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

Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

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

  • #16
    Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

    The only reference to this 'interview' I'm aware of is a Tweet from Wells yesterday. I don't know of this being an interview that is in print in an article or blog, or of this being audio or video anywhere. I think it was meant as more of an off-the-cuff comment from Wells.

    But don't let that stop us from overreacting.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      I thought it would happen when we acquired Hill in draft night. Though Hill isn't a PERFECT fit, I've always just thought he was a better fit for the starters than DC was.
      I remember early in the season Vogel hinted that he really had two starters at the point and when he was asked whether Hill would replace DC he sort of just said not at this time.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        So DC was brought here specifically because he would be good at running JOB's system? That isn't true. As soon as we acquired him I remember posting that JOB was going to have to change the offense or DC wasn't going to be successful. I mean it doesn't matter now, but DC was never JOB's type of point guard that fit best in his system.

        Sorry, but for the record I wasn't the one who first brought up JOB in this thread.

        While it is technically true that Collison was injured and while he was unable to play George Hill came in a took the starting job away from him, but really it was rather obvious that the team was much better with Hill as the starter. So whether he was replaced while injured or a little later, it was going to happen . I would argue if Hill hadn't missed a good chunk of the middle part of the season with his own injuries he would have replaced DC 30 games earlier
        Well JOB wanted to push the tempo and shoot early and often which fits DC. I persoanlly don't think JOB has a system for a pg other than scoring.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

          Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post
          Though shallt not speak JOB-language in these kingdoms!

          Small ball is not JOB ball. JOB ball is put a feather-weight PF, who steals rebounds, hovers at the three, and is incapable of playing low post defense. Through Roy next to Danny and I think you have a better combo. We are going to have to play small ball in the playoffs. Melo, Lebron, Gerald Wallace, Thad Young, and Durant will all play minutes at the 4.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

            Hill creates what ends up being, in my opinion, a really good problem.

            He's a tweener, so you can imagine a true point taking his minutes at one. You can also imagine a taller 2 man taking his minutes there.

            However, he is so darn clutch, so good down the stretch at making decisions, so smart and such an important defender, you just have to play him at the end of games.

            It is frustrating for us as we work with ideals on paper in our armchairs, but you can't have too many players with Hill's game time performance. Just ask Pop.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

              Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
              Small ball is not JOB ball. JOB ball is put a feather-weight PF, who steals rebounds, hovers at the three, and is incapable of playing low post defense. Through Roy next to Danny and I think you have a better combo. We are going to have to play small ball in the playoffs. Melo, Lebron, Gerald Wallace, Thad Young, and Durant will all play minutes at the 4.
              This is the exact reason why I have been clamoring for Granger to develop a low post game FOR YEARS NOW! It drives me absolutely f-ing crazy, that DG hasn't show a willingness to play ball within the three point line. He has that little mid-range pull up jumper which is perfect playing the four. If he could post, we would have better roster options, but you absolutely cannot afford to play Danny at PF if we have four players on the perimeter offensively.

              DRIVES ME CRAZY!!!!

              Another thing I wanted to mention with regard to Hibbert is this:

              Why hasn't he tried shooting his jumpshots off the back glass. Go Tim Duncan style from the mid-range with the touch he has. I think it would improve his shot percentage from mid-range. Also, if he starts shooting that from the elbow, it will provide WAY more offensive rebound opportunities for him as the ball will be coming back towards him off the rim on misses. Hibbert is an offensive rebounding nightmare for other teams, because he doesn't have to time his jumps to get a hand on the ball. Especially with the soft touch he has. It will allow him to stretch the defense a bit more for drives from the perimeter. An open rim for GG and PG would have them both drooling for Top Ten Highlight reel dunks. Hibbert would allow more space for West to work on the weakside as well. I don't want Hibbert that far from the basket mind you, the last thing I want is JOB ball, but I think Hibbert's man really sagged off him pretty hard after he went foul line-extended. Hibbert has the touch and passing to make himself more of a match-up nightmare offensively, which is what we want. We need him to open things up for everyone else. And even a couple of "JOB's patented backdoor cuts" would be a welcome sight....
              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                So what do we do if DJ ends up beating out Hill?


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  So what do we do if DJ ends up beating out Hill?


                  Seriously, as fans this is Not Our Problem because it means DJ is a good enough distributing PG to start.

                  We only have to worry if it somehow pisses off Hill and poisons the locker room, and I don't see that happening really.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    So what do we do if DJ ends up beating out Hill?
                    Explain the scenario where this happens. How badly does Hill have to be playing?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Explain the scenario where this happens. How badly does Hill have to be playing?
                      I'm not sure really, but if Augustin ends up being as good of a distributor as people are making him out to be doesn't it kind of make sense to have him play with the starters? Especially West?


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post


                        Seriously, as fans this is Not Our Problem because it means DJ is a good enough distributing PG to start.
                        Eh, it means at the end of the season we have no DJ and a really expensive backup.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                          Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                          Eh, it means at the end of the season we have no DJ and a really expensive backup.
                          ???

                          Do you mean NEXT season or do you mean DJ would demand a trade? And, in either case, Hill would be back to starting.

                          There seems to be this idea that "starter/bench" is some hard and absolute line and no player can be anything other than one or the other. A starter for one team could be nothing more than a serviceable backup on the other based on the style of play and the other players on the floor.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                            It depends on how the returning starters execute offensively. If they struggle as much as they did sometimes last year, then he could at least become a finisher, if not a starter. But if Hill does show improvement and/or the others get better at working the ball around with one another, then I'd just stick with those in place. Something interesting to look for.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              ???

                              Do you mean NEXT season or do you mean DJ would demand a trade? And, in either case, Hill would be back to starting.
                              At the end of this season. DJ only signed for one year.

                              There seems to be this idea that "starter/bench" is some hard and absolute line and no player can be anything other than one or the other. A starter for one team could be nothing more than a serviceable backup on the other based on the style of play and the other players on the floor.
                              Not at all. While I'm excited to have DJ, it is not a good thing that your 8 mill a year guy can't beat him out for starting PG. I'm not saying Hill wouldn't slide back into his role as a starter, but I would be concerned spending that much on a guy who isn't better than DJ.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Hibberts respond to DJ versus DC

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                So DC was brought here specifically because he would be good at running JOB's system? That isn't true. As soon as we acquired him I remember posting that JOB was going to have to change the offense or DC wasn't going to be successful. I mean it doesn't matter now, but DC was never JOB's type of point guard that fit best in his system.

                                Sorry, but for the record I wasn't the one who first brought up JOB in this thread.

                                While it is technically true that Collison was injured and while he was unable to play George Hill came in a took the starting job away from him, but really it was rather obvious that the team was much better with Hill as the starter. So whether he was replaced while injured or a little later, it was going to happen . I would argue if Hill hadn't missed a good chunk of the middle part of the season with his own injuries he would have replaced DC 30 games earlier
                                That was my prediction.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X