring to a player that got most of his minutes after the damage was done and then, along with our scrubs and against Boston's scrubs, we actually chipped into the deficit a little bit. That would certainly not imply that the scrub deserves a large spot in the rotation to the detriment of the regular player.
                Again, this is reffering to a single game, while the stat is accumulative.

                Finally, Do you think DA, JO, Danny are our best +- performers at the moment just by plain luck? I don't think so.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                  Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                  I can't believe that we have a franchise player and we don't know where to get him the ball.
                  Off all the "franchise" players I've seen during my lifetime, JO is not one of them.
                  The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                    I thought about putting it into quotes. Generally players aren't considered franchise players until they win multiple championships, retire or still on their rookie contract.
                    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                    Comment


                    • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                      Originally posted by Jay@Section19 View Post
                      No, individual plus/ minus is influenced by many, many other factors (such as who else is on the court.)

                      Five man plus/ minus is meaningful, individual plus/ minus has a number of significant flaws.

                      For example, JO's high (relative) season-to-date +/- is affected becasue he didn't play at all in the Washington blowout. Was JO's absense, alone, the reason we lost by a bazillion points?

                      I can't find the Celtics game +/-, but I think you're referring to a player that got most of his minutes after the damage was done and then, along with our scrubs and against Boston's scrubs, we actually chipped into the deficit a little bit. That would certainly not imply that the scrub deserves a large spot in the rotation to the detriment of the regular player.
                      Not every time Saras or other "scrub" plays there are no Pierce or other "not scrub" on the court. But let's say yes - "not scrubs" play against "not scrubs" and "scrubs" play against "scrubs".

                      So when Saras with other "scrubs" play against other teams "scrubs", the team somehow usually cempetes. His +/- with Boston was +2. His +/- is +11 overall.

                      And when for example Tinsley was on the court with other "not scrubs", the team against other teams "not scrubs" didn't even compete. His +/- stat was -28. And he has the lowest +/- on the team -71. Doesn't it mean that when Tinsley was on the court, the team usually looked horrible (team average -28)?

                      And I don't say that Saras would play better if he would play instead of Tinsley. But I see only one thing - when Tinsley is on the floor, the team usually doesn't compete with others.

                      But nobody talks about how Tinsley played bad in Boston (Did you see 1 of his turnovers? That could be the turnover of the year. Did you see some of his shots from desperate situations created only by himself?). Everybody only sees how Saras or Foster are bad. Though they with other "scrubs" usually compete while some of our starters can't compete with other teams starters yet.

                      So where is the problem? Bench which competes with other teams bench or some starters, who can't do that with other teams starters?
                      "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                      - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                        OK, after reading that, it doesn't sound SO bad. We thought JO would be able to revert to JO the younger, but I guess that JO he is what he is. Oh well.

                        The most depressing thing in the whole preview?
                        "The Pacers have been outscored by 71 points with Jamaal Tinsley on the floor."

                        If it was Jasikevicius, there would be 10 threads already about how he *****.


                        Edit: Jasikevicius must be 3 times better than others to have a chance to be treated equally. I call it prejudice.
                        "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

                        - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                          JO may want the ball in the low post more, but I am not sure he's actually more effective there than the way he's been utilized so far this year.

                          Whatever the case, I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans as far as the team's development. I don't think we'll be significantly better just b/c JO gets more of his shots on the block. This sounds more like a JO thing than a team thing to me.

                          Fine if he wants to voice his opinion on it but a rather cosmetic thing in the big picture. Doesn't change the fact of who he's playing with or the continuing tranformation of the group as a whole. I might go so far as to say Al is equally as good or better than JO as a post up threat now days.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                            Originally posted by Pitons View Post
                            Not every time Saras or other "scrub" plays there are no Pierce or other "not scrub" on the court. But let's say yes - "not scrubs" play against "not scrubs" and "scrubs" play against "scrubs".

                            So when Saras with other "scrubs" play against other teams "scrubs", the team somehow usually cempetes. His +/- with Boston was +2. His +/- is +11 overall.

                            And when for example Tinsley was on the court with other "not scrubs", the team against other teams "not scrubs" didn't even compete. His +/- stat was -28. And he has the lowest +/- on the team -71. Doesn't it mean that when Tinsley was on the court, the team usually looked horrible (team average -28)?

                            And I don't say that Saras would play better if he would play instead of Tinsley. But I see only one thing - when Tinsley is on the floor, the team usually doesn't compete with others.

                            But nobody talks about how Tinsley played bad in Boston (Did you see 1 of his turnovers? That could be the turnover of the year. Did you see some of his shots from desperate situations created only by himself?). Everybody only sees how Saras or Foster are bad. Though they with other "scrubs" usually compete while some of our starters can't compete with other teams starters yet.

                            So where is the problem? Bench which competes with other teams bench or some starters, who can't do that with other teams starters?
                            hear hear
                            Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                            Comment


                            • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                              Originally posted by Pitons View Post
                              "The Pacers have been outscored by 71 points with Jamaal Tinsley on the floor."

                              If it was Jasikevicius, there would be 10 threads already about how he *****.
                              YEAH
                              Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                              Comment


                              • Re: JO, Carlisle and Bird have heated conversation after game in coaches office

                                "JO Needs to get into the paint more, that's where his strengths lay"

                                "JO needs to play more in the low post, he can wreck that team on his own there, I wonder why he is not playing lower"


                                Want to know who these quotes are from ?


                                Slick Leonard

                                cheers
                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X