Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

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

  • #31
    Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

    BTW, at this point in time with the season you have two options. You can either laugh or cry, anything else is a waste of your time.

    Here is something to chew on while you ponder which way to go, since December 1 our record is 7-17 that would make us one of the worst teams in the NBA, not the worst but one of them. 9-7 seems like a lifetime ago


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

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

      I don't want Jim fired. I want him to quit, tonight.

      I try not to get upset with the rotations because it's insane to expect something different, but it's still frustrating.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        BTW, at this point in time with the season you have two options. You can either laugh or cry, anything else is a waste of your time.
        I envy you. I have been unable to reach either extreme. My wife enters the room, finds me catatonic with the TV on, sees that my mouth is hanging open, lovingly wipes the drool from my chin and then leaves me to the game.... or so she tells me at a later opportunity when I have returned to a more lucid state.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

          Thanks hoops_guy! That rant actually made me feel a little better.

          I had a few of those melt downs last season.

          Lately I just can't even muster up enough disgust to melt down. I expect the lineups to make no sense, I expect players who played well early to not play late, I expect Posey to be in the game late guarding someone he shouldn't. I expect JOB to F up just about any coaching decision there is to be made.
          "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

            I'm more laugh than cry these days, though a lot of the time I'm just numb.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              You know that is the common thinking.

              Now let's hear why?

              I am no longer convinced that this is the case.
              I think if you had O'Brien sit down and talk or write a book about various basketball strategies and the way coaches throughout history have tried to counter other teams he'd probably do a fair to impressive job. OTOH, I think Isiah wouldn't have that depth if charged with the same task.

              But talking and doing are two different things.... And I'm not sure the product on the floor isn't just as confusing under O'Brien as it was under Isiah.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

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

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

                Isiah Thomas has depth

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

                  What sickens me the most is that this team IS TALENTED. Only talented to an extent, but there is no damn reason to be losing games like this.

                  Give us a coach that has some sort of clue about how to use a rotation, and this team is instantly able to show you the talent that we do actually have.

                  It's a shame, really.
                  Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    You know that is the common thinking.

                    Now let's hear why?

                    I am no longer convinced that this is the case.
                    Well, there was that one time JOB beat Isiah in the playoffs 4 games to 2 when Isiah had home court advantage and the more talented team.
                    Last edited by d_c; 01-23-2011, 03:49 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

                      Is this the same year that Jamaal Tinsley's mother died of Cancer, Austin Croshere's father-in law died of a heart attack, Jermaine O'Neal's step father shot himself in the face, Ron Artest having melt down at the end of the season and destroying the weight room between games 1 & 2?

                      BTW that was rhetorical, that was the same year.

                      Of course we are also talking the same Isiah Thomas that made the playoffs while he was here.

                      Sure O'Brien hasn't had a lot of talent to work with but look at this lineup from Thomas's first year here and tell me it is significantly more talented than our group at present.

                      15 Ron Artest F 6-6 244 November 13, 1979 2 St. John's University
                      24 Jonathan Bender F 6-11 202 January 30, 1981 2
                      4 Travis Best G 5-11 182 July 12, 1972 6 Georgia Institute of Technology
                      2 Jamison Brewer G 6-4 184 November 19, 1980 R Auburn University
                      27 Primoz Brezec C 7-2 252 October 2, 1979 R
                      44 Austin Croshere F 6-9 235 May 1, 1975 4 Providence College
                      10 Jeff Foster F-C 6-11 236 January 16, 1977 2 Texas State University
                      3 Al Harrington F 6-9 230 February 17, 1980 3
                      5 Ron Mercer G-F 6-7 210 May 18, 1976 4 University of Kentucky
                      52 Brad Miller C 6-11 244 April 12, 1976 3 Purdue University
                      31 Reggie Miller G-F 6-7 185 August 24, 1965 14 University of California, Los Angeles
                      7 Jermaine O'Neal F-C 6-11 226 October 13, 1978 5
                      12 Kevin Ollie G 6-4 195 December 27, 1972 4 University of Connecticut
                      21 Norm Richardson G 6-5 190 July 24, 1979 R Hofstra University
                      6 Carlos Rogers C-F 6-11 220 February 6, 1971 7 Tennessee State University
                      5 Jalen Rose G 6-8 210 January 30, 1973 7 University of Michigan
                      40 Bruno Sundov C 7-2 220 February 10, 1980 3
                      11 Jamaal Tinsley G 6-3 195 February 28, 1978 R Iowa State University


                      Highlighted players came after trading away Rose & Best.

