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

Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

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

  • #31
    Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

    Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
    he'll last longer than Jeff VanGundy did in Miami.
    That was an easy prediction.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

      Yes, but will he last longer than Stan Van Gundy did in Houston?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

        We could win a championship with him.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
          Do we ever run a a set play given the situation?

          You precisely sum up my concerns with O'Briens philosophy. I have said it before-his offense has to much of a gimmick feel. Yes an offensive post threat might alter things to a degree, but not drastically IMO.

          And that's not even getting in to the defensive scheme. I will say that I like his intensity though. I'm willing to give him a shot with some talent upgrades a key spots to see if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it will turn out that way.

          This is almost exactly the way I feel. Gimmicky. Is it gimmicky because of the lack of personell, especially on defense or is this how he wants them to play.

          Couple of things its like one extreme to another on play calling. Obie needs to call a play at the end of games with several options, not just let them flop around without direction.

          They can jack up 3s and I'll make this point again, that w/o Foster in there no one and I mean no one is 24 feet within the basket for an offensive rebound.

          I'd say couple ofthings I like the intensity and like the idea of playing a free flowing game, but not at the expense of any kind of organization. I can't stand every shot being a jump shot. Defensively, I don't mind the gimmicky trap, but mix it up a bit.

          Overall, I like Obie and the way he presents himself, very on task and direct. I don't like the gimmicky feel to all of it, so in the end I'd say its too early to judge, but so far how can you like the way its going when you are having this bad a season.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            Yes.

            An offensive go-to guy and a defensive stopper and suddenly JOB is a genius.
            Agreed. However, I do question his rotations sometimes. For example:

            1) If fatigue has been a factor as has been indicated in some of the post-game interviews, why has JOB essentially stuck w/an 8-man rotation?

            2) If players aren't producing as expected, why stick with them even if they are veterans/tenured players? In this case, I'm referring to Marquis Daniels. IMO, he hasn't performed very well as the B/U-SG and he sure as heck hasn't come through as the B/U-PG! So, why stick with him when you've got Owens who IS a PG and/or Stephen Graham who plays more like a Scoring Guard than a Shooting Guard and has shown himself to be more effective when on the floor?

            3) Perhaps nothing has perked my ears up more than this last point: If the Pacers are missing a post-presence, why hasn't Harrison or Ike seen more playing time?

            I know the Simons have invested alot in these players particularly those with high price tags, but when the stats clearly show that certain veteran players just aren't getting the job done and yet they continue to see playing time, that's an indictment on the coach for his bull-headedness.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

              No, and I already gave a more indepth answer to this a couple weeks ago, but I'll give some details here too.

              His coaching philosophy is based around on which team is going to hit more outside shots, or in theory it is.

              In theory is offense is being able to penitrate to get a layup or to kick out and hit the outside jumper.

              In theory is defense is to stop pentration and to get them to kick the ball out to shoot the lower percentage shot, a long jumper.

              In reality his offense is shooting a lot of outside jumpers.

              In reality his defense gives up layups or wideopen jumpers.

              In reality the other teams knock down more outside jumpers than the Ps do, and they get their layups to boot.

              His two philosophies about the game are exactly the same, and what it comes down to is his hoping that his team can shoot a higher percentage from the outside.

              I see his in-game management as just above horrible, and still get sick at the thought of the PHO game. Against Cle. I thought he should have been the one to go after a tech when Danny got fouled and then to pick up a tic-tac call on the other end, instead of Danny saying something.

              He later did get a tech but he must have made a comment about the refs mother because he was hardly animated about his frustration. I don't feel like he fights for his players that much.

              I also hate the lip service he pays to the media about how he's going to make players act like men and not baby them, like them getting PT by their ability in practice, then doing neither.

              He continually babies Jamaal and JO, something he said he wasn't gonna do.

              Am I still bitter about the firing of Rick? You bet your *** I am. You don't get rid of a COY winner and a coach who's been through hell after that and replace him with some guy you only interviewed on the phone. You don't talk about making changes to the team and try to build around JO and Tinsley.

              Management is a joke, because they're too stupid to realize that JO and Tinsley will never raise their horrible trade value while still demanding a fair trade in return. We're built around injury-prone bad attitude players who would rather pout than play.

              Bringing in a coach to set a good example and to get a more exciting game type is just putting lipstick and a dress on a pig then trying to pass it as a woman. JOB is easy to replace because he was brought in to right the sinking ship. I won't get attached to him because I know what he is and I don't even like the style he wants played.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                YEs for now. Give the man some consistent players to work with, and maybe have one of your stars actually show up then I think he's not so bad. He has his flaws, but so does almost everyone else.

