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

Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

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

  • #16
    Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

    Originally posted by count55 View Post
    Let's make one thing perfectly clear: O'Brien does not once say in this article that he doesn't use time outs because they have worked on these things in practice. This was an inferrence made by Putnam, and Putnam only.

    What O'Brien stresses is that we've lost games because we aren't doing the things that they do work on in practice. They basically aren't playing the way they should.

    As to the timeout thing, there is only one immutable truth in coaching: You can't outcoach the game. Good coaches understand this, bad coaches don't. Isiah Thomas never understood this. Rick Carlisle lost sight of this in his last season, and it's why he earned his dismissal.

    A good coach focuses primarily on getting his players prepared to play the game. He teaches them what to do, and how to play within the team. Within the game, they will make subtle adjustments primarily designed to get their players back to playing the way they've prepared. This is how Wooden worked. This is how Knight worked.

    Where O'Brien fits in this spectrum is difficult to tell, but I believe it's closer to good than bad. (I agree with Buck in not particularly liking his offensive scheme.)

    The whole idea that a time out will miraculously stem the tide is an iffy proposition. I'd have to see some analysis whether that was true or not, because I've seen plenty of runs continue well after time outs. Often, the urge comes from both the constant harping from the talking heads (Get a TO, Baby), and the desire to do something, anything. However, the only proven way to stop runs is to make stops and get good offensive possessions.

    Yes, there are times that TO's should be taken to regroup. However, I believe those times are far fewer than many believe. The key is understanding when the players need direction, and when the players just need to get it together. Most of the time, you're far better off when the players on the floor find it within themselves to buckle down on D, then run a good offensive set.

    We obviously have a different view what a coaches job is and how they should coach/lead! You are entitled to your opinion and me to mine.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

      As a former player myself, albeit not in the NBA, I can say undoubtedly a well timed time out can allow you to regroup yourself, re focus, and play well.

      I've heard this echoed by other players at every level from high school to NBA. To say you need data... is just silly. When the players say "this helps," I mean, there is a mental aspect of the game. The players know what helps their mentality, and they say time outs can help this.

      You get the timeouts every game, they replenish, and to not use all your resources even if only for the chance it might help is just dumb. I mean, what exactly is the trade-off? Even if you think it's 99% certain it won't help, which players disagree with, so what? You don't get some sort of prize for not using all your timeouts in a game.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

        Originally posted by Dece View Post
        As a former player myself, albeit not in the NBA, I can say undoubtedly a well timed time out can allow you to regroup yourself, re focus, and play well.

        I've heard this echoed by other players at every level from high school to NBA. To say you need data... is just silly. When the players say "this helps," I mean, there is a mental aspect of the game. The players know what helps their mentality, and they say time outs can help this.

        You get the timeouts every game, they replenish, and to not use all your resources even if only for the chance it might help is just dumb. I mean, what exactly is the trade-off? Even if you think it's 99% certain it won't help, which players disagree with, so what? You don't get some sort of prize for not using all your timeouts in a game.
        I didn't say that a well-timed timeout wasn't of value. What I said was that it was being treated as a panacea, and that I have not seen evidence to support that.

        My point is that if you call a time out every time things start to go south, then the players will start to expect it, and instead of trying to actually correct the issues, they'll wait for the time out. The art is knowing when it is necessary, and when it is not.
        Last edited by count55; 11-18-2008, 03:07 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          . I mean, what exactly is the trade-off? Even if you think it's 99% certain it won't help, which players disagree with, so what? You don't get some sort of prize for not using all your timeouts in a game.
          The trade off is not having a timeout with 2.8 second left trailing by one point. With a timeout you can move the ball to midcourt out of bounds and you have a chance to win the game. Without a timeout - the game is over you have no chance. That is a huge tradeoff.

          Overall I think the use of timeouts is very overrated - what is way underrated is how a coach conducts practice - now that to me is a huge factor in determining how good a coach is
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-18-2008, 03:02 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            The trade off is not having a timeout with 2.8 second left trailing by one point. With a timeout you can move the ball to midcourt out of bounds and you have a chance to win the game. Without a timeout - the game is over you have no chance. That is a huge tradeoff.
            How many timeouts carry over from the first half to the second? Absolutely zero.

