If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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:
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
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.
Only reason I didn't say Very Uncomfortable was I'm not sure who you get to replace him and timing. Timing in that I'm not sure it's time to make a big coach splash when they are still a couple of years away from being relevant.
I'm very uncomfortable in the way that he has gone about developing talent when there is virtually no reason to do anything but seeing what we have. I just fear next year Josh and AJ will reacquire DNP-CD's and their seats at the end of the bench. The only thing that stops me from rating him very uncomfortable is the chance that next year is going to be another "burn year" on the road to the summer of 2011.
I had to vote 'not sure' because I don't have enough access to the team to know how the players are responding to O'Brien.
The way they're playing now looks a lot like how they played last season. Things are clicking fairly well and everybody's playing hard. If this is indicative of how next season would look with a fully healthy Granger, then I'm comfortable with O'Brien.
If the Pacers we saw for the first 60 games of the year is more indicative of where the players are at with O'Brien, then I'm uncomfortable.
Only reason I didn't say Very Uncomfortable was I'm not sure who you get to replace him and timing. Timing in that I'm not sure it's time to make a big coach splash when they are still a couple of years away from being relevant.
I consider this a major issue. You're not going to get any big names to even sniff at this job, and I seriously doubt that you'd be able to pull any of the hot assistants until the direction of the talent can be sorted out.
If they fire O'Brien, you should be prepared to welcome Lester Conner or others of his ilk as his replacement, IMO.
Originally posted by mellifluous
I had to vote 'not sure' because I don't have enough access to the team to know how the players are responding to O'Brien.
The way they're playing now looks a lot like how they played last season. Things are clicking fairly well and everybody's playing hard. If this is indicative of how next season would look with a fully healthy Granger, then I'm comfortable with O'Brien.
If the Pacers we saw for the first 60 games of the year is more indicative of where the players are at with O'Brien, then I'm uncomfortable.
This is the $64,000 question. Really, the only one that matters, in my opinion. A few weeks ago, I was firmly in the "new voice camp," but now...I can't make any clear statement without better information.
BTW...I think stabilizing the PG situation is more important for the narrow view of 2010-2011 than the coach is. I don't mean finding the "answer." I mean just having a stable situation.
In fact, I'd say that if your narrow goal was to make the playoffs next year, the the most likely situation to provide that would be to have Earl back on a one-year, AJ at the backup, and TJ gone out of the picture entirely. (Assuming, naturally, that you don't have the opportunity to get a bona fide starter.)
Originally posted by Roaming Gnome
I'm very uncomfortable in the way that he has gone about developing talent when there is virtually no reason to do anything but seeing what we have. I just fear next year Josh and AJ will reacquire DNP-CD's and their seats at the end of the bench. The only thing that stops me from rating him very uncomfortable is the chance that next year is going to be another "burn year" on the road to the summer of 2011.
There's a distinct difference between "developing talent" and "seeing what we have."
I think that Roy Hibbert is way ahead of schedule. However, I think that there are still times and matchups where he is a huge liability on the floor. This will always be the case, to one degree or another, and it's not something he can just play through. As has been mentioned before, this is a guy who never averaged more than 26 minutes a night in College, and I'm guessing that he'll always be a guy who is in the high 20's, maybe 30, max.
I think that Rush is disappointing, but that his problem lies entirely between his ears. (Side note: On O'Brien's show the other night, somebody asked if he thought Dunleavy could return to the guy he was in 2008. He said that he thought Mike would be stronger next year, and score more, but he didn't really ever expect to see him get those big minutes again. IIRC, he started to say Rush had locked up the job, then corrected himself to provide the caveat that he hopes that Rush has finally resolved his consistency issues to the point that the job would be his.)
I think O'Brien made a mistake in sending Price back to the bench in February, and I think he knows it. It is unlikely that Watson returns next year, and I'm sure they are looking to move TJ. I do not expect any one in the organization to feel comfortable with the idea of AJ Price as the starter next year, but, barring the acquisition of two PG's, I'd virtually guarantee that O'Brien and the whole organization has Price penciled in as the 82-game back up and maybe 1,500-1,600 minutes...perhaps more, depending on the situation. (In a lot of ways, it would be good for Price if the Pacers could find some way to bring Earl back for one year. It would settle out the PG situation and let the Pacers look at Price for another full year. If, for example, they made a play for Felton, then it would put a ceiling on Price. If they had Watson, then Price might be able to show enough for them to look to the 4 or the 2 when the big money comes available later.)