                I would like to see what he could do with a decent group of healthy players.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                  We had to make a change after Rick lost control of the team last season. I 'get' that. But, JOB was and is not the answer. His rotations are by the clock, not the situation. He doesn't give the team plays following a time out that work. He's infatuated with Murphy who doesn't play a front line position. We don't rebound - ex Foster. We don't play defense. How can people say give him a chance with different personnel? Have you noticed any changes in player personnel lately?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                    Originally posted by madison View Post
                    We had to make a change after Rick lost control of the team last season. I 'get' that. But, JOB was and is not the answer. His rotations are by the clock, not the situation. He doesn't give the team plays following a time out that work. He's infatuated with Murphy who doesn't play a front line position. We don't rebound - ex Foster. We don't play defense. How can people say give him a chance with different personnel? Have you noticed any changes in player personnel lately?
                    He lost a team that JOB has lost.

                    Tinsley is still Tinsley. JO is still JO. Nothing has changed with the team. There were zero signs from the rest of the team that they were done with him.

                    JOB was brought in to appease the two players that disliked Rick the most. Neither are playing and neither are happy. What's really changed?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                      Jim O'Brien's system either works very well, or works very badly. This goes for offense as much as for defense. If you have the players to do it right, it will work very well. We just don't have the players.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                        Originally posted by madison View Post
                        We had to make a change after Rick lost control of the team last season. I 'get' that. But, JOB was and is not the answer. His rotations are by the clock, not the situation. He doesn't give the team plays following a time out that work. He's infatuated with Murphy who doesn't play a front line position. We don't rebound - ex Foster. We don't play defense. How can people say give him a chance with different personnel? Have you noticed any changes in player personnel lately?
                        So were Ricks. Both coaches try to solve their team's matchup problems by altering their starting lineups vice making those adjustments throughout the game as the situation on the floor dictates. I've always been of the opinion that it's a bad idea to play your hand (re: show your rotations) BEFORE the game even starts! Why?

                        1) Because it gives the impression that you can't equally challenge your opponent with the same 5 players from their relative positions. Think of the psychological disadvantage you're placing your team in before the game even begins.

                        2) Players never get fully acclaimated to their "primary position" if they're constantly being flip-flopped from one position to the next. That would probably explain why this team continues to have problems with certain players missing their defensive assignments.

                        As far as rotating players off the bench as the situation dictates, I'm with you there. So many times I've questioned why he wouldn't pull this player or why he rotated that player when he did or why he waited so long before brining a certain player back on the floor or why he refused to go with whom I thought was an obvious choice in certain situations. Examples:

                        a) Why didn't he rotated to Owens during OT in that game against the Suns knowing Tinsley began a ball hog and that he was essentially gased.

                        b) Why does he stick with Quis @ the PG rather than going w/Owens?

                        c) If neither Owens nor Quis are capable of finishing at the rim with any consistency, why doesn't he make the switch and play Graham?

                        d) If interior defense remains a problem with JO out, why doesn't he play Ike or Harrison more, whomever he thinks is better in rebounding, shot blocking and scoring from the field?

                        e) Why did he sit Granger for so long in game 2 against the Nets? Granted, he had 4 fouls going into the 4Q, but Williams wasn't getting it done and Dunleavy and Rush had both gone cold.

                        f) If offense continues to be a problem in end-game situations and you honest believe it has more to do with fatigue than anything else, why not use bench players who have shown an ability to knock down shots and give your team a boost, i.e., Graham, Harrison and Ike?

                        These are the issues that have come to bug me about JOB. However, those issues aside, he still has my support. IMO, if he could get away from relying so much on the veterans - who most of them on this team are role players and not starting material anyway - he'd probably find that one or two from the rookie/sophomore group can change the dynamic of this team real quick.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                          Yes I'm confident Jim O'Brien can get this team back into the playoffs. But no I'm not confident he can get us a championship. If he takes the next step and adds in some actual offensive sets then that might take us to the next level with the right group of players.

                          We can get away with not running offensive sets during the regular season, but in the playoffs you need a coach that can coach the players through a half court offense. I'm more confident in our playoff defense than our playoff offense right now... I'm not sure why that is. Overall I like Jim's style and think he needs the right players to play for him. Maybe like others have said he could be a superstar or 2 away from looking like a genious.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Management is a joke, because they're too stupid to realize that JO and Tinsley will never raise their horrible trade value while still demanding a fair trade in return.
                            "Fair trade" "Equal value". I keep hearing (and probably have even used) those phrases in regards to Tinsley and JO. The reality is we need to start replacing those terms with "lopsided trade in our favor". ...cuz that is more what we're doing. We're not demanding a fair trade... We're demanding a lop-sided trade in our favor.

                            -Bball
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

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

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                              For me, the jury is still deliberating because one or two jurors believe that bringing in some more talent will improve the situation. The other 10 jurors believe that O'brien offense is a complete joke with our defensive system being the punchline.

                              Seeing what we came out with to end the Toronto game was just criminal.

                              On one level, I'm glad that he is a hump coach, but on another level...I'd hate to think that his "style" might be damaging to the development of any young talent that we might get our hands on.

                              Unless I see something different towards the end of this season, I'm going to start really kicking myself for wanting Carlisle gone so badly.
                              ...Still "flying casual"
                              @roaminggnome74

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Vote of confidence: Jim O'Brien

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Yes, but will he last longer than Stan Van Gundy did in Houston?

                                i doubt one can question Ron Jeremy's durability....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X