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

My Jim O'Brien thread...

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

  • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

    The only other person you were having a back and forth with was McKeyFan and he even had this to say:

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    It's all about discipline and emphasis.

    Obviously, if they are clogging up the passing lanes or doubling, you keep them honest with perimeter shooting.

    The problem with that is that it's the easier thing to do, and ends up being the default option or cop out pretty quickly.
    So he's the extreme person?

    EDIT: The whole "I wasn't talking about you" thing has been done before. I think maybe the list of extreme people need to be made, so we know exactly what positions you think are extreme.
    Last edited by Since86; 12-14-2010, 03:21 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      Based off of this....do you think that Bird made a mistake in drafting Hansbrough?

      Hansbrough may develop a jumpshot and some offensive game away from the basket so that he can "stretch the offense" as time passes by....but it would seem that drafting a Player without an offensive game away from the basket doesn't seem to make any sense.
      No, I still like the pick. he isn't a classic post-up player. I think his 15 ft jumper will be excellent in another year or two. Plus IMO you can never overestimate the value of a guy who plays that hard

      Comment


      • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        That is a lot of it. Teams are fronting the post (last night on one of our first passes into Roy Dunleavy threw the ball in to him but the pass was stolen from the weakside defender. And I think that makes us think twice about attemtping to throw the ball into Roy when he is fronted.

        Bill I know you talked a lot about this last season - teams in effect zone off of us clog the middle and the really good defensive teams like the Bulls were still able to get out to the three point shooters. Same with the Hawks. I have been saying all season that the good defensive teams have no problem shutting down our offense and they force us to shoot guarded threes. The times the Pacers have blown teams out is against either poor defensive teams or teams that were really tired and could not defend with energy that game.

        Pacers offense right now is easy to defend. Front Roy, dare Josh to shoot threes, crowd Danny - make someone else beat you besides danny. Our offense is also easy to defend the three point line. Darren can get to the basket but he doesn't finish - same with TJ.

        Our execution of the pick and roll is really bad. But in fairness even though Collison is good, Ford isn't bad, we have no big guy that is even decent running the pick and roll, so it is easy to defend


        But yes the offense is the problem, between the turnovers, settling for guarded threes, Collison's confusion and yes here is a big one - a lack of a lot of offensive talent.

        So you are saying lack of offensive talent is the major problem? What type of offensive talent is needed to rectify the problem you suggest? Any suggestions who might be available to change the current situation?

        I feel there will be no major trade this year, UNLESS it is believed that the Pacers can't make the playoffs with the players on the current roster. I truly believe Simon wants to get the Pacers back in the playoffs this year in the worst way. I feel if it takes a trade OR a new coach it will happen, but only if one or both is an absolutely necessity. If the coach and current players can get the team into the playoffs, neither change will happen.

        Comment


        • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          The only other person you were having a back and forth with was McKeyFan and he even had this to say:



          So he's the extreme person?
          You notice I didn't reply to that with any argument. The reply thread then turned to your interjection that outside shooting "IS the offense" - which sounds an awful lot like you weren't giving any credit for inside activity to me.
          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


          • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post

            What I do think is Jim is a horrible motivator/amateur psychologist


            He's definately not Phil Jackson who has success in to doing it.

            Comment


            • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              You notice I didn't reply to that with any argument. The reply thread then turned to your interjection that outside shooting "IS the offense" - which sounds an awful lot like you weren't giving any credit for inside activity to me.
              Well then who is the extreme opinion that you disagree with?





              Is this not the a similiar offense to what we've seen the past 3 years? Looks about the same to me. Not emphasizing post play. Quick outside shots, early in the shot clock. "Stretch 4." When asked why AJ was playing, he quickly mentioned his ability to hit the outside shot. Josh's recent uptick in 3pt fgas, even when he's starting to play reduced minutes. James Posey, who is known as a shooter, getting more minutes. Hans not playing. No rookies playing for that matter. Pulling DC out at end of games in favor of an established vet in TJ. Starting to get beat on the rebounding game.

              Should I continue?

              But I really would like to know who you think is an extreme. Because this isn't the first time you've said it when in a direct discussion with me, only to say that you weren't talking about me. I think it's time to start naming names.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Well then who is the extreme opinion that you disagree with?

