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

Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

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

  • #31
    Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

    I actually think that Turner and Granger would be a lovely combination. Very good fit.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      I play Turner 100% as a PG starter, let him swing to SG/SF as you rotate out Rush and Danny and rotate in Price. Maybe you try Price/Turner with Rush off the bench if he can handle that.

      Actually I love the idea of Price/Turner because it mimics the Chalmers/Wade and Blake/Roy method which worked very well for those teams.

      Turner has played PG all year basically and faces very quick PGs coming at him without any real issue. He doesn't get spaced off them any more than Wall does (ahem, S. Carolina anyone).


      I go by the game a guy has, not what you want his measurements to be. That's how Bender was a PF when clearly he was a SG. Or why Wesley Johnson is a pure SG rather than an SF.


      Turner is NOT a catch and shoot guard - that's Rush. Turner is not going to be as good without the ball, you want him starting every play every time. That's a point guard, period.

      I'm "sorry" if you guys hate a PG that crushes other PGs in the post or feed Roy right over top of the PG defender, but personally I'll laugh all the way to the bank on that one.
      Listen. He's not a PG. Just like Wade isn't a PG. Just like Evans wasn't either.

      He "can play PG" at the college level. That's extremely different then being a PG or even being a PG at the NBA level. It's not a measurements thing, it's a what position he's best suited for thing. Heck..today..he had a triple double. Points, Rebounds, and Turnovers. Not. A. Point. Guard. It's not about his defense, it's about his offense. (although interestingly, he's apparently dating the Ohio State women's point guard...who is one hell of a point guard..sort of the Lindsay Lohan of Long Island points though.)

      If we're lucky enough to get Turner, we'll probably have the best wing combination with Turner/Granger + Rush as a backup to either and DJones to fill in in the NBA. But you don't force an excellent rookie into a role he won't excell at, particularly when he will excell at another role.
      Last edited by Sookie; 03-13-2010, 07:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

        We are gonna have +30 million in cap space to work with.


        B4 making that statement you might have wanted to go back and read some of Count's posts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

          Originally posted by knucklecup View Post
          In 2010, that leaves the Pacers with a rotation of:

          Ford/Watson/Price
          Rush/Head/2nd round pick
          Granger/Gomes/D. Jones
          Murphy/Hansborough/Gomes
          Jefferson/Hibbert/2nd round pick

          I like what Rush has been able to do of late and my love of Danny Granger isn't going to fade after an injury riddled season.

          I like Murphy's game in O'Brien system and think this line-up is capable of competing.
          That trade and this lineup makes me want to throw up for some reason. What would really
          cure what ails the Pacers is get Wall and short of that get Favors. Either would
          make this team viable and dangerous. Trade expirings and a pick for whatever else ails you after that.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            I play Turner 100% as a PG starter, let him swing to SG/SF as you rotate out Rush and Danny and rotate in Price. Maybe you try Price/Turner with Rush off the bench if he can handle that.

            Actually I love the idea of Price/Turner because it mimics the Chalmers/Wade and Blake/Roy method which worked very well for those teams.

            Turner has played PG all year basically and faces very quick PGs coming at him without any real issue. He doesn't get spaced off them any more than Wall does (ahem, S. Carolina anyone).


            I go by the game a guy has, not what you want his measurements to be. That's how Bender was a PF when clearly he was a SG. Or why Wesley Johnson is a pure SG rather than an SF.


            Turner is NOT a catch and shoot guard - that's Rush. Turner is not going to be as good without the ball, you want him starting every play every time. That's a point guard, period.

            I'm "sorry" if you guys hate a PG that crushes other PGs in the post or feed Roy right over top of the PG defender, but personally I'll laugh all the way to the bank on that one.

            There is no way Turner is slower laterally than Mark Jackson or Jason Kidd. I don't even think Deron Williams is really quicker than him laterally.

            Sure Paul and Collison and guys like that will blow by, but then he's great at closing out and blowing up layups from behind anyway.




