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

Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

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

  • Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

    We have just landed George Hill in a trade, yeah. But, Bird said that he wants to have the best bench in the league. What if that means he wants Paul George to slide to the bench to make a Lance/Hill/George trio off the bench? Do any of you guys think that is a possibility, or do you think we are set there? If not, who do you think we'll go after?

    The reason I am asking this is because of Bird's comment about him wanting the Pacers to have the best bench in the league. I don't think we can sign a backup three without breaking the bank (Signing a guy like Tayshaun or Battier to expensive contracts), so I am wondering if anyone else shares the idea that Bird wants to go Starting SG/Hill and Granger/George? Obviously George or Hill would be losing some minutes along the way, but as long as we have the best depth in the league, isn't that a very good thing?

    Say that we get a shooting guard such as Crawford, Mayo, etc.. Who's main objection is to get the ball in the basket. He plays around 28-30 minutes, Hill gets 10-15 minutes behind him, and he gets 10-15 minutes at backup point. Granger gets 35 minutes, and George gets 13 minutes behind him, and the scrap minutes as the two so that he gets more than plenty of time to develop (I am one of George's biggest fans so I'm not throwing him under the bus). Wouldn't that be a great thing?

    Just wondering and trying to circulate some discussion. Who would we go after? A young guy like OJ Mayo or Marcus Thornton, or a vet like Jamal Crawford, Jason Richardson, Ray Allen in a trade if BOS were to blow it up, or even Vince Carter?

    Or are we set?

    I think that an offseason in which we acquire Hill, a starting two who can fill it up big time for us, get Lance straightened out, and sign either David West or Carl Landry, meanwhile having enough money to potentially go after a big time free agent next summer, is a home run off-season.
    Last edited by BringJackBack; 07-30-2011, 06:28 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

    I know that many's opinion will differ from mine....but I think that we should go after a solid Starting SG that can be a very reliable and consistent Scorer and push PG and GH to the 2nd unit.

    Although some may prefer JCraw...IMHO....he's to streaky and not the prototypical SG that I'd prefer to have on the roster.

    My 1st choice would be JRich and then ( my dark horse 2nd choice ) Reggie Williams. I know that some think that PG or even GH should be that Starting SG....but Bird said that he wanted one of the deepest and strongest Bench in the league. IMHO...pushing PG and GH to the 2nd unit would do that.

    Imagine a 9 man rotation of DC/??JRich??/Granger/??West??/Hibbert/PG/GH/Hansbrough/??Foster?? , IMHO...a very solid 9 man rotation.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

      I believe Bird would add a tall wing. It may be Dunleavy or (if a better opportunity presents itself) someone else. Iguodala would be the obvious target with 3 years left.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

        I have no problem if Bird goes after yet another wing, the only thing I ask for is that he is a two-way player. A player that plays both offense and defense. Paul George and George Hill are exceptional when it comes to this, and Roy and Danny are getting there. If we can get another two way player who can score a little bit better, like Jason Richardson, we would be set to have a very exciting season ahead of us (But we still have to add a starting four)... of course, whenever that next season is.
        ...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

          at this point, i think bird is looking for bigs. unless a starter quality wing offered to work for the vet's min, there is little chance the pacer FO would be interested. george hill is going to be the starter at the 2 and given a chance to show he is the pacer's best player. lance will be the backup PG with a good chance to be the starter by the end of next season. george hill will be the backup. danny is the 3. i just don't see any minutes available unless/until some of the other wings now on the roster are gone.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

            With Collison and Granger playing big minutes, our perimeter D is not that good. That became clear when the only thing that slowed down Derrick Rose was putting Paul George on him. I would be hesitant to add yet another average (at best)defensive player next to Tyler, Granger, Collison and Hibbert...each who are better offensively than defensively.

            Also, I hope Paul is ready for the full time gig. He is likely to make the normal sophomore jump in productivity and, if so, he may be better than any other option we have available on the free agent market when you factor in his stellar D.

            Finally, we will have a strong enough bench. The focus should be on putting the best team on the floor and best rotations. IOW, how do these players fit together? I think Paul fits very well in the starting unit because he complements them very well.

            That will allow Lance and George Hill to play on the second unit. Lance will need a player like George to guard the other team's PG on the other end. George is more of a SG on offense and Lance is more of a PG. It could be an outstanding combination off the bench. JMHO.
            Lance is finally home. Whether he becomes our starting PG or he's 6th man, he's getting big minutes and he's here to stay. #llortontnia

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

              I'm with you, BnG. Good read on the situation.

              I wouldn't turn down a high-quality wing that doesn't cost us a core piece, but I'd be fine with starting Danny-Paul-Collison and bringing Inferno-Lance-Hill off the bench. Or maybe this is the year Brandon gets it together.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's a bit of a numbers game. Right now we have 11 players under contract, 9 of which play the 1, 2, or 3, unless you consider Posey a big (I consider him nothing.). We need at least 5 bigs, preferably 6. I think Bird would like to add a wing, but he needs to move Rush, Jones, Posey, or Price to do it.

                Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                  A three winged Bird?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                    Originally posted by ballism View Post
                    I believe Bird would add a tall wing. It may be Dunleavy.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                      I'd be disappointed if we added another wing, I don't think it's necessary.

                      PG/SG - Hill, Stephenson
                      SG - Dahntay, Rush
                      SG/SF - George
                      SF - Granger, Posey

                      If there aren't any major injuries, there's hardly enough minutes to go around as it is. We're not the type of team that needs to add one more wing to put us in championship contention, so I don't see the point of adding one right now. Save the money, see what we have, and make additions next off-season if we need to.

                      If there was some killer FA that would be a perfect fit this year, I'd consider it, but I don't see it. I like J-Rich, but he's more or less in ring chase mode. If we were to overpay and get him, whose minutes take a hit? Because you pretty much have to play J-Rich 30 minutes at the 2 (played 34/g last year for Orlando). Assume Granger gets 36, so that leaves 30 wing minutes. Give 20 to PG and 10 to Hill I guess. It might work for a season, if DC is getting ~32 and Hill is getting the other 16 at the 1. That leaves no time for Lance, Rush, or Dahntay though. What happens after the first season when we want to play Paul George more than 20 minutes a game? Sit J-Rich and his sizable contract on the bench? I just think the money would be better spent at the 4/5. Adding J-Rich or a similar 2 makes us what, almost as good as the Hawks? A step up, no doubt, but ultimately I'd say a stunt to our growth.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                        I think it all depends if we trade one or multiple of our wings now for a quality big man.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                          Having the best bench in the NBA is useless if you dont have a great starting 5 that play great in your system and play together.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                            The wing rotation is good enough. The frontcourt isn't. The Bulls were a first seed with great defense,great rebounding,and mediocre offense. The Pacers were an 8th seed with mediocre all of the above. If we get a lead rebounder,this team does considerably better.
                            Pacers,baby!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                              Why does the discussion have to turn to power forwards everytime?
                              It's not an "either or" proposition. We are more than able to add a PF and still keep looking.

                              Tunnel vision is generally a bad thing in management.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X