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

Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

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

  • #31
    Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    From Orlando?
    Whoops. Fixed that.
    This space for rent.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      No, I've been saying I want to trade a wing for a PF since the signing. I've got nothing against Stuckey and this has nothing to do with his preseason play. But if we're committed to Hill/Ellis/PG and if PG is going to end up primarily at the 3 spot, then we have too many backup wings.
      I just don't agree with your "ifs". I don't believe the Pacers are committed to Hill/ Ellis/ PG (I assume you're talking about 1-2-3) in the first place. (a) They can't afford to let PG play the three spot because they need him at the four and none of the other wings would be a credible four; (b) I tend to agree with the national media instead of the local PR spin that while Bird was active this summer, the grade was an I for incomplete. There were no legit PF FA candidates for the Pacers after David left. Bird signed the BPA vs. overpaying an average PF just because of "need". Same strategy that he should/ usually does take during the draft... same logic applies. The BPA is a tradeable asset once the moratorium lifts, and I believe this roster will struggle mightily between now and when these guys are trade-eligible which will further question the commitment to a redundant Hill/ Ellis/ Stuckey/ Young backcourt.

      This team simply must remain committed to PG as a four, not a three as you said in your post, until a legit starting caliber PF is on the roster.

      PS, looking forward to watching Young in person tonight... really hoping his game translates to the regular season fully acknowledging that preseason games are only slightly more meaningful than summer league.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

        I knew from the jump resigning Stuckey was going to be dumb

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          preseason. Most vets are playing at half speed with little mental investment
          Yeah plus Stuckey's been playing by far with the most inexperienced mix of players. He's played almost zero with any starters which in the reg season I htink we will see him getting run next to GHill or Ellis pretty much constantly.


          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

            GRIII is not going to play much this year. Even Larry basically said that when he was hyping him a week or so ago. He said he could be a year or two out just like Larry viewed Lance basically so his minutes will go elsewhere once the season kick off. Joe Young is also not going to play as much as I think some people think. He is a scoring machine so I have high hopes, but he is also bogging the offense badly when he's not hitting because simply he does not run our sets well. He will become a better passer as he grows, but if you think we're kicking off the regular season with Young playing 18 MPG behind Hill then you should probably adjust your expectations. I think Young will get probably around 8 MPG or less and it will typically be at the end of quarters probably in situations where you're just looking to score a quick bucket or two rather than actually run an offensive set.

            Because even though the Pacers have picked up the pace, it's obvious from watching the Detroit game that Frank is still running lots of sets and Hill and Ellis were way more comfortable in those situations than Young. Rodney has also been doing a ton of deferring to Young and the other young'ns when he's out there which I think is probably the right move, we need those guys getting reps now way more than Rodney.


            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

              The Pacers are not trading Stuckey. Not only did they re-sign him this off season, they made moves to free up money to make him a reasonable offer.

              I agree the Pacers need to find minutes for Young and Bird has said himself that he expects Young to contribute this year. We just need to be patient, he'll get minutes. If the George at the 4 works even well enough for him to split time 18 minutes at the 4 and 18 minutes at the 3 that free up roughly 60 minutes among the 1, 2 and 3 spots. Right now Stuckey, Miles and Budinger will most likely take those minutes, but as we all know, Budinger is an injury waiting to happen. Miles has also averaged missing 15 games per year. There should be 30-40 games where Young can get significant minutes.

              In the off season, if we let Budinger and Solo walk, Young should be able to slide in and get 15-20 minutes per game next year. That's assuming we don't make any trades.

              GRIII is not ready for the NBA. He should spend most of this season in Fort Wayne. Maybe next year he can be with the Pacers and ride the bench. The season after that is when his time will come. Ellis, Stuckey and Miles will all be on the last year of their contracts. That is the most likely time a move will be made....assuming these young guys develop.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                This team simply must remain committed to PG as a four, not a three as you said in your post, until a legit starting caliber PF is on the roster.
                I didn't see last night's game, but was it not consensus that PG spent all of his time guarding the three? If the forwards are interchangeable on offense and PG guards the best perimeter threat on defense, then in what sense is he a four?
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  I didn't see last night's game, but was it not consensus that PG spent all of his time guarding the three? If the forwards are interchangeable on offense and PG guards the best perimeter threat on defense, then in what sense is he a four?
                  You're basing that on a preseason game in which the Pistons had 9 DNP's? Do the Pistons even have a four? Other than Drummond, who's obviously superior to all our front court guys, the rest of their front court is even thinner than ours.

                  I'm basing it on our roster. Who else is going to play that position against starting caliber PFs? Yes I realize that you can answer with names like Allen, Jordan Hill, Christmas, etc. and I'm saying, "Yuck, give me PG out of position over that mess."
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                    You're basing that on a preseason game in which the Pistons had 9 DNP's? Do the Pistons even have a four? Other than Drummond, who's obviously superior to all our front court guys, the rest of their front court is even thinner than ours.