                Is this not the a similiar offense to what we've seen the past 3 years? Looks about the same to me. Not emphasizing post play. Quick outside shots, early in the shot clock. "Stretch 4." When asked why AJ was playing, he quickly mentioned his ability to hit the outside shot. Josh's recent uptick in 3pt fgas, even when he's starting to play reduced minutes. James Posey, who is known as a shooter, getting more minutes. Hans not playing. No rookies playing for that matter. Pulling DC out at end of games in favor of an established vet in TJ. Starting to get beat on the rebounding game.

                Should I continue?

                But I really would like to know who you think is an extreme. Because this isn't the first time you've said it when in a direct discussion with me, only to say that you weren't talking about me. I think it's time to start naming names.
                To say outside shooting "IS the offense" seemed to me to be extreme, because it sounds the same to my ears as the one-liner "JOB just wants players to chuck 3 point shots".

                I think you meant to say outside shooting "is always TOO MUCH of the offense", which would NOT be extreme.

                If that is what you meant, then I apologize for the mischaracterization.

                As for the rest of the post, as I said to Peck, I DO see differences. When I enumerate them I get told they don't count, and therefore there really aren't differences, but they still count to me. To take your questions one at a time:

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Not emphasizing post play
                I think post play being denied is not the same as not emphasizing. We have had at least one game where the bulk of our turnovers were due to passes being picked off trying to get the ball into the post. To not do that again doesn't seem like we are "not emphasizing" post play.

                Are you saying "not emphasizing post play to be the majority of our offense"? If so, I'd have to agree, but I'd also say that there are at least 4 previous Pacer coaches who did not emphasize post play as the majority of the offense, so to hang this solely at the door of JOB as some sort of deviation from coaching norms seems unfair.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Quick outside shots, early in the shot clock
                Here's the thing I don't see anywhere near as often as last year, in fact a lot of our misses last night (for example) were from taking too long getting the ball into position and having to force up a shot in the final seconds. Unless/until we get behind by a bunch I no longer see the reliance on the quick 3 offense that we used to have. Once we're way behind, I think we go to it as the "only" way to get back into the game. I tend to disagree with that, but sometimes it works and it is a way many teams also react to coming back from a large deficit.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                "Stretch 4."
                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                When asked why AJ was playing, he quickly mentioned his ability to hit the outside shot.
                OK, you have me on those because I wish he'd put more context into them. People are tired of hearing it. I'M tired of hearing it. I want to tear my ears off when I hear it.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Josh's recent uptick in 3pt fgas, even when he's starting to play reduced minutes.
                I checked this out. Just in December, he shot 25% of his attempts from 3 against Chicago (most recent) and Milwaukee. He shot 36% from 3 against Toronto. He shot 57% from 3 against Atlanta and Charlotte. He shot 67% from 3 against the Suns and 75% against Utah.

                There's a little fluctuation there, but - except for Charlotte, when he shot 50% from 3 in a win, the rest of the high % of 3pt fgas were games where the Pacers found themselves WAY down early in the game.

                I've already stipulated that JOB relies on the 3 instead of higher percentage shots when trying to come from behind. I've already agreed I don't like it.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                James Posey, who is known as a shooter, getting more minutes.
                Posey is also known as a defender and has been credited with the uptick in the Pacers' defensive intensity this season. I don't agree that offense is 100% the reason Posey is playing.

                And having a guy get the bulk of the PF minutes who is a defender is 100% opposite of last year and the year before...

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Hans not playing.
                Not sure how this enters into an "isn't this the same as the past 3 years" equation, since Hans played about every possible minute last year, so him not playing isn't something that is somehow the same. However, I agree with the explanation that he isn't effective in the flow of the offense, because, in general, I think one of the most important differences between last year and this year is that our offense has a flow. Is it consistent? No, by no means. Do I wish it was more consistent? Of course. Is Hansbrough going to help that? Not at this juncture.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                No rookies playing for that matter.
                This is always a criticism and I always have to try to understand what NBA coach out there who doesn't have a top-5 pick gives chunks of playing time to his rookies. Certainly Larrys Brown and Bird didn't, Isiah Thomas didn't, and Rick Carlisle didn't.