            Personally my prediction is you get the 6th pick, you draft Patterson and we are done worrying about this. I don't think the Pacers will get a top 4 pick.
            I an all for playing Turner at PG. He can switch to shooting guard as needed also.
            Statistically the Pacers have about an 11% chance right now of the first pick. So yes chances are against the 1st pick. But, it is not so slim it can't be talked about.
            I think Favors would be great next to Roy and Danny. With Roy at the high post some pitching to Danny or Favors......that would be worth seeing.
            {o,o}
            |)__)
            -"-"-

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

              Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
              You people are seriously setting yourselves up for a letdown when we don't get anywhere near a top 2 pick.
              Really? What are you basing this statement on, because it definitely can't be facts. Considering we're 4th worst in the league right now and not showing any improvement, I'd say the numbers give us a very good chance of being "somewhere near a top 2 pick".

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                B4 making that statement you might have wanted to go back and read some of Count's posts.
                Why is there some consequence to making this statement.

                I've also made the statement in other threads that we might have as little as 20 million to work with the salary cap going down, and I was called out for that too. So 30 million is a good happy middle in my opinion.
                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                  Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                  Really? What are you basing this statement on, because it definitely can't be facts. Considering we're 4th worst in the league right now and not showing any improvement, I'd say the numbers give us a very good chance of being "somewhere near a top 2 pick".
                  Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. But as I've mentioned in other posts, JOB is so unbelievably stupid that he won the 82nd game last year against the Bucks (after we were down by 17 at one point)...both teams were out of playoff contention at that point.

                  And what did this 'win' cost us? It dropped us from the 10th pick (B. Jennings) to the 13th pick (Hansbrough).

                  So with close to 20 games left, JOB can do plenty of damage to our chances to land a top 4 pick. Add to that that he probably knows his time is short as the Pacers coach, and that gives him almost no incentive to do something positive for this franchise, which is in this case LOSE.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                    Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                    Turner is more of a slasher, and Granger is more of a shooter, Rush is the defensive specialist off the bench with a three point shot who can play both positions. Sounds like a perfect rotation to me, why trade anybody? Turner would give us what we desperatly need, a guard that can penetrate... and we already have two guys he can kick out too who can knock down the three. Perfect.
                    This. 100%. That's a well balanced wing rotation. Yes, we're thin up front, especially if Foster and Hans can't give us much next year...but I might like to wait and see how Hibbert grows and take a look at the big guys we have fit to see how they fit with a Granger/Turner/Rush/DJones/Dun wing rotation.

                    I'd much rather try to move our expiring contracts plus draft pick sweeteners for a big man upgrade (we don't need an All-Star here) than ditch Granger or Rush.
                    "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                    "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                    "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                      Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                      Really? What are you basing this statement on, because it definitely can't be facts. Considering we're 4th worst in the league right now and not showing any improvement, I'd say the numbers give us a very good chance of being "somewhere near a top 2 pick".
                      Take a look at the Pacers' remaining schedule, then look at the remaining schedules of the other lottery bound teams. I did that just a few days ago and came to the conclusion that the Pacers could VERY EASILY wind up with the 8TH worst record at the end of the year. I figure they might win 5-6 more games this year, while NY might win 2, Detroit 3, Washington 3, Sacramento 3, Philadelphia 3......... Well, you get the idea. The remaining schedule for the Pacers MIGHT be the easiest schedule any lottery bound team has.
                      Last edited by Tom White; 03-13-2010, 08:47 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                        Listen. He's not a PG. Just like Wade isn't a PG. Just like Evans wasn't either.

                        He "can play PG" at the college level. That's extremely different then being a PG or even being a PG at the NBA level. It's not a measurements thing, it's a what position he's best suited for thing. Heck..today..he had a triple double. Points, Rebounds, and Turnovers. Not. A. Point. Guard. It's not about his defense, it's about his offense. (although interestingly, he's apparently dating the Ohio State women's point guard...who is one hell of a point guard..sort of the Lindsay Lohan of Long Island points though.)

