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

Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

    Originally posted by count55 View Post
    Yeah, that's what I got on re-reading it.
    You and d_c are right, of course.

    That is how they worked it when they brought Bill Russell in to work with JO (another member of the Celtic Pride nation). For that purpose, and if it is just a summer gig, Dale Davis would easily beat McHale with respect to maximizing Roy as a physical post presence, where McHale would likely focus more on teaching Roy how to create space for himself offensively while staying out of trouble defensively. Both are good and noble pursuits that would benefit both Roy and the Pacers.

    For me, I would like to see Roy as a more physical presence down low despite his not having a truly aggressive personality by nature. That is something the Pacers have lacked since non-injured JO and, well, Dale Davis.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

      I would also like to see a small man coach, a point guard coach, a shooting guard coach and wing player coach or a power forward coach -
      I'd like to see a head coach. (No, I don't mean a shrink!)

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post

        Many of you have been complaining about the Pacers lack of big man coach for years, and some of you have suggested if only, if only David Harrison had a big man coach.

        Yes, I'm one that has been asking for this for 5 years, and "I'll believe it only when it happens." And I don't mean having Foster retire and be the big man coach either.

        The Pacers have a shooting coach, coaches who are supposed to be "D" coaches, so why not a big man coach? Not every position needs a specialized coach. Big men, as you well know, takes years to develop, and it's a position best trained/mentored by someone who was a good big man that knows what it takes to successful at the position. A talented big man needs to be nurtured and developed, and OJT only isn't the best way to develop an asset into it's best productivity.

        AND yes, Harrison might have had his basketball skills developed and honed to have been a good player if he had been developed/mentored by a big man coach. Yeah, I know he had other issues, but a big man coach might have had an influence in that as well.

        To your comment about other coaches for other postions, the other position of great importance is PG, and I wouldn't be opposed to having one for Price either.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

          Originally posted by Speed View Post

          Maybe it's better to call it a low post coach.

          It really is different to me to teach and learn to play down low than what a regular player will encounter.

          I won't call it a speciality, but it is unique these days.

          It's the problem I have with many of the current generation of big men, they mostly all want to play on the perimeter and shoot jump shots. I'm not saying you can't have those skills, but many can't post up in any fashion.

          The uniqueness of a low post game and therefore Roy has become very valuable, imo.

          So, to have a guy who was great at it, maybe one of the best, in McHale come in (or like him) is a great idea, I think. Really only Hakeem is the only other guy I'd prefer over him.

          I hope it happens, you have a willing student in Roy, why not give him every possible opportunity.

          I wouldn't limit it to Roy, I mean D Jones has the makings of being very good down low in the post. Others could learn too. We've discussed how Murphy and Dunleavy's inability to post up basically nullifies their potential advantages. I'd love to see those two not being able to be guarded by smaller players because they have a low post game of SOME kind.

          For D. Jones, if you could use him down there, it maximizes his strengths (strength, quickness, atleticism) while minimizing his weaknesses (perimeter shooting).

          Nice post, couldn't agree more.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
            That is how they worked it when they brought Bill Russell in to work with JO (another member of the Celtic Pride nation). For that purpose, and if it is just a summer gig, Dale Davis would easily beat McHale with respect to maximizing Roy as a physical post presence, where McHale would likely focus more on teaching Roy how to create space for himself offensively while staying out of trouble defensively. Both are good and noble pursuits that would benefit both Roy and the Pacers.
            FWIW, McHale wasn't just better than Dale Davis offensively, he was also better defensively. He was a 3 time 1st team and 3 time 2nd team all NBA defense. He's one of the best PFs of all time.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              FWIW, McHale wasn't just better than Dale Davis offensively, he was also better defensively. He was a 3 time 1st team and 3 time 2nd team all NBA defense. He's one of the best PFs of all time.
              Yeah, and it's not close in any aspect.

              I don't see Dale having anything to offer in this regard.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                You and d_c are right, of course.

                That is how they worked it when they brought Bill Russell in to work with JO (another member of the Celtic Pride nation).

                Actually, unfortunately, that never happened. The Pacers, O'Neal, and Russell wanted to do it, but the Celtics wouldn't allow it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                  Yes, McHale was one of the NBA's 50 greatest players at one time (probably would still qualify) at the position of --- power forward --- where he was paired with another of the 50 greatest players of all time (and probably would still qualify) at the position of --- center --- in the Big Chief, Robert Parrish, without whom the Celtics could not have played nearly the defense that they did, an opinion I doubt would be disputed by many who watched that team play. If McHale could somehow channel Robert Parrish and teach Roy to play like him, it would be awesome.

                  Dale Davis played both power forward AND center at various points in his career, and was so effective defensively that he was even selected to the All Star team once despite never being a true scoring threat and one of the worst FT shooters in the league at nearly any point in his career.

                  So, McHale would likely be good at teaching Roy how to be more power forward-like for scoring purposes, but Roy would probably not be able to learn McHale's defensive moves that involved playing defense as an addition the the Celtics main defensive presence (which currently does not exist on the Pacer roster), Robert Parrish, who, last I knew, is with the Celtics as a big man coach, and likely a reason that the Celtics have more than just Garnett as an imposing inside presence.

