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

The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

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

  • #76
    Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

    Originally posted by flox View Post
    Just a question: Do people think that Jim doesn't care about his players?
    Do you really think these two comments were motivational?

    I mean, I guess what JOB said about AJ could have been seen as motivational. Trying to get AJ to prove him wrong. I don't know why he bothers though, because apparently no matter how well AJ plays, he can't earn a rotation spot, and other players just get awarded them without doing anything.

    But what about with Josh? Irrelevant? That's no motivational. I think Josh is a good energy player, but last season..he wasn't going to win or lose games for the team. And him growing as a player is something positive in itself.
    I don't think it was motivation, I just don't think Jimmy looks that far ahead.

    Do you know what was irrelevant at that point in time? Winning basketball games. Because no matter how many the Pacers won, they weren't making the playoffs. Josh's play wasn't irrelevant. Watson's was though.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

      Gah!

      Speakout4 made a universal statement, which was correct in general, but which has exceptions to it. I made note of the military exception, which in no way disputes his otherwise correct point. By noting that a drill sergeant gets good results (of a sort) despite his lack of care for his recruits' feelings, I was not recommending that O'Brien treat the players like a drill sergeant.

      The right relationship between a coach and his players lies somewhere between the drill sergeant's brutality and the coddling that a school teachers give her children. Exactly where along that continuum the best treatment lies is a matter I left open. I'll say that I do think players ought to be able to take sharp criticism.


      And I'll say again that we don't know what happens in the Pacers locker room, and thus we have no idea about the relationship between these players and this coach. What he says in the press is small compared to what he says right to the players' faces.





      .
      Last edited by Putnam; 10-18-2010, 09:13 AM. Reason: corrected spelling of "sergeant"
      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)

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

        To me what we need is a new coach. Then we would know that not all the problems is the coach's fault. Extremisms are dangerous thinking. Like Putty said there needs to be a medium.

        But I stand by my statements. If the players can't hack some public criticism then the most like can't hack much of the NBA.

        Was what he said about AJ wrong? I agree what he said about Josh was wrong, but definately not worth the attention it has got.

        Then again we shut Artest down when he made ill trade comments to the media. But wasn't there something that was a precursor? .............nevermind

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien
          1. To me what we need is a new coach. Then we would know that not all the problems is the coach's fault. Extremisms are dangerous thinking. Like Putty said there needs to be a medium.
          2. But I stand by my statements. If the players can't hack some public criticism then the most like can't hack much of the NBA.
          3. Was what he said about AJ wrong? I agree what he said about Josh was wrong, but definately not worth the attention it has got.
          4. Then again we shut Artest down when he made ill trade comments to the media. But wasn't there something that was a precursor? .............nevermind

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

            I think the question of whether Jim is too hard on the players is somewhat moot. His style has been certified by the front office and currently if you are a Pacer you have to accept it. My problem is that unlike Football and College Basketball the NBA simply does not have a precedent of authoritative Coaches who have had success. Ecspecially in the long term. I feel that thanks to the Jordan era that style has very little use today. The Top coaches are more manager/mentor and their players generally seem to have a good rapport with them, instead of an adversarial. Listen to how Tony Parker talks about Pop, how Ron talks about Phil,how Reggie talks about Bird. I think where Obrien goes completely wrong is making it a coach and team and not realizing that good coaches in the pros are part of the team. A team of professionals with one goal, win games.
            Last edited by HOOPFANATIC; 10-18-2010, 08:39 AM.
            Protect the Promise!!!!

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

              If you're going to be the drill sergeant then your methods darned well better be worth it to the players....

              Of course the same is true for any method but the drill sergeant will flame out quickly without some type of results showing up quickly.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                Originally posted by HOOPFANATIC View Post

                My problem is that unlike Football and College Basketball the NBA simply does not have a precedent of authoritative Coaches who have had success. Ecspecially in the long term. I feel that thanks to the Jordan era that style has very little use today.

                The Top coaches are more manager/mentor and their players generally seem to have a good rapport with them, instead of an adversarial. Listen to how Tony Parker talks about Pop, how Ron talks about Phil,how Reggie talks about Bird. I think where Obrien goes completely wrong is making it a coach and team and not realizing that good coaches in the pros are part of the team. A team of professionals with one goal, win games.
                I agree for the most part, except your sentence about the top coaches and what they are.

                let me first say it isn't easy to put a label on a coach. If you have seen a lot of Phil Jackson, no one yells more at individual players (or gives mean looks to them) as they walk off the court. And he yells at young players a lot on the court in front of family and friends. He also takes shots at his own players in the media. so he is a mixed bag for sure.

                Larry Brown yells probably more than any other NBA coach - he yells the entire game - I've heard it first hand. His off the court demeanor is completely different

                Popovich is no softy - he'll read one of his players the riot act. he also also often highly critical in the media of his own players

                Sloan is one of the toughest coaches ever to coach. he is often times blunt in the media, he tends to not singlle individual players out too often though, but he will.

                Skiles is another very tough coach - he works his players extremely hard. he yells.

                And those are the top 5 coaches, and I don't think any of them are what you think they are. They are tough coaches extremely demanding, more so than Jim O'Brien IMO - so I don't think the problem with Jim is that he is too tough or not tough enough - I think he is pretty good in that area
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-18-2010, 09:04 AM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  Gah!