                    I'm basing it on our roster. Who else is going to play that position against starting caliber PFs? Yes I realize that you can answer with names like Allen, Jordan Hill, Christmas, etc. and I'm saying, "Yuck, give me PG out of position over that mess."
                    I don't care about the Pistons. But when PG pushed back in public after the first game, Vogel said he'd continue to defend the best perimeter threat. Next game PG spent all of his time doing that. Without PG, who's defending quality wing scorers? Chase Budinger? CJ Miles? Monta Ellis?

                    If you could move Stuckey for decent backup PF, then you run Mahinmi-Hill and Turner-XXX as your starting and backup big men. PG plays the three, Monta plays the two, nobody gets hurt.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      I don't care about the Pistons. But when PG pushed back in public after the first game, Vogel said he'd continue to defend the best perimeter threat. Next game PG spent all of his time doing that. Without PG, who's defending quality wing scorers? Chase Budinger? CJ Miles? Monta Ellis?

                      If you could move Stuckey for decent backup PF, then you run Mahinmi-Hill and Turner-XXX as your starting and backup big men. PG plays the three, Monta plays the two, nobody gets hurt.
                      I'm not paying any attention to the media game around this. I don't know much of what PG said and paid even less attention to the response because it was all a PC game/ public relations spin anyway.

                      We don't need to move anybody for a decent backup PF, though. Between Lavoy, Shane, Xmas, JHill, etc. we have plenty of decent backups at that position but no starter other than PG. No reason to trade Stuckey or anyone as that just shifts the unbalance of the roster to more backup PFs that shouldn't play more than 10-12 mpg. Having four of those 12mpg backups doesn't make a good PF rotation, even though you can cover all 48 minutes of a game.

                      The conversation could be different if you could trade CJ Miles for a starter. But you can't. You keep leaving him out but he's your starting SF.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                        Originally posted by funk31 View Post
                        why trade Stuckey? he is better than chuker CJ Miles by every category?
                        CJ is my vote to be traded if anyone. Not a fan of Solo, but think that health reasons with CJ that he brings more to the team. If the PG-13 at PF ever gets axed, CJ just doesn't fit.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                          Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                          We don't need to move anybody for a decent backup PF, though. Between Lavoy, Shane, Xmas, JHill, etc. we have plenty of decent backups at that position but no starter other than PG.
                          I don't think it makes sense to put Jordan Hill on the same level as Shane, LaVoy, and Christmas. Despite his obvious flaws, he's got to be a step up from those guys.

                          The conversation could be different if you could trade CJ Miles for a starter. But you can't. You keep leaving him out but he's your starting SF.
                          I'm not leaving him out, I see him as a high-quality bench scorer that you can mix and match with Monta and Ellis. Those three guys can eat all of the wing minutes, with Solo getting spot minutes and Chase/GR3 as emergency backups. But that leaves Stuckey without a role, which is why I think it makes sense to move him for a PF.

                          If you think it makes more sense to move CJ and keep Stuckey, then I can see where you're coming from. I like a 3-man wing of PG/Monta/CJ better than PG/Monta/Stuckey, because I think you're small at the 3 when you have Monta or Stuckey there. But maybe you use Stuckey exclusively in the backcourt and let Solo or Chase take the backup 3 minutes? Sure, I'd be fine with that.

                          But either Stuckey or CJ needs to get moved for a PF. We have a big gaping hole there and we're overloaded at the wing.
                          Last edited by Anthem; 10-08-2015, 12:40 PM.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            I don't care about the Pistons. But when PG pushed back in public after the first game, Vogel said he'd continue to defend the best perimeter threat. Next game PG spent all of his time doing that. Without PG, who's defending quality wing scorers? Chase Budinger? CJ Miles? Monta Ellis?

                            If you could move Stuckey for decent backup PF, then you run Mahinmi-Hill and Turner-XXX as your starting and backup big men. PG plays the three, Monta plays the two, nobody gets hurt.

                            I think Allen next to Turner would be a good combo. But for some reason the Pacers continue to play Allen as a Center. He clearly is not comfortable there and doesn't play well. When placed in the PF position is when he has his better games.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              I don't think it makes sense to put Jordan Hill on the same level as Shane, LaVoy, and Christmas. Despite his obvious flaws, he's got to be a step up from those guys.
                              I'm not so sure about that. Too many obvious flaws.

                              But either Stuckey or CJ needs to get moved for a PF. We have a big gaping hole there and we're overloaded at the wing.
                              I'll agree that [one of Stuckey, Ellis, or CJ] needs to get moved for a PF. And one of those three can net a starting caliber PF and the other two would net a PF that would still leave PG as our best option at the PF position.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Gotta figure we're trading Stuckey, right?

                                If we trade anyone I hope it is Ellis. For two simple reasons. First he will bring back the most talent. Second Hill is just as good as him, and Stuckey is only a slight step below him. With both him and Hill on the team we won't be taking full advantage of one or both of their abilities, unless Paul George is willing to become more of a spot up shooter which might be a good thing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X