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 got what he asked for

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

  • #31
    Re: JOB got what he asked for

    I thought Rick was too rigid here. I now think JOB is too free. I liked the talk of "if you play hard on defense, I'll give them the offensive freedom" however when they aren't playing defense, he sure doesn't take control of the offense either. I'm not sure he'd know how if it came down to it.

    I think there's a happy medium in there somewhere, but if I had to choose one of these 2 evils I'm going with Rick.

    -- Steve --

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: JOB got what he asked for

      Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
      I thought Rick was too rigid here. I now think JOB is too free. I liked the talk of "if you play hard on defense, I'll give them the offensive freedom" however when they aren't playing defense, he sure doesn't take control of the offense either. I'm not sure he'd know how if it came down to it.

      I think there's a happy medium in there somewhere, but if I had to choose one of these 2 evils I'm going with Rick.

      -- Steve --
      I see what you are saying about Rick. He did like to control tempo and how the game progressed. He wanted the plays executed to perfection every time just as he drew it up.

      I actually like that style personally...but I did not care much for the extent and the manner he involved Jermaine O'Neal in the offense. JO was more athletic than most guys he faces and could have used his quickness more...by getting the ball while moving rather than posting up...which led to a low FG% because he was never a power guy.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: JOB got what he asked for

        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
        Isn't that what the coach is supposed to do? Put in the best players he thinks he has?

        One thing people don't realize is that the coach is around during practice, and to everyone's surprise leading such practices. He sees things that we don't during the games. Am I wrong?
        True... BUT.. PRACTICE PERFORMANCE does NOT necessarily = actual GAME PERFORMANCE..
        Which by what we have personally seen with our very own eyes watching games.. does not seem to cooberate (sp?) with that line of thinking as far as what he apparently sees in "practice"
        "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: JOB got what he asked for

          Are the "three players" D. Jones, S. Jones and Watson? Is that what we're talking about?

          We added a eighth, ninth, and tenth man, for goodness sakes. We've been fortunate that our ninth man has played reasonably well when he's been called upon, but I don't think the can sustain the offensive output he's been producing over a longer period of time.

          We replaced Jack, who had limitations, with three players that aren't as good but are cheaper. Remember that when you're complaining that those three guys from the bargain bin have gone back to the bench.

          Yeesh. I've had it with O'Brien's gameplans, but some of the criticism is a bit silly, too.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: JOB got what he asked for

            Well, that 8th, 9th, and 10th man were playing very well. The only evidence we have of what was possible was seeing it with our own eyes, which trumps shoulda, woulda, coulda every time. Would those players have continued to thrive with those minutes in that situation? Who knows? Certainly not us, and certainly not JOB since he pulled the rug on those guys the second he had the chance.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: JOB got what he asked for

              Yeah, they were overachieving.

              Here's the flipside...

              He keeps playing Dahntay too many minutes while ge goes on a Stephen-Jackson like binge of multiple 2-11 games with a bunch of TOs. And then he's got his bosses and the scouts saying, "you know, there is a reason he's making slightly more than the league minimum and not the big bucks, right?"

              I find it hard to fault him for this. I've assumed those guys were mostly roster-filler players and then when everyone is healthy, only Tyler and Watson will make a dent in the rotation and that's due to necessity.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: JOB got what he asked for

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                Yeah, they were overachieving.

                Here's the flipside...

                He keeps playing Dahntay too many minutes while ge goes on a Stephen-Jackson like binge of multiple 2-11 games with a bunch of TOs. And then he's got his bosses and the scouts saying, "you know, there is a reason he's making slightly more than the league minimum and not the big bucks, right?"

                I find it hard to fault him for this. I've assumed those guys were mostly roster-filler players and then when everyone is healthy, only Tyler and Watson will make a dent in the rotation and that's due to necessity.
                Well, JOB said he needed some defensive players and Bird went out and got him some. Either:

                - JOB was not genuine in his request
                - Bird did not deliver good enough players
                - JOB decided not to go with the defensive emphasis he demanded was necessary

                And I don't care if people want to label Dahntay third rate or journeyman or whatever. I saw with my own eyes that he had the heart, mindset, leadership, and aggressive style necessary to ignite a chemistry in our team that resulted in the only five game win streak in JOB's tenure here.

                You can call him whatever you want. I call him a key ingredient to winning for this Indiana Pacers team.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: JOB got what he asked for

                  Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                  I thought Rick was too rigid here. I now think JOB is too free. I liked the talk of "if you play hard on defense, I'll give them the offensive freedom" however when they aren't playing defense, he sure doesn't take control of the offense either. I'm not sure he'd know how if it came down to it.

                  I think there's a happy medium in there somewhere, but if I had to choose one of these 2 evils I'm going with Rick.