                I think all fans (including me) would like to see the rookies get more burn, but I think all coaches want to see the rookies do more before they get minutes, or at least fulfil a need. Whether we agree or not, JOB (like most coaches) doesn't see the rookies doing that at this point. This isn't an aberration.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Pulling DC out at end of games in favor of an established vet in TJ.
                Initially, I hated how DC couldn't get through a screen to save his life. Lately, he has done better, but I think TJ has still been better defensively.

                The emphasis on defense - which isn't easily put into stats (except that even in losses we have held 14 of 24 opponents well below their season scoring) - is what many people wanted Jim to do.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Starting to get beat on the rebounding game.
                This concerns me, but I don't think it is because somehow JOB doesn't want his players to rebound. On the offensive side, I actually think this is a side effect of defenses closing off on Roy - that means they have 2-3 guys at the basket no matter what we do.

                On the defensive side, our positioning worries me, but I don't see how it has anything to do with something they are reverting to. If nothing else it is an effect of playing defense rather than positioning for the rebound - something else very different from last year.
                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


                • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                  Interesting that you still aren't answering my question on who you're referring too as extreme. This isn't the first time I've asked after you've used the extreme line, and then told me you weren't referring to me.

                  I'm going to continue thinking your talking about me, because it always seems to happen.

                  I'm not going to go through point by point, but I'll throw in two.

                  I don't know how you can say that just because ONE game had a bunch of TOs on entry passes mean that Jim is emphasizing post play.

                  Did you even look at Roy's game log page that I posted? Did you notice the severe decline in shots per game for him in the past 7 games? If you stand by that conclusion, that they are emphasizing it, then the next logical conclusion has to be that they are awful at doing it, because the results don't lie. You even talk about all the TOs that they had in trying to feed Roy, and clearly he isn't getting the ball in positions to score through Dec. games.

                  So A) our players aren't good at it or B) Jim's strategy in how to get Roy the ball isn't working or C) they really aren't emphasizing it.

                  I really doubt it's A, considering how good of a passer Josh is, DC is, Dunleavy is, and too an extent I hardly see Rush making bad passes. He doesn't make difficult passes, but he is usually pretty solid in passing, and his TOs come from drives to the basket.

                  The roster has plenty of players that are capable of feeding the post, and have extremely smart players that understand passing/angles/post play and how they're all connected. I really don't see that being the problem.

                  And for my next point, the Hans/Rookies were supposed to be tied together. I think I've seen a big drop off since Tyler started getting DNP-CDs. For all the criticisms that he stalls the offense, which I totally agree with, he does have the ability to score the basketball and keep deadperiods from happening. Yes, it doesn't come within the flow of the offense, I don't contest that. But it's not like Jim can't put in a small package for Hans that highlights his abilities. The rest of the roster can play around him, for limited minutes.

                  He can clearly defend his post player. I don't think defense is really all that big of a problem for him. His lateral quickness is surprising, and he plays pretty good position defense.

                  But his real strength is that he makes plays, both offensively and defensively. Was anyone else not impressed against the Hawks in ATL when Hans literally ripped the ball away from Josh Smith after Tyler defended his drive on the right wing? He keeps plays alive offensively, and he still has a knack for getting to the FT line.

                  Yes, he has some real problems offensively, but I really don't think those problems mean he should get ZERO minutes. Why shouldn't he get 10mins? I said this last week. Give him a rotation during the second wave of subs in the first half, or even the first wave in the second half, and see what he's going to bring that night. If he's just too out of position and is really killing the rest of the team offensively, you pull the plug.

                  But I have a strong feeling, this isn't about what Tyler does get, it's what he doesn't do. And yes, by that I mean shoot 3s. And let's be real, teams can't double off Tyler like they do Josh. While he obviously doesn't shoot 3s, I think he's proven he can knock down that 15-17 jumpshoot from the short corner.

                  It's just amazing that Tyler can be in the rotation early in season, when they were playing well, but when they're struggling he doesn't see the floor. I'm in no way shape or form saying that's the reason why the team is struggling, just pointing out that you found minutes before when they were playing well but can't when they're playing badly. Seems like it should be the other way around.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: My Jim O'Brien thread...

                    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X