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

Gerald Green to Pacers [bumped]

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

  • #76
    Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

    Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
    That is why I love it I am not sure if he will pan out but for those terms I am more than happy to find out.
    It's hard to be upset with a contract like that, and if he finally did "get it" (again, I am teeming with skepticism), and he pans out, then great for us. Otherwise...meh.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

      Great deal, great fit, great shooter/finisher, a little odd because iirc Bird was high on him. But he's mentally matured and should be a fantastic help/tutor to Lance on how he should never take his status as an NBA level talent for granted.

      Most importantly, that bench that was so slow, so unathletic for the Pacers is suddenly one of the more explosive in the NBA, if Augustin/Lance/GG are the main attractions and Mahinmi/Plumlee off the bench...two virtual 7 footers, not much to not like.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
        That is why I love it I am not sure if he will pan out but for those terms I am more than happy to find out.
        His deal is roughly 2 million cheaper than Danny Green's deal. At 2 million more over 3 seasons (less than a million per year), I'd rather have Danny Green.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Yeah, I've seen him play. He's an athletic freak with D+ basketball skills. He got minutes on a crappy team, put up numbers and made some highlight dunks. He will have a couple of "Holy ****!!!" moments, and a lot of "What the ****..." moments. Can he contribute on a winning team and play solid defense while not looking for the highlight play every time he gets the ball? I'm skeptical. Not totally upset with the contract, but I'm skeptical.
          I can see why you'd say that. That was his schtick when he came into the league. I think that's what people are talking about when they say he's turned the corner. His 31 games with NJ last season showed a much more balanced and well rounded game. A career year for him, in fact. I think there's way more upside to this than down.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

            Originally posted by 5_7_Clash View Post
            I can see why you'd say that. That was his schtick when he came into the league. I think that's what people are talking about when they say he's turned the corner. His 31 games with NJ last season showed a much more balanced and well rounded game. A career year for him, in fact. I think there's way more upside to this than down.
            Yeah, there really isn't any downside, which is why I'm not really upset with it. I have laid out why I am skeptical, and I hope that I'm wrong there. I'd love nothing more than for Green to pan out on a cheap contract.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

              If it doesnt really work out, it's just D. Jones contract all over again really.
              "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

              ----------------- Reggie Miller

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                Dahntay is not even close to Gerald Green. He can shoot the three and he is 6'8" and he is very athletic.....
                I never thought I'd agree with OlBlu (and I'm sure he'll soon change my mind), but Green is quite better than DJ, younger, more athletic, can hit the three, attacks the rim, has a series of usable moves, and will score a lot better and easier than DJ did. However, DJ's veteran leadership will be missed.
                witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

                Originally posted by Day-V
                In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                  Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
                  If it doesnt really work out, it's just D. Jones contract all over again really.
                  And look where that contract got us..

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                    Originally posted by flox View Post
                    His deal is roughly 2 million cheaper than Danny Green's deal. At 2 million more over 3 seasons (less than a million per year), I'd rather have Danny Green.
                    Danny Green was a RFA. Spurs weren't likely to let him walk.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                      Can't complain. The contract is cheap.


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                        Holy hell, the article on this over at Nets Daily has had over 200 comments in 20 minutes.

                        Edit: 294 comments (and rising) in 25 minutes.
                        753 comments in an hour. Damn.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                          Peter Vecsey ‏@PeterVecsey1
                          Interesting how upset Bulls & Nets fans are losing Green. C's dumped him, So did Mavs after Carlisle told me how much he liked him.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                            Hey all, I'm new here. As a long time Gerald Green fan, I figure I may be able to help shed some light on what he can bring to the table.

