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

Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

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

  • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

    Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
    If you were PG you'd leave? Well, I don't know PG personally but he seemed pretty damn happy about us getting Ellis.... In-fact I would be really damn happy if I were PG because this signing means he doesn't have to do everything or score 25 ppg for us to be good. Ellis takes a huge load off of PG's back while disabling the defense from focusing on him the whole time.
    FWIW Top doesn't like anything the Pacers do, even win. Take this with a grain of salt.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

      Total speculation I know but how many minutes a game does the board think Hill & Monta will actually play together? I'm on the fence and am leaning toward the opinion that the defensive concerns may dictate this more so than the fit on offense. I question how well they can coexist on the defensive end and suspect against good teams at least that the two will end up playing in line-ups without the other more often than not. I especially have concerns about closing games with late game defensive stops with both Hill & Ellis on the court at the same time.

      I think the signing was overall a good one as I have always respected & appreciated Monta's talent. Having said that there are some legit questions on the defensive end and from philosophical standpoint I just don't love having two 6' 2" combo guards as our best backcourt duo.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

        Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
        FWIW Top doesn't like anything the Pacers do, even win. Take this with a grain of salt.
        I don't think that's true. I don't really know what happened, but he used to be a pretty positive poster. There's a reason he's PacersDigest "Friends" with several sunshiner types.
        Time for a new sig.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

          Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
          Total speculation I know but how many minutes a game does the board think Hill & Monta will actually play together? I'm on the fence and am leaning toward the opinion that the defensive concerns may dictate this more so than the fit on offense. I question how well they can coexist on the defensive end and suspect against good teams at least that the two will end up playing in line-ups without the other more often than not. I especially have concerns about closing games with late game defensive stops with both Hill & Ellis on the court at the same time.

          I think the signing was overall a good one as I have always respected & appreciated Monta's talent. Having said that there are some legit questions on the defensive end and from philosophical standpoint I just don't love having two 6' 2" combo guards as our best backcourt duo.
          Unless Solo makes an unexpected leap, they'll probably play together the majority of the time. I don't see it being an issue to worry about either. Monta should be able to hold his own against a team's third best perimeter player.

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

            Originally posted by Goyle View Post
            Unless Solo makes an unexpected leap, they'll probably play together the majority of the time. I don't see it being an issue to worry about either. Monta should be able to hold his own against a team's third best perimeter player.
            What would be an unexpected jump?

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              What would be an unexpected jump?
              30ppg, 8 rpg, and 5 apg would give me a little shock.
              Time for a new sig.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
                Total speculation I know but how many minutes a game does the board think Hill & Monta will actually play together? I'm on the fence and am leaning toward the opinion that the defensive concerns may dictate this more so than the fit on offense. I question how well they can coexist on the defensive end and suspect against good teams at least that the two will end up playing in line-ups without the other more often than not. I especially have concerns about closing games with late game defensive stops with both Hill & Ellis on the court at the same time.

                I think the signing was overall a good one as I have always respected & appreciated Monta's talent. Having said that there are some legit questions on the defensive end and from philosophical standpoint I just don't love having two 6' 2" combo guards as our best backcourt duo.

                Most teams don't have a lethal 1,2, and 3. Paul George and Hill will take the top two perimeter offensive options and Ellis will take the third.

                For example are you really worried about Harrison Barnes going off offensively against Ellis? Probably not.

                Also this is the way of the league nowadays. A lot of teams finish the game with two smaller guards. As long as we have some rim protection at the 5, we should be solid

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                  This is one of those situations where I wish I had a video suite and the time to go through it, because the idea that GHill slowly walks the ball up court and then fools around before passing it to someone is a crock.

                  When we are in an in-bounds situation, we move the ball up court at a similar pace to other non-run-and-gun teams - letting a big get partway up the backcourt and screen for the ballhandler, then letting the big get into position before starting the offense.

