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's influence on Vogel

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

  • #16
    Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

    There is an irony to all of this that many overlook (and I'm sure Vogel would agree with me). 2001 Boston Celtics, they were in the middle of Year 4 of the Pitino Era. Pitino was largely viewed as the scapegoat and the source of poor morale and poor record by fans/media (sound familiar so far?). Pitino is gone by January (with the team at 12-22). Jim O'Brien takes over, and immediately he is viewed as a breath of fresh air. Players were GUSHING over how O'Brien was better at managing the rotation and minutes, and how his OPTIMISM and positive reinforcement was a welcome departure from Pitino's style. Everything framed by the Boston Globe that year in terms of Pitino to O'Brien was very similar to the way the IndyStar has framed O'Brien to Vogel.... That Celtics team went 24-24 the rest of the season, and the Era of Good Feelings extended into the following season as the Celtics improbably made the Eastern Conference Finals for the first time in 14 years. They went from a team that was bottom 3 in FG defense in Pitino's last full season, to SECOND in the entire league in 01-02 (trailing only the Lakers), with virtually the same exact roster--Antoine Walker leading the league in minutes, etc....

    Point being, in this early 2000's Boston Celtics model, it was JIM O'BRIEN who was that team's Frank Vogel, he played that role very well. And Frank Vogel was there! He saw all of this, and I'm sure this was not lost on him when he took over during O'Brien's 4th year in Jan 2011--VOGEL HAD TO FOLLOW O'BRIEN'S MODEL FROM A DECADE EARLIER IN TERMS OF APPROACH. Now when O'Brien took the Indiana job in 2007, his approach was probably akin to Pitino's when he took over the Celtics in 1997. Forceful, impose a lot of discipline and a different kind of culture.... And Both the 97-98 Celtics in Pitino's first year and 07-08 Pacers in O'Brien's first year were viewed as overachieving with 36 wins, but over time, whether it was Pitino's fault the Celtics never exceeded 36 wins the following few years, or whether it was O'Brien's fault the Pacers never exceeded 36 wins the following years is not so much the key issue---with that type of (perhaps overbearing) coaching approach AND the team is not winning, then of course morale will take a hit. Which is why in 2001 the Celtics needed Jim O'Brien, and why in 2011 the Pacers needed Frank Vogel. And Vogel's model for approach and style in this "replacing the coach midseason" context is the one laid out by JOB from a decade earlier with the Celtics.
    Last edited by DonSwanson; 12-29-2011, 07:31 PM. Reason: paragraphs are our friends, etc.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

      Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
      You can learn a lot from a bad coach.
      O'Brien is not a bad coach... he's a very specific type of coach and isn't overly versatile. Most of what the masses here complain about is simply an aesthetic issue. It was the same with Carlisle's slog-ball.

      O'Brien is a true believer - much the same way Phil Jackson is with the triangle. They both have specific puzzles and they are going to fit the players into the openings whether they fit or not. Both have proved successful with their systems (Phil obviously much more so) so they have reason for believing in their system.

      Someone like Rick Carlisle was the opposite - he would change the team's style to fit the specific players on the roster. The guy had a massive playbook and would play mad scientist trying to figure out how to best feature the personnel.

      Doesn't mean that one coach is necessarily better than the other, just different. Most of this board was so relieved when, after O'Brien's first home game, Gilbert Arenas said something like "They look different, they don't play like robots anymore." It isn't as if most people that wanted Rick Carlisle gone thought he was any more capable of winning a championship than they think Jim O'Brien is now.
      This is the darkest timeline.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

        Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
        You can learn a lot from a bad coaching experience.
        Fixed.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

          Originally posted by DonSwanson View Post
          ....VOGEL HAD TO FOLLOW O'BRIEN'S MODEL FROM A DECADE EARLIER IN TERMS OF APPROACH....
          I partially agree with this, but I also think that Vogel is just a positive person by nature, even he himself admitted this in interviews.

          Would JOB have ever done the "crane" from karate kid during an interview, or spun a basketball on a toothbrush for a some fans in the balcony....no way. Frank is just a different person all together.
          I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
            O'Brien is not a bad coach... he's a very specific type of coach and isn't overly versatile. Most of what the masses here complain about is simply an aesthetic issue. It was the same with Carlisle's slog-ball.

            O'Brien is a true believer - much the same way Phil Jackson is with the triangle. They both have specific puzzles and they are going to fit the players into the openings whether they fit or not. Both have proved successful with their systems (Phil obviously much more so) so they have reason for believing in their system.

            Someone like Rick Carlisle was the opposite - he would change the team's style to fit the specific players on the roster. The guy had a massive playbook and would play mad scientist trying to figure out how to best feature the personnel.

            Doesn't mean that one coach is necessarily better than the other, just different. Most of this board was so relieved when, after O'Brien's first home game, Gilbert Arenas said something like "They look different, they don't play like robots anymore." It isn't as if most people that wanted Rick Carlisle gone thought he was any more capable of winning a championship than they think Jim O'Brien is now.
            Except Rick and Phil consistantly win with their styles. Jim is a gimmick coach. That crap doesn't work in the NBA. How teams win in the playoffs completely contradict his coaching style.


            He needs to get a mid-major coaching gig. He would fit in at that level. Not in the NBA.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

              I think Vogel learned to do pretty much the opposite of JOB.

              we were about 15 minutes into last nights game, when I realized, the only person I could remember taking a three was PG.

              I actually think it might be a little too far in the opposite direction, particularly for Grange. (He needs to stop and settle for the midrange instead of driving into three people.)