                      Jamaal was a rookie, Jermaine was a first year player getting any real min., Reggie was past his prime, Bender played the only real time he ever would but this was his first year getting any time either.

                      I'm not arguing that Thomas was any good but I think that maybe the flaws that Isiah had are not really any different than what Jim has.

                      Hell they even run a similar offense.


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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

                        Originally posted by hoops_guy View Post
                        No. Tell me that Solo, Mike, TJ, and SOLOMON JONES would get time on a NBA team that uses common sense. Hell no.

                        Anyways, I'm going on strike. As a STH, I am not going to another game until the ****ing ******* **** of a clown is gone. I am going on strike. The ******* has ruined my ****ing Pacers experience and it pisses me the **** off. I've had enough and I'm not renewing my ****ing tickets. RobFomPacers you better hear this and tell my rep because at this point I'm not even answering calls anymore until the ****ing clown is gone.

                        9th ****ing seed. 9th freaking seed. Posey 20 minutes, Foster 15 minutes, a scoreless and pothead Rush 24 minutes, SOLOMON JONES PLAYED, and Mike 37 mother****ing minutes. Tyler 21 minutes, Hibbert 28 minutes, and worst of all Paul George 7 freaking minutes. Paul George 7 points in 7 ****ing minutes. Its a ****ing joke. A joke.

                        We get Hibbert and Granger finally playing well and Jim takes a big old **** on us. Josh McRoberts doesn't play. The mother****er has no ****ing conscience. I will not support this team nor Bird until the cancer is gone. I won't even post until the ****er is gone. I've had enough of it. Enough is enough.

                        7th seed to 9th like it is nothing. Forget it, I am not going to a game until Jim is gone. Did you hear that TPTB, I AM NOT GOING TO A GAME UNTIL THEY ARE GONE. A ****ing pathetic human being.

                        See you all in the summer when the ****er is gone forever. Sorry if this is repulsive PD, and I apologize. But enough is enough and I need one last rant here until he is gone. When he is gone we need to throw a big celebration of sorts on what will be the greatest day in Pacers history since the ABA Days (RIP). I don't want to get banned.. I'm sorry if this is really repulsive ahead of time.
                        I decided a few weeks back that any post that has more than 1 ****, I will not read.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          You know that is the common thinking.

                          Now let's hear why?

                          I am no longer convinced that this is the case.
                          When I made my post in this thread I thought the topic was JOB's rotations and I commented that Isiah's rotations were worse

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            When I made my post in this thread I thought the topic was JOB's rotations and I commented that Isiah's rotations were worse
                            It's not about who's rotations were the worst. It's about if O'brian can in any way be compared to Thomas's bad rotations, then we have a real problem.
                            Good is the enemy of Great


                            We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
                            -- Frank Vogel.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

                              LOL, are people really defending JOB using the argument that IT was worse?

                              Forgive the hyperbole, but that's like saying World War I wasn't really that bad because World War II caused much more destruction.

                              They both suck and are detrimental to their teams. What else really needs to be said? Is the level of subsequent suckitude really that important?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: The Reason Why JOB is the worst coach - Rotation (Enough...JOB = Pacers coach, I will not watch Pacers game)

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                I decided a few weeks back that any post that has more than 1 ****, I will not read.
                                Let me give you the rated G version then: the poster thinks JOB is really, really awful and won't watch another game or spend any more money on the Pacers until he's gone. The poster is also an STH.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X