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

Interesting FB post from George Hill

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

  • #16
    Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

    George Hill and drama are two of the last things I would put together. Maybe he has a dramatic aspect to his personal life, but in his basketball life there is very little drama.

    Also a bit hypocritical to call George Hill drama tiring when you are one of the biggest Lance Stephenson fans.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

      As for the Facebook post, big deal. Doesn't have any bearing, positively or negatively, on how I view Hill on or off the court.

      As for preferring Hill over Ellis or Ellis over Hill, if you are saying that Ellis being here puts Hill in a corner, then I'd say the Pacers took a step backwards. In order for the team to be as good as it is capable of being this coming season, we need for both players to be at their best. And that means that we need both of them to be very aggressive with the ball as opportunities present themselves. If we have one being aggressive and the other being passive, then we will never reach our potential.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

        Originally posted by LG33 View Post
        You like to upset people, don't you?
        I believe the internet term for it is "trolling".

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

          George Hill, someone who basically has been nothing but a consummate professional while playing for the Pacers and goes out and does whatever the coaching staff asks him to do, is now being labeled a "drama queen". This place has officially lost its mind.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

            If there's a guard or forward who should be more spot up shooting in our starting lineup, it's Paul George and not George Hill. Ignore me though, because I'm sure it makes perfect sense to place the player who can actually dribble the ball, penetrate, and get to the rim easier move to a more spot up shooting role instead of the player who has less handling ability and is coming off a leg injury.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I believe the internet term for it is "trolling".
              I would like the percentage of people outside Indiana and IUPUI who think George Hill is better than Monta Ellis. I am pretty sure that percentage would be in the single digits.

              Also, not saying you are a George Hill homer...but a George Hill homer is going to think this kind of talk is trolling...

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                It's not even close offensively. Monta Ellis is as close as we are getting to Russell Westbrook. Defensively, Hill is better. But not many, including the people drafting the very fair contract for Ellis, agrees with you. It's ok though...because on PD you have some who actually do believe that.
                Monta has proven over the course of his career that he is better offensively than G3, but most would likely argue that G3 is more valuable to this particular team during this particular season than Monta.

                Also, it's not fair to compare a contract signed in 2015 to a contract signed in 2011 as an argument to why Monta is better than G3. But while we're at it, we gave a 5 year contract to a late 1st round player with career averages at the time of roughly 10 3 and 3. That shows some confidence in a player, I believe.

                And stop bringing up Russell Westbrook. He was a Top 5 pick who is also a 4 time 2nd team All-NBA player. Not to mention, he plays for OKC. Neither of these guys we're discussing on the Pacers are on the same level as Russell Westbrook and I would hope 100% of everybody agree with that so there is no need to toss his name out there.

                I hope Monta is better than George Hill. And I hope we re-sign George Hill in the neighborhood of $10-12 million per year when the time comes to negotiate a contract.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                  I recall this coming up when people thought Granger would start over Lance. Then when Hill was sat in the corner in favor of Lance, people took issue with that.

                  I have some news. It's going to happen again and Monta Ellis is going to be the reason. I don't get this need for George Hill to play a leading roll when you have PG24 and Monta who are both more gifted offensive players.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                    Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                    This place has officially lost its mind.
                    I don't think this place was what you would consider sane in the first place.
                    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                      Holy f**k. It's a FB meme posted by a hundred thousand people. But if course GHill posting it means he Has Teh Hatzez.

                      Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Not at all. I would think people would be excited to have one of the best SG's in the league starting for us next year. I like George as a player. I really do. He's just not as good as Monta wouldn't you agree.

                        Also, why wouldn't you want George shooting 3's instead of Monta? George is better at it. A lot better.

                        The issue I have is that some people think George is Russell Westbrook and should have his number called over Paul George and Monta Ellis. I don't consider that to be rational.
                        Originally posted by Ozwalt72 View Post
                        Nope. George Hill is a better basketball player than Monta Ellis. More efficient, less turnover prone, much better on defense.

                        Not that Monta isn't a good player, he is. He has an exceptional ability to get his own shot. He's just not a better player than George Hill.
                        The thing is....both of you are right.

                        Why is it unusual to think that both are Good Players in their own right?

                        GH is definitely a far better efficient Guard than Monta is when it comes to running the offense and not turning the ball over.....as well as being much better on the defensive end. The problem is that he's not as good as Monta is when it comes to scoring the ball.

                        One is better than the other at doing certain things....and vice versa.

                        I think that the offense should run through the 3 of GH, Monta and PG13 equally ( when all 3 are on the floor ). That doesn't mean that I want GH to always default to that position when he's on the floor with Monta and PG13, IMHO....I think that it's an incredible waste of and inefficient use talent while going back to running a turnover prone Starting lineup. I just think that there should be a balance where GH isn't the guy that ALWAYS has to play off the ball.

                        Maybe it should simply be based off of the situation.....when there's a need during the game for "slow and steady", have the offense flow more through GH. When there's a need for a more aggressive offense with a "pedal to the metal" mentality.....maybe it's better to have the offense flow through Monta and PG13.

                        Just be prepared for the high number of turnovers.

                        One related question though...and it's more a general question and not a criticism. I know that PG13 is the face of the franchise. But does he have the skillset now to be able to run the offense completely through him as a #1 scoring option? I'm more concerned about his high turnover rate. I know that it's normal for all Franchise Level Players to have high turnovers....but I don't know if his offensive skillsets are at the same level as other Franchise Level Scorers ( like Curry, KD, Harden or Lebron ). Maybe more on the same level as someone like Klay Thompson...at least for now.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 08-30-2015, 07:03 PM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          I would like the percentage of people outside Indiana and IUPUI who think George Hill is better than Monta Ellis. I am pretty sure that percentage would be in the single digits.

                          Also, not saying you are a George Hill homer...but a George Hill homer is going to think this kind of talk is trolling...
                          But that's the thing......comparing GH to Monta is like comparing Oranges to Apples......both bring different skillsets to the table.

                          Down by 3....if you had to pick one Player between GH and Monta to hit a 3pt shot at the end of a game? Who'd you pick?

                          Down by 2....if you had to pick one Player between GH and Monta to hit a 2pt shot at the end of a game? Who'd you pick?

                          One is simply better than the other at certain skills and areas. To me...one isn't better than the other.....it just depends on what you are looking for in your Guard.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                            Before we get to determining which of our likely starting Guards are better than the other in the system FV wants to run this season, let's see if they play well together or if they're better with one of them coming off the bench replacing the other.
                            Personally, I'm a little excited to see this group lace up and play together for a few minutes that I am about who gets the corner 3 and who gets to set the plays. I hope the playmaker decision will fall on Frank and he will keep the yo-yo dribbling, ball hogging, one on one down. The Pacers, like most other teams are better when they move the ball and the defense, not Hero Ball.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                              Monta was making 11M/yr his 4th year in the league. He is currently underpaid by NBA standards and still makes more than George. On the other hand, Hill was fighting Darren Collison for a starting position not that long ago. It's not a vast difference but IMO a clear one.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Interesting FB post from George Hill

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Totally agree. I like his game too...but the drama is tiring. I'm just glad he'll be headed back to the corner now that Monta is a Pacer.
                                I suspect Hill's new game will be very reminiscent of Brandon Rush as an occasional passer and on the ball defender whose primary offensive weapon will be reduced to the corner 3 as it was when Popovich was frustrated with him for his lack of offensive aggressiveness. I also believe that he will move on to greener pastures at the trade deadline due to mutual frustration on both his and Bird's parts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X