                  -- Steve --
                  Some fans will agree with you, but I would argue a larger percentage of fans just will complain about who ever the coach is, will complain about the coaches system, complain about who the coach is playing and who he isn't and I don't care who the coach is
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-29-2009, 09:15 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: JOB got what he asked for

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Some fans will agree with you, but I would argue a larger percentage of fans just will complain about who ever the coach is, will complain about the coaches system, complain about who the coach is playing and who heisn't and I don't care who the coach is
                    Fans only complain about the coach when the team is losing. During the 5 game win streak nobody was calling for JOB's head. But now, not only is the team losing, it's losing in the same ways they lost last season and for the same reasons. JOB it seems is stubborn and inflexible. Worst of all, he proved to the players who are now on the bench that no matter how well they play or how many games they win, they will be benched because of that stubborn and inflexible nature. It's obvious that JOB does not set his lineups on the quality of play of the players in the lineups. How could a player come to any other conclusion? How can a player give every bit of his effort to a coach who does that? It's not like JOB is a proven winner who deserves a player's respect and loyalty in every situation like Jackson, Poppovich, or Sloan. The inability to admit you're wrong, that what you're doing is not working, and change because of it, is an absolutely despicable fault in a coach and JOB has it in spades. Maybe it's pride, and you know how the saying goes there.
                    Last edited by travmil; 11-29-2009, 09:04 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: JOB got what he asked for

                      Should a player lose his starting position due to injury? That question has been debated by coaches for years and years. It is certainly reasonable for a coach to go with the theory that a player doesnt lose his starting position due to injury (in other words once a starter is healthy enough to start again he is moved back into the starting lineup) reasonable minds can disagaree on this issue. But many of you are acting like it is dispicable for JOB to bring a recently recovered player back into the starting lineup. Plus a small forward was filling the gap while Murphy was out, that ws a temporary solution. The only other option is a rookie who is limited in the number of minutes he can play

                      So what choice does JOB have but to start Murphy. (Granger is banged up right now anyway)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: JOB got what he asked for

                        That's the most overrated sport query ever written.

                        Very seldom do players lose thier job due to injury.

                        They lose their job due to the guy replacing them playing better than they did when they were healthy.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: JOB got what he asked for

                          I have to agree with the thoughts on D Jones, and that overall Bird did go out and pick up more defensive minded players. I thought D Jones was going to be a scrub from the reaction of Nuggets fans to what we paid him. I live in Colorado and watch some Nuggets ball but I just didn't pay enough attention to what D Jones brings to the game. After watching him play I think he was a bargain, and should be starting for this team, or at least playing a 30 min. 6th. man roll. Earl is a better defender then TJ, but I don't consider him a great defender. S. Jones is not an upgrade at all on defense unless you're comparing him to Murphy. I'd definitely take Foster over S. Jones for D, and I'd say Roy is also a better defender, or at least he was up until a few games ago. I'd like to see Foster on the floor more with Roy.
                          Did anyone ever really think that JOB would give playing time to defense over offense? I never bought into that. In fact I'm surprised D Jones has been given as playing time as he has. I'll be o.k. with Dunleavy starting soon, but I'd really like to see Murphy given much less p.t. I don't think JOB should start an all defense team but I'd like to see him give more playing time to the players that are bringing it on D.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: JOB got what he asked for

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            Well, JOB said he needed some defensive players and Bird went out and got him some. Either:

                            - JOB was not genuine in his request
                            - Bird did not deliver good enough players
                            - JOB decided not to go with the defensive emphasis he demanded was necessary
                            The answer is bolded.

                            Now... he didn't have any money to work with, and few tradeable assets. So this isn't surprising. But using vet-minimum level money (or slightly above in Dahntay's case), he went out and spent money on vet-minimum caliber players (or slightly above in Dahntay's case) to fill out the end of the roster. With the exception of Jarret Jack and maybe Daniels, the same playing rotation was brought back plus a rookie in the frontcourt.

                            There was no upgrade of the guys in the rotation. Just around the peripheral edges - D. Jones over Daniels is an upgrade defensively but probably not an upgrade on the offensive end of the court.

                            I don't even blame Bird. He's never been building a team for 2009-2010 so I wouldn't view this as "Bird did not deliver." And as you know, I don't like Bird so I'd like to find as many reasons as possible to blame him.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: JOB got what he asked for

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Overall, this team now has better defensive talent than offense, and it's not even close when Dunleavy isn't 100%. Goodness, D Jones, a defensive specialist on just about any other team, but he is our #2 option on offense. He's probably averaging more on the Pacers than he would on just about any team in the league.

                              That gets to the root of the JOb issue. He is not playing the best players possible to win games. He has been handed a very good defensive PG, an outstanding defensive wing who can score some too, and a young athletic PF who can block shots and intimidate anyone entering the lane. Watson and D Jones are better than any Pacer not named Dunleavy or Granger because they play BOTH sides of the floor at a high level. Why that is not valued as much as it should be, I simply cannot answer.

                              In any event, the line-up that won 5 games in a row should have been given more time to prove that it was a fluke. This is common sense, not rocket science X and O's. Sometimes it's a lot smarter if you stop thinking and simply do what works. That did not happen...and honestly, that's inexcusable.
                              Defense seems to be chronically undervalued. I don't understand why, but it's always seemed that way to me. I was extremely pleased to see D. Jones added and definitely don't see him as being overpaid. Few players these days play tough defense. It seems like this would drive the price of defensive-oriented players way up, but it doesn't seem like it does. People are still very quick to throw around the "overpaid" label for defensive-oriented players even though having them wins games. Defensive weakness on the other hand are often overlooked if the player puts up points.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: JOB got what he asked for

                                Pacers are currently the 6th best FG% defense in the NBA. so the defense is better this season. I think JOB has gotten them playing better defense.

                                Pacers are the 6th worst FG% shooting team in the NBA right now
                                Last edited by Unclebuck; 11-29-2009, 02:17 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X