                  Speakout4 made a universal statement, which was correct in general, but which has exceptions to it. I made note of the military exception, which in no way disputes his otherwise correct point. By noting that a drill sergeant gets good results (of a sort) despite his lack of care for his recruits' feelings, I was not recommending that O'Brien treat the players like a drill sergeant.

                  The right relationship between a coach and his players lies somewhere between the drill sergeant's brutality and the coddling that a school teachers give her children. Exactly where along that continuum the best treatment lies is a matter I left open. I'll say that I do think players ought to be able to take sharp criticism.


                  And I'll say again that we don't know what happens in the Pacers locker room, and thus we have no idea about the relationship between these players and this coach. What he says in the press is small compared to what he says right to the players' faces.





                  .

                  Do you work at Purdue? I noticed the Schleman hall location.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    Do you work at Purdue? I noticed the Schleman hall location.

                    Yes, since about a month ago.
                    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)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Larry Brown yells probably more than any other NBA coach - he yells the entire game - I've heard it first hand. His off the court demeanor is completely different
                      Larry would've just said, "He hasn't got a clue what he is doing out there. It's a wonder he doesn't swallow his tongue."
                      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                        We seem to be making a lot of assumptions about how the players feel about JOB's actions. Unless this is the most hermetically sealed locker room in history, and unless the Indianapolis media is no longer looking for ways to criticize the Pacers, and unless the energy on the court and attempts to fit into the system are just meant to give the FO a false sense of security, it seems to me like the players have not tuned JOB out, that his method isn't p**sing anyone off, that any frustrations are simply normal frustrations that occur during any working relationship.

                        Have we seen any evidence otherwise that isn't just a guess or an attempt to explain actions that could be just as well explained in other ways?
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          We seem to be making a lot of assumptions about how the players feel about JOB's actions. Unless this is the most hermetically sealed locker room in history, and unless the Indianapolis media is no longer looking for ways to criticize the Pacers, and unless the energy on the court and attempts to fit into the system are just meant to give the FO a false sense of security, it seems to me like the players have not tuned JOB out, that his method isn't p**sing anyone off, that any frustrations are simply normal frustrations that occur during any working relationship.

                          Have we seen any evidence otherwise that isn't just a guess or an attempt to explain actions that could be just as well explained in other ways?
                          Can't speak for this year but if you will recall my phone conversation last year with Bob Kravitz it was made perfectly clear to me that several players could not stand Jim and hated that he was extended.

                          Larry Bird made several comments last season to reporters that the players would be the ones moving on and not the coach, which implied to me anyway that the conversation had been brought up to Bird before.


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

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            Can't speak for this year but if you will recall my phone conversation last year with Bob Kravitz it was made perfectly clear to me that several players could not stand Jim and hated that he was extended.

                            Larry Bird made several comments last season to reporters that the players would be the ones moving on and not the coach, which implied to me anyway that the conversation had been brought up to Bird before.
                            Yep I remember hearing Bob,also Mike Wells and DD
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Can't speak for this year but if you will recall my phone conversation last year with Bob Kravitz it was made perfectly clear to me that several players could not stand Jim and hated that he was extended.

                              Larry Bird made several comments last season to reporters that the players would be the ones moving on and not the coach, which implied to me anyway that the conversation had been brought up to Bird before.
                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Yep I remember hearing Bob,also Mike Wells and DD
                              I'd separate the ideas of "could not stand Jim" and "hated that he was extended".

                              A professional might not like a coach for many reasons and therefore be unhappy that he got extended, but one hopes this doesn't automatically extend to "the coach won't be effective". Considering that the name I heard most on this was Granger, it seems to me that by the end of the season he was working with Jim and that this season he's trying to work with him as well.

                              While it isn't your best situation, it isn't a disaster to not like your coach and not be particularly happy he got an extension.

                              Regarding the "could not stand Jim", what does that mean? Don't like how he coaches? Don't get along with him as a person? Don't want to hear him talk?

                              Considering that we heard constant sniping about how players hated Rick's system, why haven't we heard the same from players about JOB and why aren't they breaking it every time they step on the floor?

                              There is what I would call a "functional" dislike, in terms of "would prefer something else" and "don't like what we're doing" - something that you will never completely get rid of as long as you have different personalities involved. This is as opposed to a "dysfunctional" dislike, where the coach is tuned out, where players are whining and complaining, and where the coach punishes players for not following the guidelines. While we may be seeing some of the former, we aren't seeing the latter, so hatred from players and the permanent damage attributed to JOB are probably not there.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: The bluntness of Pacers coach Jim O'Brien

                                I think people are confusing yelling with what the problem with O'brien is.

                                I have no problem, I would think most have no problems, with coaches yelling at their players.

                                I also have no problem with using the media as a motivational tool, even if it is negative.

                                But what he said about McRoberts was not motivational. And what he said about Price, went too far. (Particularly when he was saying the opposite a month before) And was far more nasty than motivational. (And Larry Bird corrected him a few days later..so he at least thought JOB was wrong.)

                                They're big boys, they can take it. But it was unnecessary and unprofessional.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X