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

O'Brien speaks and....

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

  • O'Brien speaks and....

    I'm not offended. In fact I think overall this is a pretty good article and while I certainly don't agree (in particular the Posey over Hansbrough issue) I don't fault his logic or reasoning, at least the way it is spelled out here.

    Actually upon reflection I'm not sure that keeping Lance here may not be a good thing. Before when I wanted him shipped to Ft Wayne (still probably see some value in it) I did not take into consideration that there would be no one to monitor him and mentor him in the way to act like a professional. He might also start going rouge on the basketball court.

    This is why I think the relationship between the NBA & the D league needs to tighten up. I think we should have a coach on the team or be able to assign one to the team when he is there to monitor him and keep his individual workouts on what the team wants. That would not excuse him from practicing with the Ants or doing what they want, but it would be extra for him.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...eir-turn-bench


    Written by
    Mike Wells Filed Under
    Sports


    That's the decision Indiana Pacers coach Jim O'Brien faces.

    O'Brien wants to develop his younger players, but his main goal is to win as many games as he can.

    The Pacers have spent the past few years stockpiling their roster with young players. It's the veterans, however, who are getting the majority of the playing time.

    O'Brien's desire to win has left the Pacers' past two lottery picks, Tyler Hansbrough and Paul George, and promising second-round picks A.J. Price and Lance Stephenson getting most of their playing time in practice.

    Those players are out of the rotation as veterans T.J. Ford, Mike Dunleavy and James Posey get the minutes.

    "It's always a fine line," O'Brien said. "I want to put people in who I think will help us win basketball games."

    O'Brien recently started increasing Hansbrough's playing time. The former University of North Carolina star has played at least nine minutes in three of the past four games.

    "We think he can be a terrific player," O'Brien said. "There's nobody we have that gives us his energy and passion. Maybe 10 minutes turns into 15. That turns into 20. That turns into 25."

    Hansbrough, who played in only 29 games last season because of an assortment of ailments, said it's hard to be patient because he knows what he can provide if given an opportunity.

    "I'm definitely not a patient guy," he said. "I'll tell you that from the start. I definitely want to be out there helping my team because I feel like there's a lot I can bring that can help us win.

    "I'll try to understand everything and roll with it for the good of the team."

    Price, George and Stephenson are in a tough spot because they play a position at which the Pacers are deep.

    Stephenson, who has dealt with maturity issues, has been inactive every game this season. The Pacers have even considered sending him to the NBA Development League.

    "Lance needs this type of year, this type of surrounding, this type of teaching in order to advance," O'Brien said.

    "Somebody gets banged up and suddenly he's involved."

    George was a rotation player early in the season, but he has played just 28 minutes in the past 22 games because of Brandon Rush's return from a five-game suspension.

    George is an injury to one of the wing players away from being back in the rotation.

    "Paul is in a little bit of a pickle," O'Brien said. "We made no bones about not wanting to get younger this year, but we did because that was the hand we were dealt."

    Price, who had knee surgery in May, has shown he's healthy and capable of being the backup to starter Darren Collison if the Pacers were to trade Ford.

    "We have Darren Collison -- you can't limit his minutes -- and T.J.; he helps you win games," O'Brien said. "What do you do with these (young) guys? You try to develop them every day."


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

  • #2
    Re: O'Brien speaks and....

    Just because they're vets doesn't necessarily mean they give you the best chance to win. I have no doubt that we would have been a better team last season with Josh and Tyler getting Troy's minutes, and by extension, both of those players would be better this season.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: O'Brien speaks and....

      The seven players I'd classify as vets have put in 3349 minutes this season.

      The seven newer players who have seen the floor have tallied 3145 minutes.

      Doesn't seem all that lopsided.

      http://www.dougstats.com/10-11Stats.html

      Lance hasn't had any minutes, and I think his still pending legal issues makes that a good call.


      [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: O'Brien speaks and....

        I think it's pitiful that JOB can't find 5 minutes for Price and George to play each game. Especially at the home games. I'd make sure at least one of the two was active each home game. And I'd make sure he got some minutes. The fans deserve a chance to see the young guys play.

        And next year I don't want to hear, "George is still effectively a rookie". There's no reason that should be the case. Get him some token minutes each game. I want to see him play D. I want to see him make steals. I want to enjoy his game.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: O'Brien speaks and....

          Agreed. I was actually able to see through the clag and get some insight into what goes on in there. I was also able to keep breakfast down after reading it, so that's a bonus!
          http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
          "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: O'Brien speaks and....

            Originally posted by kester99 View Post
            The seven players I'd classify as vets have put in 3349 minutes this season.

            The seven newer players who have seen the floor have tallied 3145 minutes.

            Doesn't seem all that lopsided.

            http://www.dougstats.com/10-11Stats.html

            Lance hasn't had any minutes, and I think his still pending legal issues makes that a good call.
            Who do you consider a vet and who do you consider young?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: O'Brien speaks and....

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              Who do you consider a vet and who do you consider young?
              Vets...I figured Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, TJ, Solomon, D. Jones, Posey.

              "Newer" in terms of still up and coming, potential maybe not reached, or just plain inexperienced....the rest of them. Solomon could go in this camp, maybe, but he's been in the league awhile.


              [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: O'Brien speaks and....

                Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                Vets...I figured Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, TJ, Solomon, D. Jones, Posey.

                "Newer" in terms of still up and coming, potential maybe not reached, or just plain inexperienced....the rest of them. Solomon could go in this camp, maybe, but he's been in the league awhile.
                But a majority of the team is young.

                The point is, when the option is available, JOB goes with the vet, because "they give us the best chance of winning."

