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

Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

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

  • #46
    Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    So is Troy Murphy... from NJ.
    Now we're on to something.

    Lawrence Frank is out as coach.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

      I'd still watch this team even if we had Paulie Walnuts himself as the head coach.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        Now we're on to something.

        Lawrence Frank is out as coach.
        I hope not. He's probably the best coach out there for this team.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

          I still watch most games, but I've been willing to skip a couple from time to time because of the coaching choices.

          The roster doesn't matter because as CJay points out, the coach is driving who from that roster is actually playing.

          I realize that Price, Rush, Josh and Roy might not win much, but at least they might still be here in 2 years. And they all have great attitudes and games that I really enjoy when they have it going.

          I mean when Troy is on fire from 3, that can be fun a little, but mostly it's rather bland. Give me Roy blocking a Duncan shot or scoring on Howard, that's exciting and interesting.

          In the Spurs game one of the most thrilling plays was Rush driving baseline for the dunk in the 4th, or the defensive stop with he and Roy out on the court.


          Troy, Dun and TJ had their chance with this team, especially Troy and Dun. So move over, play the kids because now it's their time and has been for about 16 months.


          I haven't even mentioned style of play overall.


          If JOB is coaching next year, I'm not buying tickets. The funny thing is that my understanding is that UB already stopped buying season tix...is that true?


          No, the hatred is deep and to the core, and I don't think a championship is going to turn it around for the majority of you
          This is like saying that even if Bin Laden wins a Nobel Peace Prize and solves world hunger we'd still hate him. It's a contradiction. The things we hate about him are the same things that will keep things we would like from happening.

          JOB will not win a championship for the same reason we dislike him. When you handle a roster the way he does, you aren't going to win it all.

          Unless this is all part of a secret plan to tank by just making a mess out of everything and he can instantly revert to some other person who supports his young players and coaches a well organized offense paired with real accountability on defense.

          How can any coach who accepts Troy's defense as adequate win a title? You could win with Troy, but you'd have to be aware that Rush is a better defender than Troy and that if anyone could be criticized it's Troy. JOB is not that person.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-19-2010, 05:22 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

            I'll admit I don't fully understand why maybe I'm missing something - I just don't see it. At first I thought it was just the normal criticism of a coach when a team isn't very good, but this goes well beyond that.
            For me this is pretty obvious - JOB has open contempt for some of his own players, has failed to take much if any responsibility for any losses the last few years, and doesn't come close to backing up his talk with his walk.

            You don't trash out Rush as disinterested somehow, wandering through life, a guy that can't be counted on because he only gets involved when he feels like it, and then talk about how he's part of the team's future. Especially right before Rush goes on a tear.

            He trashed out Rush as a BAD DEFENDER last year. Has JOB ever said Troy was a bad defender in that same way? No.

            He also said they played Price to find out what they had, liked what they saw, and this was a good reason to stop playing him.

            In every game and statement it feels more and more like he dislikes the team and a fair portion of the fanbase. When your hometown announcers are starting to slip out comments that appear to question him, when a HOF coach effectively mocks his strategy, then you've got to wonder just what the heck the agenda is.

            It feels actively antagonistic, not incompetent or understaffed.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

              I voted Jim O'Brien.

              I moved to Atlanta a few years ago, so that's my real excuse, but I'm sure I'd be watching the same amount of games if I were still living in Indy. I put JOB cause I really don't like his coaching methods and how he handles players. I could be wrong on how he handles players cause it could have been Bird that said to banish TJ and negate any sliver of trade value.

              Can we say Bird? Bird has to be one of the worst GMs in the game. Banishing players does not help trade value.
              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                I think for me the biggest frustration is the coach's decision on who plays, close behind is the gameplan.
                This is pretty much my opinion as well. The losing would not bother me if it was because we were giving our younger players a chance to develope. I personally think we would win more using those players over the "proven" vets. I also hate the chucker offense. I would love to get easy fast break points, but if it's not there, work the clock, run the ball through Roy in the post, and make the other team work on the defensive end. I don't pretend to know, but it seems that the players don't care for the gameplan either.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                  Just for the record: I still strongly disagree with most of your points, but I'm not getting into. But don't mistake that to mean that I now agree you

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    JOB for sure.

                    Give me some Hoosiers playing hard and the right way, and I don't care if they lose by 20, I'll still be a fan, hoping that when they do get some new players, the foundation is laid for success.

                    Right now, I have no hope because new players could come in and we would still have a faulty foundation.
                    This is really the perfect answer to the question. It's like asking if you'd rather watch the Bobcats or the Pacers. The Bobcats have a wonderful coach that lays down the law. And while he may not like players like DJ or Henderson, he still has a plan. With the Pacers, I feel like I'm doing a Sudoku puzzle that can't be solved.

                    From Roy not getting enough touches, to AJs benching, to the extended play of Mike and Troy, and to Dahntay going from our leader to bench fodder; it simply makes zero logical sense.
                    "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                    Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      In every game and statement it feels more and more like he dislikes the team and a fair portion of the fanbase. When your hometown announcers are starting to slip out comments that appear to question him, when a HOF coach effectively mocks his strategy, then you've got to wonder just what the heck the agenda is.

