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:
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

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

No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

    As season wears on, some coaches already feeling the heat

    This has actually been a good two months for NBA coaches. Only one left his job, and nobody was released on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.

    Of course, there's the potential for doom, which makes this like any other season for the profession. Such is life for coaches, who don't necessarily have to win a lot of games to keep their job, just enough to satisfy the expectations of ownership and management and, to an extent, the fandom.

    Which means a guy like Byron Scott is safe because everyone knew the Cavaliers would struggle without LeBron James. Besides, this is Scott's first season.

    But Paul Westphal in Sacramento? Flip Saunders in Washington? Those teams, bringing up the rear in each conference, should be better than this.

    Larry Brown beat everyone to the door with a mutual decision to leave the Bobcats. Those doors will open and close a few more times between now and next summer all over the league.

    Here's a look at those coaches most likely to deal with job security issues:

    Flip Saunders, Wizards
    When he arrived two years ago, the Wizards were built to win. Then, stuff happened, and now the Wiz are in total rebuilding mode. Does that mean Saunders is now a poor fit? Sure looks that way at the moment. This season was supposed to be one where the Wizards would show growth and maybe challenge for one of the final playoff spots in a relatively weak conference. Instead, they're fighting each other outside of nightclubs and sweeping the basement of the East. It hasn't helped that John Wall has missed a handful of games. Saunders, to his credit, is giving Nick Young a chance. But Saunders isn't getting through to oddball Andray Blatche, who signed a long-term deal before the season, while JaVale McGee, Blatche's sparring partner, still looks raw after a promising summer.

    John Kuester, Pistons
    Everything in Detroit is on hold until the next owner arrives. When that happens, nobody is safe. Not Joe Dumars, the GM, or Kuester, the Pistons' embattled coach who must deal with a disastrous locker room situation. Half the players don't want to be in Detroit, and you might say Detroit doesn't want the other half. It all adds to up what you're seeing now, a team that puts up a fight only once or twice a week, in a building that's half-full and half-alive.

    Jim O'Brien, Pacers
    Tough job for O'Brien, who essentially is stuck in a holding pattern until the Pacers dump their remaining bad contracts, which happens next summer. Of course, the question then becomes whether O'Brien is the right guy for the new (and improved?) team. It's all up to GM Larry Bird, whose own future is questionable beyond this season.

    Jay Triano, Raptors
    This is one of the five most difficult coaching spots in the league, only because the truly great players don't want to play in Canada. Toronto couldn't even keep Chris Bosh. The Raptors' only options, then, are to get lucky in the Draft or import some foreign players whose view of Canada is the exact opposite of that held by most American players. If the Raptors grab the final playoff spot in the East, then Triano is safe. If they don't, then look at the bright side: They're positioned to get lucky in the lottery.

    Paul Westphal, Kings
    The Maloofs came forward to declare Westphal safe for the season, and wisely refused to give any guarantees for the day after the season. Good thing, because Westphal, an old school guy, is having his hands full with the new blood, especially immature rookie DeMarcus Cousins. But you saw that coming. The Kings haven't shown any improvement, and important core players such as Tyreke Evans, Carl Landry and Omri Casspi have all taken steps backward to different degrees. Sadly, ever since Rick Adelman was the picture of stability in Sacramento (eight years), the Kings have had four coaches in five years and seem to be on the verge of another search. That sounds very Donald Sterling-like of the Maloofs.

    Vinny Del Negro, Clippers
    Speaking of Sterling, would you be surprised if Del Negro was zapped after one season? Even after the Clippers have started showing a pulse? Of course not. Del Negro may have come cheap, but that never stopped the Clippers from making a change. Del Negro is trying to light a fire under Baron Davis and develop a system that would make the Clippers better under Eric Gordon and Blake Griffin, a pair of terrific young players. Lots of NBA folks were taken aback by Del Negro's hiring, considering he wasn't exactly a hot prospect in the wake of his ouster in Chicago. But when did the Clippers ever go by the book? Sterling has always had the hots for Larry Brown, and if losing hasn't given Sterling enough reasons to make a move, he now has one more.

    Nate McMillan, Blazers
    Of all the coaches under the gun, he's clearly the best. So why, you ask, is McMillan's ouster almost certain? Well, some strange stuff has happened in Portland lately, and the heartless firing of former GM Kevin Pritchard on Draft day was particularly bloody. The Blazers, once considered an up-and-coming contender, are an internal mess, with all the injuries and bloated contracts and simmering unhappiness in the locker room. McMillan has been on the bench five years without going past the first round of the playoffs. Owner Paul Allen never makes his feelings known to the public, but can't be thrilled at what he's seeing from his seat under the basket. Oh, and just a question, but you think McMillan might want a change of scenery himself?

    Kurt Rambis, Timberwolves
    The word in Minnesota is Rambis is actually gaining power in the organization, not losing . If true, then what a strange development for a coach who might be working on a second-straight 60-plus losing season. The issue for Glen Taylor, the owner, is whether the Timberwolves' lousy state is due to Rambis' coaching and the triangle offense, or GM David Kahn's personnel work. Or both. Whatever, something must be done to convince Kevin Love that it's worth staying in Minnesota beyond his contract in two years.

  • #2
    Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

    This is just an article about all the coaches of teams whose records are bad. Of course by that standard Jim is in the "hot seat".