                Statistically, that's not true with Price vs. Ford. And seeing we are struggling with rebounding and interior defense, my guess is it's not true with Hans vs. Posey. Dun vs. George and Lance. Yea, I think it's probably true there. However, I think in some occasions (like when we need an excellent defender) George might be worth giving a shot too.

                To me, it's not even a "we should play the young guys" thing..it's "the younger guys DO give us a better chance of winning." So it's a win win to play them.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: O'Brien speaks and....

                  How Bird has not made Sookie our coach yet...blows my mind.
                  *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: O'Brien speaks and....

                    Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                    Vets...I figured Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, TJ, Solomon, D. Jones, Posey.

                    "Newer" in terms of still up and coming, potential maybe not reached, or just plain inexperienced....the rest of them. Solomon could go in this camp, maybe, but he's been in the league awhile.
                    Considering both Foster & D. Jones have not played in the vast majority of games and considering that Granger has missed a game with an ankle and Solomon is a less than 20 min a game backup it's kind of scary thinking that Dunleavy, Granger, Ford & Posey are getting that kind of min. load. Granger obviously & even Mike to an extent (but even he should have it scaled back some) but there is just no way that Ford & Posey should be getting the kind of min. they are over the long term of the season.


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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: O'Brien speaks and....

                      Per 82 games, here are the floor-time percentages per player. Just doesn't look that out of whack to me. (Oh...lest we forget; Rush had a mandated 5 game suspension).

                      Would I be upset if AJ and Tyler started getting some more of the TJ / Posey minutes? No, not at all...but it doesn't seem like a travesty of justice to me as it is right now. And those two will start getting more time, I expect, but not soon enough or minutes enough to happify (that's right, I said it...happify) some folks here.

                      Player Min
                      Dunleavy 60%
                      Hibbert 60%
                      Ford 44%
                      McRoberts 48%
                      Granger 73%
                      Foster 4%
                      Price 5%
                      D.Jones 4%
                      Posey 40%
                      Rush 49%
                      Hansbrough 19%
                      S.Jones 27%
                      Collison 50%
                      George 11%

                      http://www.82games.com/1011/1011IND1.HTM
                      Last edited by kester99; 12-25-2010, 03:20 AM. Reason: link


                      [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: O'Brien speaks and....

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        Just because they're vets doesn't necessarily mean they give you the best chance to win. I have no doubt that we would have been a better team last season with Josh and Tyler getting Troy's minutes, and by extension, both of those players would be better this season.
                        It's why I generally advocate putting your best players on the floor at their relative position no matter if they're rookies or veterans. The best players deserve to play.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: O'Brien speaks and....

                          Hopefully Some Moves Will Be Made Before Or At The Trade Deadline That Not Only Improves Roster Up But Gets These Young Guys More Involved As Well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: O'Brien speaks and....

                            Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                            The seven players I'd classify as vets have put in 3349 minutes this season.

                            The seven newer players who have seen the floor have tallied 3145 minutes.

                            Doesn't seem all that lopsided.
                            Actually the article is referring to Stephenson, George, Hansboro and Price.

                            If you take out Lance because he hasn't even sniffed a uniform yet basically the other three, PG, Hans and AJ, are sitting and Dunleavy, Posey and Ford are playing in their place.

                            The total minutes available through 27 games at the 3 positions where those players could play are 2320. So far Dun, Posey and Ford have played 1879 combined minutes or 81% of the total.

                            PG, Hans and AJ have played a total of 441 combined minutes or 19% of those available at the 3 positions.

                            The bottom line is O'Brien is giving over 4 times as many minutes to the vets as he is the young players referred to in the articles who are the ones who need to be developed.

                            Some things are totally predictable!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: O'Brien speaks and....

                              "It's always a fine line," O'Brien said. "I want to put people in who I think will help us win basketball games."
                              I do too Jim...NEXT YEAR.

                              Remember THIS YEAR was "next year" LAST YEAR when you "put the people in who you thought would help you win games". How's that working out? You did nothing last year and this year you were just starting to get around to doing what you've put off for 2-3 years already.

                              Keep on playing vets now and putting off playing for tomorrow. This is the problem.

                              JOB was given the free pass on the first 2 years of W-L because those were supposed to be rebuild and develop years. But he didn't do that, he took that free pass and just went ahead and ran with vets destined for other teams anyway.


                              Here's my proposal which I think is more than fair. Let's say that he's been trying to "win now" the last 3 seasons, not "rebuild". He's been "forced" to sit the kids so he can use the vets to win games.

                              Okay. Well then I'm going to go ahead and take that free pass off for the last few years and judge him 100% on the W-L total. It stinks, so fire him. Period.

                              Oh, wait, you shouldn't be fired because you were rebuilding? Hmmm, I don't recall you saying that.

                              Pick a freaking side and live with it. Either own up to the W-L record with the vets OR get a free pass on the W-L while playing the frustrating kids and making their improvement the primary focus.

                              BTW, you know what coaches who are developing players don't do? They don't call a nice outing by one of the developing kids "irrelevant" because the TEAM lost the game. They acknowledge the small moments of growth and encouragement and point out to fans that its a sign of the steady improvement with the young core.

                              That's how you know he's not interested in development, nothing he says or does is anything like a person would say or do if they had that objective in mind. And given the state of the team 3 years ago why would you want anyone coaching that didn't have those objectives in mind foremost?



                              PS - I'm not for tanking, I've argued long and hard against it. Development is not tanking. You take the wins if you can get them, you just make improving the talent the #1 focus and winning in the SHORT TERM a secondary priority.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-26-2010, 11:39 PM. Reason: giving =! given load =! long

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X