McBob is another situation entirely. If Murphy is back next year, and Foster returns healthy, then McBob drops back to being no better than the fourth best big. Additionally, his minutes could be negatively impacted by the presence of Hansbrough and Solo, as well as our 1st round pick, if we take a Monroe or Udoh or someone like that.
I have no idea if all of these guys will be back next year or not, but it seems reasonable to assume that the organization is going to have the goal of making the playoffs again. If so, you know guys like Murph and Foster will play if they're healthy and on the roster.
This isn't a decision process that would be particular to O'Brien, either. A lot of coaches would play those guys.
and...of course, next year is another "burn" year. The "3-year Plan" was just a politically correct way of saying, "Barring a miracle, we're not going to be able to do **** until these contracts expire, so we're just hoping to get by between now and then."
I'm more comfortable right now with Jimmy than I have ever been. How long will this coaching honeymoon last? My guess until the last game this season is over, and back to MY "helter skelter run n gun with little "D" style next year. Too stubborn to admit his style doesn't work. He has the classic case of tunnel vision syndrome. Not real comfortable.
O'Brien has been a good coach. the wheels fell off this season for sure, but he's been a good coach. Perhaps he'll be a good coach again.
Since, as others have stated, he's probably the best we can get, I'm content to hope to see the better side of him again.
Anyway, the jump-shooting doesn't bother me as much as it bothers others.
And I won't be here to see the day It all dries up and blows away I'd hang around just to see But they never had much use for me In Levelland. (James McMurtry)
I'm more comfortable right now with Jimmy than I have ever been. How long will this coaching honeymoon last? My guess until the last game this season is over, and back to MY "helter skelter run n gun with little "D" style next year. Too stubborn to admit his style doesn't work. He has the classic case of tunnel vision syndrome. Not real comfortable.
I'm exactly opposite. This is the most uncomfortable I've been in regards to the coaching situation. If he goes back to the same old crap as before, I think it will kill off anything I have left for the team.
“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.
I fully expect him to be back next season, and the reason I'm very uncomfortable with that, is I'm very uncomfortable with Jim's logic and decision making. If I felt O'Brien had turned a corner with this late season push, and really understood this roster and rotations, then I would be more open to his returning as coach next year.
Unfortunately I still that when the season starts next year, rotations and logic will revert back to what we saw for most of the year and not what we're seeing now/recently.
I'm still afraid of small ball giving us the best chance to win, b/c the other team is playing small, instead of playing to our advantage.
It's nice to see Price on the floor, but the number of minutes Earl Watson has gotten doesn't give me any hope of that changing next year, and I fully expect the Pacers to overpay for Watson, as a panic to how they lost Jack last summer
I'm afraid Foster will stunt Roy's growth again when he and his back are healthy next season
I expect McRoberts to be in a suit the majority of the season, even though he's proven he deserves minutes.
A lot will depend on the moves we make or don't make this summer, but I simply have a bad feeling that he'll go back to his old ways
I fully expect him to be back next season, and the reason I'm very uncomfortable with that, is I'm very uncomfortable with Jim's logic and decision making. If I felt O'Brien had turned a corner with this late season push, and really understood this roster and rotations, then I would be more open to his returning as coach next year.
Unfortunately I still that when the season starts next year, rotations and logic will revert back to what we saw for most of the year and not what we're seeing now/recently.
I'm still afraid of small ball giving us the best chance to win, b/c the other team is playing small, instead of playing to our advantage.
It's nice to see Price on the floor, but the number of minutes Earl Watson has gotten doesn't give me any hope of that changing next year, and I fully expect the Pacers to overpay for Watson, as a panic to how they lost Jack last summer
I'm afraid Foster will stunt Roy's growth again when he and his back are healthy next season
I expect McRoberts to be in a suit the majority of the season, even though he's proven he deserves minutes.
A lot will depend on the moves we make or don't make this summer, but I simply have a bad feeling that he'll go back to his old ways
I couldn't agree more and your post was right on target.
O'Brien has screwed us the past three seasons by putting us in the position where not only have we not made the playoffs, but we've also ruined our chances at getting a high draft pick that would have definitely made an impact for our team. Think about all the talent we've missed out on the past three drafts. From 2008: Rose, Mayo, Westbrook, Love, Gordon, Lopez. From 2009: Griffin, Harden, Evans, Rubio, Flynn, Curry, and Jennings. And of course we're likely going to miss out on guys like Wall, Turner, and Favors in this draft.
Now I'm not one that wants my team to lose, but it's clear that with O'Brien, this team has gone nowhere the past three seasons. I'd rather have a coach who is decisive in what he wants and where he wants to go rather than one who isn't.
Comment