                  Now, that said, we DO take forever to get the offense started, but this is not because guys are moving and GHill is screwing around - it is because very often guys stand around waiting for some cue before they move, and then they move one (or at most 2) at a time, leading to a difficulty getting the ball to the first open guy. That is when we are NOT doing the "GHill crosses the half court and immediately gives it to Roy in the high post" before pretty much the same thing happens.

                  We've had point guards who completed an evening's pleasant liaison with the ball before reluctantly giving it to another player. GHill is not one of those, not in any way.

                  We have never been a team that runs into its half court offense - we've not had the personnel with the quickness and court vision to GET TO WHERE THE BALL IS GOING TO GO (not just to pass it), or we've had personnel who simply worked better once they got the defense set and then used defenders against themselves.

                  I have no way to prove this other than my own "eye test" - the combination of statistics to try to do anything with it would be complex, I think, and the arguments would take things off into a tangent quickly.
                  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


                  • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                    Originally posted by Goyle View Post
                    Unless Solo makes an unexpected leap, they'll probably play together the majority of the time. I don't see it being an issue to worry about either. Monta should be able to hold his own against a team's third best perimeter player.
                    I think that we will always have 1 or 2 of PG13 / GH / Solo on the floor at all times. That means that Monta and/or Miles will either be defending the 2nd or likely 3rd Player on the floor.

                    Another thing, I dont that Monta is a Player that we have to hide on the defnesive end. He may not be a great defender....but he's no Travis Deiner or anything on the defensive end.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                      Monta has a standing reach that's a half inch higher than George Hills, but Hill has 6 inches of wingspan on Ellis. Kinda weird. Maybe we can hide him on the Ariza type players and let him play the passing lanes and contest jumpers. I'd certainly try to keep him off the ball as much as possible.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

                        For example are you really worried about Harrison Barnes going off offensively against Ellis? Probably not.
                        Does he need to go off against him to make the difference in a close game? Ellis guarding either Barnes or Iggy in the last 4-minutes of a tight game does bother me. As would having to choose between Eliis guarding Rose/Butler etc. etc.

                        GHill is a plus defender & rebounder at the 1 but the advantages diminish rapidly when he has to go against bigger wing players. I suspect good teams will be able use size and a better than average talent base to create some pretty exploitable match-ups against that backcourt. For a team like Pacers who don't have a 1st tier superstar winning tight games against the good competition comes down to late game defensive stops IMO.

                        As for the current NBA trend? What if the team makes good on its threats to play PG more minutes at the 4? I think that creates even more problems defensively on the perimeter.

                        I like the signing and think the Pacers are a better team for it. Just believe that for it to work in regards the Pacers becoming contenders again there is still a lot of work to be done personnel wise from a defensive perspective.
                        Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 07-03-2015, 03:40 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                          Bad example. Ellis will guard whomever is the weakest offensive threat. Paul and Hill would take on Rose and Butler which leaves idk.... Mike Dunleavy. I will take my chances.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                            A player like Mike Dunleavy or Kyle Korver would also be a bad matchup for Ellis because he'd run him through multiple screens. Can you really see Monta fighting through a pick set by Joakim or Horford? It's an open three waiting to happen. Barnes, on the other hand, can also post him up in addition to losing him on screens, as can Iggy or Ariza. Playing Monta as a starter opens up a whole can of worms defensively because it causes his teammates to scramble to cover for him, sending an inordinate amount of help. If our rotations aren't crisp and quick, it could easily lead to team-wide frustration and finger pointing. But I don't think Bird envisioned Monta as a bench player when he handed out that contract, nor do I think Monta would so readily accept a bench role if the reports are true about him feeling envious about Parsons' role and contract.

                            He's talented, no question. But if the pieces don't mesh, it's not always the most talented team that wins in the end.
                            2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                              Clearly the slow, plodding offense is now a thing of the past. That cannot possibly be our style with Hill, Ellis and PG getting so many minutes. I just hope we find a way to move Hibbert and get a defensive specialist that also has some ability to run the floor.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers agree to deal with Monta Ellis

                                I think with Ellis you have to take the good with the bad. He's not a defensive specialist but he's not going to guard the other team's best scorer. There is no way he will be on Korver for any length of time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X