                        If we're lucky enough to get Turner, we'll probably have the best wing combination with Turner/Granger + Rush as a backup to either and DJones to fill in in the NBA. But you don't force an excellent rookie into a role he won't excell at, particularly when he will excell at another role.
                        There are times when you throw away the position labels and just send the guy out there to play.

                        Turner is a guy who could work well with a number of our wings and back-court players. Granger, Rush, Price, D Jones. It doesn't matter. He will find a way to work with them, and they will do the same with him.

                        We don't need no stinkin' labels.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                          If we can get the #2 pick, and that's what it would take to get Turner, we should keep him and try to acquire an other 1st round pick to select a PF. I would not pass on either Wall or Turner.

                          I wouldn't be in any hurry to get rid of Granger or Rush if we added Turner. I'd want to keep them and continue to build. Yes, we need an upgrade at PF for sure, but that player doesn't have to be a superstar. A promising young player or a tough vet who will play defense and rebound would still help without sacrificing our promising core of players. Let's say maybe a trade for a vet or mid to low 1st round pick. Also, our 2nd rounder is almost as good as a low 1st rounder this year. Let's not forget that. It's quite possible we could get a really solid role player there or even someone good who was overlooked in the 1st round. The players projected to be selected late 1st and early 2nd look like pretty decent players.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                            Even though Turner had 10 turnovers in today's game, I really liked the leadership he showed and how he was really good throughout the game on his free-throws...It was the first that I've really watched him at all this season (first full game) and he showed me some things...I think he's a better playmaker than I thought he would be as he had some nice assists late in the game. He also got his own to carry his team when they needed some big baskets. The thing I also liked is that he attacks the basket and doesn't settle for outside jumpers late in the game. We'll just have to see what pick we get and how everything unfolds in the next several months. Plus draft workouts are a great resource of course (and I love the interviews that Pacers.com has of each player working out at Conseco before the Draft). I just hope that Bird doesn't screw this one up as we should have a high pick.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                              Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                              Listen. He's not a PG. Just like Wade isn't a PG. Just like Evans wasn't either.

                              He "can play PG" at the college level. That's extremely different then being a PG or even being a PG at the NBA level. It's not a measurements thing, it's a what position he's best suited for thing. Heck..today..he had a triple double. Points, Rebounds, and Turnovers. Not. A. Point. Guard. It's not about his defense, it's about his offense. (although interestingly, he's apparently dating the Ohio State women's point guard...who is one hell of a point guard..sort of the Lindsay Lohan of Long Island points though.)

                              If we're lucky enough to get Turner, we'll probably have the best wing combination with Turner/Granger + Rush as a backup to either and DJones to fill in in the NBA. But you don't force an excellent rookie into a role he won't excell at, particularly when he will excell at another role.

                              Turner doesn't really need to play PG to have an an impact in facilitating the offense. Scottie Pippen and Jordan did plenty from 3 and 2. Brandon Roy doesn't need to play PG, either, and he's probably the best comparison to Turner. So I agree that Turner needs to be playing at a wing position.

                              Price and Turner would be great together. For a big guy, Hibbert is a pretty decent at passing (certainly don't want him at PG either! ).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                I play Turner 100% as a PG starter, let him swing to SG/SF as you rotate out Rush and Danny and rotate in Price.

                                I been saying this for a long time, if the Pacers in some case get him I would play him at PG, the starting line up could be Tuner 6'7'' Rush 6'6'' Danny 6'7'' Hans 6'10'' and Hibbert 7'2'' nobody would ever say that the pacers play small ball anymore.

                                By the way in case the Pacers get the 1st pick I would see who gets the second pick, if the Nets get the second pick I would trade the number one pick and Ford for Harris and the second pick+future 1st round pick, if Minnesotta gets the second pick I would trade the number one pick to Minny for Rubio+second pick and future 1st round pick there is so many ways to go if the pacers get the number one pick
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X