    By that standard he's been in the "hot seat" now for four years.

    "Okay people, move along. Nothing to see here."


    • #3
      Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
      This is just an article about all the coaches of teams whose records are bad.
      Uh, no, it's about coaches whose records are bad, then O'Brien and McMillian. The rest of the coaches have won a third of their games or worse, but Jimmy and Nate are close to .500.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


      • #4
        Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

        It is about coaches who have been around long enough to have higher expectations than what their teams are achieving. Like usual most of those teams suck, while a couple of them have records around .500.

        Anyways I was hoping that the article would be about some inside information about coaches that are on the hot seat, not the typical "We at ______ believe that these coaches are on the hot seat for reasons not related to any information except for our own opinions."


        • #5
          Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

          I think duke's point is that this isn't original reporting. It's appears to be an analyst looking at teams who, in his estimation, have underachieved and saying their coaches are on the hot seat. Thanks to the OP for posting, but I don't think this is particularly noteworthy to those who follow the Pacers closely.
          2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs


          • #6
            Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

            thanks for something we already know

            this team would be 16-12 without jim
            In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!


            • #7
              Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

              I don't care what the article is about, it says Jim O'Brien is on the hot seat, and not otherwise so I'm taking it as a good article/read


              • #8
                Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

                Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                I don't care what the article is about, it says Jim O'Brien is on the hot seat, and not otherwise so I'm taking it as a good article/read
                Yep. I wish I could believe that the notion Jimmy's job is in trouble isn't a big deal, but I'm still fairly pessimistic in that regard. Plus, we're playing Boston again, for all we know their announcers will break the story that he just signed a 5-year extension.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                • #9
                  Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

                  Call me a Hater....but there's a small part of me that hopes that this losing ( at some point ) does push the FO to finally let JO'B go.

                  I know that as a fan, I should never root for losing ( just like when some hope to lose games for a better Lottery spot )...but I really think that it's past time that we make a major change before it's too late for this season and am totally concerned that JO'B will be extended ( which I think would be a big mistake ).
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.


                  • #10
                    Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

                    I could write this article if I wanted too. Poor work.


                    • #11
                      Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

                      Originally posted by Scot Pollard View Post
                      thanks for something we already know

                      this team would be 16-12 without jim
                      They would be better without a head coach at all??


                      • #12
                        Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        They would be better without a head coach at all??
                        By God I'd be a fan of at least trying it for a few games.


                        • #13
                          Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          They would be better without a head coach at all??
                          If Reggie was still on the team I'd say "Hell yes they're better without that coach!"


                          • #14
                            Re: No surprise: Jim O'Brien on the hot seat

                            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                            Uh, no, it's about coaches whose records are bad, then O'Brien and McMillian. The rest of the coaches have won a third of their games or worse, but Jimmy and Nate are close to .500.
                            He is?

                            I've got 10 under, 10 under, and 14 under. On pace for 10 under again.

                            He's not in the hot seat because Bird is bending over backward to forgive him of all issues even though plenty of other teams turn bad situations around by year 4.

                            Jailblazers are a perfect example.

                            Under Cheeks they were coming off of 49, 50, 41 wins and started out 22-33 when Cheeks was dumped. They finished that year with 27 total wins, the first year of revamp which wasn't even started at the beginning of that season.

                            McMillian came in and they won 21 and 32 games. By full year 3 they won 41 games. In Nate's 4th year they won 54 games.

                            Compare this to the mid-season flop post-trade for Rick that got him fired. Put JOB in the Nate role. That would mean JOB would have to have won 41 games LAST YEAR and be on pace to win 54 this year.

                            This is a team that even had their top draft pick Oden become an injury bust. This is a team that played large minutes with Travis Outlaw, Steve Blake and Joel Pryzbilla. They were doing this in the West with serious competition from other elite teams.

                            I'm not even asking for 54 wins. I'm just saying enough with the kid gloves already. Teams work out of ditches if they do the right things and bring in the right coaching.

                            And the "dumping bad contracts" thing is a bit overplayed after the Troy deal and considering the roles of Dun and TJ. They aren't well paid of course, but what you are going to upgrade on the roster with the difference in their salary next year isn't going to be enough to improve by 15 wins (to go from 36 wins to 51 wins and being a contender).

                            Backup SG, say its Dun, that's 3-4 million. Backup PG runs another 4m at least. So you've got 9-11m to improve a single position. Who and what do you improve? PF I suppose.

                            The top 2 PF choices are Zach Randolph and....Troy Murphy. Carl Landry, KMart. Zach is a headcase and given his impact in Memphis you'd have to think they want to keep him.

                            Zach also makes 17.5m this year, so 11m is quite the pay cut. You aren't trading Josh because he's a FA himself and if teams want him they'll just wait and go for the cheap market value. Ditto Foster.

                            Nope, 11-12m is going to get you Landry and that's just not going to be a noticeable upgrade to how Josh and Tyler contribute now.

                            The roster is only going to get better now if they trade Granger or maybe Rush/Roy. And again, will that upgrade be worth 15 wins.

                            Maybe Collison and space for Nash?

                            I just think a lot of people are waiting on the cavalry to arrive and don't realize that Troy for Collison was the closest thing to a major upgrade the team was or will be able to make.