              He's essentially learned "what not to do." I don't think he consciously goes "JOB did this, so I'm going to do this." I just think it's subconscious.

              The "working harder" than everyone else is pretty obvious. That's Vogel's major philosophy. And the team (particularly Hansbrough) has bought in to it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                The irony of this is that yesterday I had a post all written, typed and placed on the board but deleted before I hit send called "exercising the devil".

                It was a post that I was going to declare to be my last piece about JOB and although in the future I reserved the right to take pot shots at him I was pretty much done and was inviting others to join me. In it I listed out several things both good and bad about O'Brien. However at the end I decided against posting because I wasn't sure if it was to soon or even maybe it was to late.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                  Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                  McKey... I actually was thinking this in the middle of the game last night. I saw PG pump fake and realize he was in front of the three point line. He took one dribble, stepped back and knocked down the three.

                  I immediately thought to myself, that was JOB's teaching coming back to the kid mid-play. That wasn't the only occurence. I saw Hibbert hit the foul line extended jumper with ease. I saw a back door cut by I think Dahntay that was reminiscent of the JOB era.

                  I guess my point is this. JOB was a very good coach in terms of teaching players the fundamentals of basketball. He prioritized some things poorly over other things, yes, but he did teach them some important aspects of the game. I hope some of those teachings help these guys have great careers. One thing I won't hate on Jim about is that he helped these kids get better, regardless if we feel that he screwed up the rotation every night. I actually think that our endurance is better than most teams right now, because JOB has always preached being in better shape than the other teams. We look like we as a collective team are in better shape than most of the teams I have seen so far. Our shooting percentage is beyond gross, but it is not because our guys aren't in shape.

                  I would actually thank JOB for a lot of what he accomplished here. I know I disagreed with a lot of it, from both front office and basketball philosphy perspectives, but I think a lot of what he did teach these guys will help them long-term.

                  That said, THANK GOD Frank Vogel is our coach.
                  I actually think a lot of players who can shoot the three have that as an instinct. If you don't have a good shot at first and you can use a pump fake to get the better shot you'll try and do it. It's more instinct than JOB's teachings. You are taught to do these things early as a basketball player.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                    A huge thing that I see from our team as well is deflections. We have had a ton of defensive deflections and JOB preached that pretty hard defensively. The more deflections, the more turnovers you contribute to.
                    "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


                    • #25
                      Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                      Originally posted by PGisthefuture View Post
                      I actually think a lot of players who can shoot the three have that as an instinct. If you don't have a good shot at first and you can use a pump fake to get the better shot you'll try and do it. It's more instinct than JOB's teachings. You are taught to do these things early as a basketball player.
                      No, he had a clear shot, he just decided to make sure he was taking a three instead of a long two after the defender had already gone by him. JOB definitely made sure players knew that a three was a much better shot than a long two.
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                        Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                        Why is Troy Murphy getting more minutes than Mcroberts in LA? Wasn't job fired for this same offense?
                        Yes, JOB was fired LAST season (a season in which Murphy was not on the team) because he was giving Troy more minutes than McBob.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          The irony of this is that yesterday I had a post all written, typed and placed on the board but deleted before I hit send called "exercising the devil".

                          It was a post that I was going to declare to be my last piece about JOB and although in the future I reserved the right to take pot shots at him I was pretty much done and was inviting others to join me. In it I listed out several things both good and bad about O'Brien. However at the end I decided against posting because I wasn't sure if it was to soon or even maybe it was to late.
                          Pot shots get snide comments back sometimes, its all in good fun.

                          It's the people who made the ," we can't judge these players because they are being destroyed by JOB's presence"" claims that compel me to point out that they used Josh Mcroberts greatness as there lightning rod for all that JOB did wrong. The original poster has tried patting himself on the back since JOB was fired, I just want to point out that a lot of the things they say JOB was horrifically wrong about, in reality didn't matter. This thread was obviously created to bait people who do not exist into an argument with people who were always just pretending that JOB supporters existed. Anyone who thought JOB was competent to tie his own shoes was treated as a supporter and therefore the enemy. The truth is JOB let players sit on the bench who ultimately weren't part of this franchises future, it didn't matter.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                            Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                            I just want to point out that a lot of the things they say JOB was horrifically wrong about, in reality didn't matter.
                            It did matter! Jim was talking about how the Pacers weren't good enough to even make the playoffs last season.

                            Them making the playoffs, and then competing with the Bulls even for that short of a series completely changed the course of this franchise. The results that we were hoping to see in a couple of years happened overnight. Literally.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                              Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                              Pot shots get snide comments back sometimes, its all in good fun.

                              It's the people who made the ," we can't judge these players because they are being destroyed by JOB's presence"" claims that compel me to point out that they used Josh Mcroberts greatness as there lightning rod for all that JOB did wrong. The original poster has tried patting himself on the back since JOB was fired, I just want to point out that a lot of the things they say JOB was horrifically wrong about, in reality didn't matter. This thread was obviously created to bait people who do not exist into an argument with people who were always just pretending that JOB supporters existed. Anyone who thought JOB was competent to tie his own shoes was treated as a supporter and therefore the enemy. The truth is JOB let players sit on the bench who ultimately weren't part of this franchises future, it didn't matter.
                              Yep only players like Hansbrough, Roy and DC guys that were never Part of the future.... Oh wait.........
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: JOB's influence on Vogel

                                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                                The truth is JOB let players sit on the bench who ultimately weren't part of this franchises future, it didn't matter.

                                Yup, you're right. Completely agree. Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough, Darren Collison, and Roy Hibbert are NOT part of this franchise's future.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X