                            I'd start by saying to put aside any doubts you might have about his work ethic/attitude/maturity. These were all issues early in his career, mainly due to an oversized ego and a situation in Boston that wasn't great for his development or growth. If there was a turning point in his career, it was getting cut by Houston, there's no doubt that moment really made him re-evaluate things. Most people will say he matured in Europe, but I think the early signs of him starting to get his act together were with the Mavs. He didn't shoot the ball, and thus ended up out of the rotation, and eventually out of the NBA, but from his time with the Mavs on he's worked tremendously hard and approached things with a refreshing attitude (especially compared to his attitude earlier in his career). With that said, I'll break down his game into some strengths and weaknesses for you guys.

                            Strengths:
                            Spot up shooting - Stand him around the three point arc and he'll happily hit open jumpers all day. Don't think that he's just some athletic freak who doesn't know how to shoot the ball. He's a shooter first, and an athlete second.
                            Scoring off screens - I don't see a lot of these types of plays called for him, but he shoots effectively off screens, and is also hard to stop when he comes off a screen and takes a few dribbles towards the basket.
                            Post up game - This is where most of his hard work really shows. He's developed a really, really nice turnaround jumper out of the post up, as well as a nice jump stop into the lane where he impressively elevates above defenders to get his shot off.
                            Attacking off one or two dribbles - Get him the ball in a position where he can get to the rim in one or two dribbles and he can really do some damage.
                            Finishing in transition - This should be pretty self explanatory with his athleticism.
                            Man to man defense - He uses his size and athleticism effectively to bother guys on defense. He's very active on that end now, though he does tend to commit some iffy fouls from time to time.

                            Weaknesses:
                            Handling the ball - A couple dribbles and he's ok, but if you have him trying to break down defenders off the dribble he's going to commit some turnovers. Offensively he's more of a SF than SG.
                            Creating for others - As an extension of the above weakness, he's rarely going to create shots for other guys. It's not that he's a black hole, he really isn't, and he's more than capable of keeping the ball moving within an offense, he just isn't very good at creating off the dribble and finding guys.
                            Rebounding - This is sort of iffy. I think a lot of it is simply teams having him leak out early to get out on the break. When he crashes the glass he doesn't seem to have any issue using his athleticism and height to grab boards.
                            Over helping on defense - He tends to leave his guy or sag too far off his man, leaving them more open then they should be for spot up shots. Hopefully coaches recognize this early and fix it.
                            Drawing Fouls - This is probably the biggest complaint with him. You'd think with his athleticism he'd be a great slasher who gets to the rim and draws fouls. Unfortunately, in the half court, this really doesn't happen very often. His mediocre ball handling prevents him from getting to the rim at will, and he simply doesn't seem very good at drawing fouls when he gets there. Seems to use his athleticism more to avoid contact than to create it.
                            Streaky - He's a shooter, and by virtue, he's a guy who's going to have cold spells and hot streaks. Don't get too down on him during the cold spells, or too high on him during the hot streaks.


                            All in all, he's a guy who can get you some points in a hurry and do so relatively efficiently in the right situations. He's a high energy player who isn't really going to hurt you any where on the court and should be a nice weapon off the bench as a scorer and guy who can change the flow of a game.


                            Random bonus fact that I'm sure a few of you know: He's missing his right ring finger on his shooting hand due to an accident he had as a kid while trying to dunk on a mini hoop. Might explain why he's not so great handling the ball, but pretty amazing considering that he's an NBA player and quality shooter.

                            A Gerald Green fan who now finds himself rooting for the Suns.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                              Last year per 36 mins, Green averaged 18.4 points on 48% shooting (39% from 3) with 5 boards, 1.3 steals, and 0.8 blocks per game. I would much rather have Green & Hill than Hill & DC.

                              In fact, I would be very happy with a theoretical DC & Jones for Ian & Green trade. We locked up 2/5th of our bench (very good pieces at that) for only $7 million.

                              It is also a (mild) good sign that Nets fans are so livid about losing him.
                              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                              RSS Feed
                              Subscribe via iTunes

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Gerald Green to Pacers

                                People are gonna really like Green he can score and defend. He's being way underated right now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X