                      It feels actively antagonistic, not incompetent or understaffed.
                      This should really be touched on more. The IGCP? Text Poll asks questions such as; who should be starting, which player has a brighter future, do you want a trade, does TJ deserve playing time. While people need to know what a wreck we are in, this is one of the strangest things I've seen. Chris and Clark always touch on how hard Roy and Brandon are working, and how Roy needs more touches. They also talk about too many threes, and not enough agressiveness as well.

                      Sometimes I think Quinn has no idea what is going on.
                      "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                      Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                        I voted Jim because he could make it more fun to watch by playing the young guys on a already playoffs hopeless season.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                          I'm still watching, only because I'm hoping we see the young guys come out and play.

                          But I honestly think JOB is one of the worst coaches I've ever seen in terms of player management.

                          How many times have Roy and Rush been extremely criticized by JOB? Have been benched? Have been scapegoated? Quite often.

                          Heck, he even criticized Hansborough in that game..way back..when AJ, Hans and Jeff dragged the Pacers back into the game, only so TJ Ford and Troy Murphy could come back in the game and lose it for the Pacers..He critized Hans...not TJ..not Troy.

                          Heck, he's been extremely complimentary towards Price. But in some ways that's worse. AJ outplays the vets, works hard, does what the coach asks, and gets benched for whatever reason..that we haven't heard yet.

                          Even when he sat TJ down, it was "we want to see what the Rookie can do" and said as many amazing things about TJ as possible.

                          Fans are frustrated and hate him as a coach because he continues to make bad decisions after bad decisions, has a terrible coaching philosphy, and wants to keep trying to squeak out wins instead of playing the younger guys.

                          Last game, JOB played TJ and Watson for a long time. Not only, did he not give AJ any time, but he also took time from Rush. To play TJ and Watson...two players who have no future here...why?

                          So honestly, this AJ thing is the last straw with me, for this coach. This upcoming game should be the teller, whether the recent benching was for showcasing for a trade or not. And personally, I'd like to know why you (UB) keep defending him. Hasn't he shown he's a bad coach?

                          edit: also, I dont' think people would dislike any of the players if they were played in a position to succeed. Put TJ at the SG, in there strictly for scoring. Only give Murphy about twenty minutes a game, don't play Dun as much either. Good coaches put players in a place where they can succeed. JOB doesn't do that.

                          also..apparently TJ started dancing when he thought he was going to get traded, in front of his teammates. Seems like fans aren't the only ones who can't stand Obrien.
                          Last edited by Sookie; 02-19-2010, 07:40 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                            I would say JOB and LB, they both suck, JOB for been one of the worst coaches to ever coach the pacers and LB for keeping him.

                            I also stopped watching the games since last week, I have no intention of watching Troy Shooting threes and JOB screming like a crazy clown.
                            Last edited by vnzla81; 02-19-2010, 07:44 PM.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                              Thanks to Buck for this thread. I really like JOb the person. He was an important guy to have around to right the ship while the brawl era guys were purged. But there's nothing I like about how he manages the team and interacts with the media. Here is my short list:

                              1) I don't like his coaching style. After a game against Golden State, JOb was giddy...more animated than ever. We beat the Warriors and I believe we gave up 120 points in the process. A constant run n gun shooting-fest. If I recall correctly, he roughly said the game is meant to be played that way. Jarrett Jack called it playground ball. So, rather than good defense, his true love is running up and down the floor launching threes...and as long as his team outscores the opposition, it could not possibly get better. Well, it's fine until you lose....and losses are bound to come in the playoffs with this style because it's been proven time and again for decades that the style is deeply flawed. It's a terrible shame we even have to watch the inevitable play itself out, season after season...when we know it's proven to be a flawed strategy. This should tell you all you need to know...

                              But there's much, much more.

                              2) He is a fountain of contradictions. Lots of talk about defense, but JOb continues to give Murphy big minutes at PF...while ignoring his terrible plus-minus...while praising Jeff Foster's plus-minus last year. The hypocrisy is deafening on this point.

                              3) He has a hidden agenda. As a result, I believe he says things to the media that do not square. For example, I believe he implied last year that Stephen Graham may be a better player than Brandon Rush. While this might have been meant to motivate Brandon, I don't care for the games. Everyone knows that's false and has always been false. At best, he loses the confidence of fans when that rubbish is broadcast. At worst, well, you make your own judgment.

                              4) He never gave the 5 game winning streak roster a chance to disprove itself. We have not seen that defensive swagger since that time....and this amounts to coaching malpractice.

                              5) He gets defensive when certain players (i.e. Murphy) are criticized by the media and in the same breath rips on Roy. I don't know where that's coming from, but the fact is, he doesn't have to tear down one of his players to prevent another from getting rightly torched by the media. This is the one thing on a personal level that I do take issue with...and might be why Buck senses some of the angst.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Question for those of you who are watching the Pacers less than in seasons past

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Just for the record: I still strongly disagree with most of your points, but I'm not getting into. But don't mistake that to mean that I now agree you
                                For the record, I strongly agree with most of the points in this thread.

                                I don't want to debate the issue either, because there is no debate...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X