                  You are right though. McHale would be a great big man coach here. I, however, maintain that he would benefit our young power forwards who happen to be Tyler Hansbrough and Josh McRoberts more than he would Roy because they are the ones who happen to be the most suited to play the same traditional position McHale played throughout his career.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                    I think McHale would be as good as we could hope for, just keep him away from the front office :P

                    In all serious, a player like Roy, who is not blessed with great speed and athleticism, has to rely more on technique. In this regard, I think McHale would be an exceptional teacher. He has prior coaching experience and is one of the elite big men of all time.

                    It would be nice if Roy could get tougher in the paint, and as he continues to get stronger and learn the nuances of the game, he probably will, but I don't see him ever as an overly physical player. I don't really see Dale Davis as the teaching type and have seen no inclination from him that he wants to be. Plus, can you really teach toughness?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Actually, unfortunately, that never happened. The Pacers, O'Neal, and Russell wanted to do it, but the Celtics wouldn't allow it.
                      Are you sure?

                      I could swear that I recall Russell even being interviewed about the things he taught O'Neal about backing off of other players just slightly to avoid fouls and using his jumping ability and athleticism to block shots, while being more aware of not simply swatting the ball out of bounds or back to opposing players and instead trying to anticipate where his teammates were and blocking the shot towards them to get the Pacers more possessions out of his defensive efforts.

                      But, it would have made sense for the Celtics to stop him from doing it. Maybe I am remembering what Russell said that he would be teaching O'Neal when his possible hiring was announced prior to the Celtics nixing it.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                        I'd be interested in McHale being "the" coach after this year.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                          Screw big man coach, let's just let McHale coach the team next season. Not that I think he would be a great coach but he certainly fits inline with my "anybody but O'Brien" coaching requirements.

                          Also we all know I loved Dale Davis as a player but let me be the first to say that he is NOT the person you would want teaching Roy Hibbert to play the center position.

                          Roy is not Dale, he is not a player like Dale nor will he ever be nor should he ever be. Roy is a more complete and rounded player than Dale was so while Dale might be able to teach him something about positioning and leverage on defense he wouldn't be able to do a thing for him on the offensive end.

                          McHale would be fine for this.

                          The cynic in me says that with our current coach the only real player to teach Roy anything would be Manute Bol since he learned to be a consistant 3 point shooter by the end of his career.


                          Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Screw big man coach, let's just let McHale coach the team next season. Not that I think he would be a great coach but he certainly fits inline with my "anybody but O'Brien" coaching requirements.

                            Also we all know I loved Dale Davis as a player but let me be the first to say that he is NOT the person you would want teaching Roy Hibbert to play the center position.

                            Roy is not Dale, he is not a player like Dale nor will he ever be nor should he ever be. Roy is a more complete and rounded player than Dale was so while Dale might be able to teach him something about positioning and leverage on defense he wouldn't be able to do a thing for him on the offensive end.

                            McHale would be fine for this.

                            The cynic in me says that with our current coach the only real player to teach Roy anything would be Manute Bol since he learned to be a consistant 3 point shooter by the end of his career.
                            Jonathan Bender could also come in and teach Roy how to shoot the three, and I am sure that Walsh wouldn't care by this point.

                            Obviously I am outnumbered here, and sadly I don't have the tenacity of UB with respect to supporting my own viewpoint here. I agree to agreeably disagree about McHale's utility as a coach of centers and his potential effectiveness at improving Roy's game at the center position.

                            Another suggestion for a coach for Roy would be Dikembe Mutombo due to the Georgetown connection and the similarity of stature of Hibbert to a young Mutombo, with the advantage that Roy is already more accomplished than Mutombo as a scoring threat overall at this early stage when compared to Mutombo's at the same point in his career IMO.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                              Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                              Jonathan Bender could also come in and teach Roy how to shoot the three, and I am sure that Walsh wouldn't care by this point.

                              Obviously I am outnumbered here, and sadly I don't have the tenacity of UB with respect to supporting my own viewpoint here. I agree to agreeably disagree about McHale's utility as a coach of centers and his potential effectiveness at improving Roy's game at the center position.

                              Another suggestion for a coach for Roy would be Dikembe Mutombo due to the Georgetown connection and the similarity of stature of Hibbert to a young Mutombo, with the advantage that Roy is already more accomplished than Mutombo as a scoring threat overall at this early stage when compared to Mutombo's at the same point in his career IMO.
                              Don't feel bad, I feel very dirty and I am going to have to go repent at my alter I have made of my Golden Dale idol for makeing a statement against him.

                              With McHale what I am wanting him to work with Roy on is his ability to get off a shot in the paint without resorting to a hook shot all of the time.

                              That and I do see some similarities between the way Kevin & Roy rebound. Kevin was obviously better but I think body mechanics seem the same (if I am remember correctly although it has been a long time since I saw a young McHale play)


                              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers looking for a 'big-man coach' for Roy

                                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                                Don't feel bad, I feel very dirty and I am going to have to go repent at my alter I have made of my Golden Dale idol for makeing a statement against him.
                                If only somebody could whip up a hybridization of Dale's head at the top of an Oscar, or some other trophy...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X