            JOB was in no way shape or form close to using all his TO's, especially in the Philly game. He only called 5 all game. 1 each in the first 3qtrs, and 2 in the 4th. The last one coming at 2:47, down by two with the score 92-90. The final score ended up 94-92. With 18secs to play, the Ps were down by two with the ball off of an offensive rebound, and because JOB must think they carry over to the next game and he teaches a free flowing shooting offense, Quis misses a 3 with 2sec on the clock.

            So he didn't even call a timeout in a pretty similiar description you gave for a reason to save them. It's a freaking waste, and horrible game management.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              How many timeouts carry over from the first half to the second? Absolutely zero.
              That is not correct - Every timeout carries over except the 20 second timeout.

              (Each team gets charged a mandatory timeout per quarter however) oops let me correct my own statement here - this statement isn't correct - for reasons mentioned below



              What happens a lot of time is this, the home team is charged a timeout at the first dead ball inside of the 6 minute mark - but lets say the road team goes on a huge run from the 5 minute mark through the 3 minute mark. The home team doesn't want to waste a timeout in the first quarter - because if they call a full timeout in that situation that in effect gives the road team an extra timeout because they won't be changred the one they usually ars inside of 3 minutes. (a way around that is to call a .20)


              Since86 - two great coaches rarely call timeouts in that situation - Phil jackson and jerry Sloan. - the thought being why give the defense a chance to get set and focus in on what they want to do. if the offense knows the play I think it is an advantage to not call timeout when there is plenty of time to bring the ball upcourt. (but no that is not the situation I described in my earlier post - my earlier post - described when there isn't enough time to bring the ball up and you need to move it to halfcourt
              Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-18-2008, 03:45 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                Corrected.

                Still doesn't explain why in the world he doesn't call a TO with less than 20secs, down by 2.

                Instead you get a player like Quis taking a last second 3. That success rate is going to be really great.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                  A couple things:

                  1. Putnam, I think, noted that another reason not to call timeout is JOB places so much emphasis on being a better conditioned team, and calling a timeout gives advantage back to the opponent. This, in fact, is a very good reason not to call a timeout. I'm not saying it works (clearly not that game) but I can admittedly see JOB's reasoning here.

                  2. Are you freakin kidding me? Timeouts in the first half roll over to the second half? In that case, I've been complaining for no reason. Somebody tell me this isn't so, because I couldn't decipher all that stuff UB wrote.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                    I could blame Jack for that. He had a layup attempt, and instead decided to kick it out to Quis. That's great..... if it's Dunleavy, but I was disappointed he didn't try to finish himself. He's decent at it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                      That's why you call a TO, to draw up a set play, instead of having your players wing it.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        Corrected.

                        Still doesn't explain why in the world he doesn't call a TO with less than 20secs, down by 2.

                        Instead you get a player like Quis taking a last second 3. That success rate is going to be really great.
                        O'Brien must have thought that he could get a better shot without calling a timeout. A a strong case could be made for that strategy or that approach. I seriously doubt that he he just forgot

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                          Our players usually "improvise" their offense. I have less faith in them scoring off of a set play than I do in them "just playing (smart) basketball" because that's what we do

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            That's why you call a TO, to draw up a set play, instead of having your players wing it.
                            Yeah.

                            I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the Sixers were hoping that the shot the Pacers took was Quisy from threesy.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                              I dunno how many more times it needs to be pointed out, but if the best shot they could get was Quis taking a three, maybe JOB needs to rethink that strategy, which is what we're saying all along.

                              Obviously it doesn't/didn't work.

                              Why in the world you don't get Danny the ball is beyond me. If he's denied the ball, you run a hand off, or call a TO. Everyone knew Reggie was going to get the last shot. Everyone knew MJ was gonna get the last shot, etc.

                              You give your best players the opportunity, because they're your best players for a reason. Quis taking a 3 in that situation is unexceptable, period.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Star: It's back to basics for the Pacers

                                Ok, does anyone think that O'Brien wanted Marquis to take a three in that situation? Of course not.

                                Sixers defended the play well and the Pacers players made a mistake in that shot. If a timeout would have been called - I;'m sure that wasn't the shot JOB would have drawn up - but who knows we might have gotten even a worse shot with the defense more locked in - we'll never know

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X