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

The George Hill Trade

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: The George Hill Trade

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    Markieff Morris should he be acquired could actually play center for us when you look at how our team is structured. He's only 1 inch shorter than Ian, but weighs 10+ pounds more than Ian does.
    New PD drinking game I'm going to start playing: Take a shot every time Grimp mentions Markieff Morris. You talk about him more than you do any actual Pacer.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: The George Hill Trade

      I believe I'll wait to see how this season plays out before I suggest we start making changes. I rather like this team.
      Go Pacers!

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The George Hill Trade

        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
        Markieff Morris should he be acquired could actually play center for us when you look at how our team is structured. He's only 1 inch shorter than Ian, but weighs 10+ pounds more than Ian does.
        Markieff Morris is actually an interesting prospect. There are a lot of pros to bringing him here, but there are also a lot of cons.

        Coming out of college, Markieff was actually a prospect that I liked a lot. He had some good size and some skills that could molded on the next level. Then he ended up in Phoenix. Not that Markieff has been bad, he hasn't, but he has just been in a different situation than I feel like would have been best for him. I think you'd be seeing a much better player had he been with us from the start.

        That brings us to a few questions. For one, could we get him to be the player we would want him to be? Would he be willing to adapt to the role we would want him to play? He seems to be a pretty immature guy, so that kinda worries me as well. Right now, we could trade Budinger and Solo for Markeiff to get the salaries to match. We really wouldn't be giving up much and it would allow GR3 to be in the rotation, which a lot of us would like anyway. The problem with that is, I doubt the Suns want to give him away for just a salary dump and I don't think he'd be worth giving up a 1st round pick for when you consider his new salary kicks in next year and takes away a lot of our valuable cap space.

        I like Markeiff and feel like he could be a great option for us at PF, just not at the price to get him mixed with his salary.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: The George Hill Trade

          Originally posted by BobbyMac View Post
          I believe I'll wait to see how this season plays out before I suggest we start making changes. I rather like this team.
          I love this team. This team is not ready to compete for a Championship though. I'd rather do what we can to get us there, rather than wait for the development of our young guys. I'm not talking about making any big changes, I'm talking about using our 1st as a trade chip to add someone - not trade key members.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: The George Hill Trade

            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
            I know you are not saying him specifically, but I don't want Bargnani or anyone like him anywhere remotely close to our roster. He plays a bad brand of basketball and is absolutely horrid at defense.

            Markeiff Morris would be interesting, but I'd prefer him at PF with Turner at Center.


            I agree with your views on Bargani's b-ball IQ but I mean his positional ability. He can play the 4 or the 5. So getting someone who can do that would be optimal.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: The George Hill Trade

              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              Markieff Morris is actually an interesting prospect. There are a lot of pros to bringing him here, but there are also a lot of cons.

              Coming out of college, Markieff was actually a prospect that I liked a lot. He had some good size and some skills that could molded on the next level. Then he ended up in Phoenix. Not that Markieff has been bad, he hasn't, but he has just been in a different situation than I feel like would have been best for him. I think you'd be seeing a much better player had he been with us from the start.

              That brings us to a few questions. For one, could we get him to be the player we would want him to be? Would he be willing to adapt to the role we would want him to play? He seems to be a pretty immature guy, so that kinda worries me as well. Right now, we could trade Budinger and Solo for Markeiff to get the salaries to match. We really wouldn't be giving up much and it would allow GR3 to be in the rotation, which a lot of us would like anyway. The problem with that is, I doubt the Suns want to give him away for just a salary dump and I don't think he'd be worth giving up a 1st round pick for when you consider his new salary kicks in next year and takes away a lot of our valuable cap space.

              I like Markeiff and feel like he could be a great option for us at PF, just not at the price to get him mixed with his salary.


              I imagine to get him you'd need to trade a future 1st. I'd be willing to do that if it's anything after 2017. 2018 (singular), 2019 (singular), or 2020 (singular). Not our 2016 or 2017 though. I think Markieff would be happy to be on a contender plus out of Phoenix. A very serious bridge was burned between him and management. Can't be repaired. If the Suns want more pieces or a particular piece that's what 3 team deals are for. I think Boston actually would be a nice third team to deal with. They have pieces the Suns would want also. Plus all those picks.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: The George Hill Trade

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                New PD drinking game I'm going to start playing: Take a shot every time Grimp mentions Markieff Morris. You talk about him more than you do any actual Pacer.
                With our new style and roster I think he's one of the few players that fits very nicely here. Normally it would be a pipe dream but with him WANTING out of Phoenix that pretty much increases their probability of trading him. I can think of players better than him but none are available. But our center position is the weakest link and in order to seriously contend or upset this season Ian at center is a liability imo. Mostly because he doesn't do any one thing great.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The George Hill Trade

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  With our new style and roster I think he's one of the few players that fits very nicely here. Normally it would be a pipe dream but with him WANTING out of Phoenix that pretty much increases their probability of trading him. I can think of players better than him but none are available. But our center position is the weakest link and in order to seriously contend or upset this season Ian at center is a liability imo. Mostly because he doesn't do any one thing great.
                  I know. I read your posts. You have made your feelings on Markieff Morris abundantly clear. Hence the drinking game.

                  Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hate on the idea. I actually think Kieff would be a nice fit with the Pacers depending on what it took to acquire his services.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: The George Hill Trade

                    Originally posted by sav View Post
                    I agree. Monta is a border line all-star with a career scoring average over 18. You can't get much more out of a second option.

                    It would be nice if we could upgrade at PF, but I don't see anyone out there at this time...and I mean anywhere. Draft, Free Agency or even via trade.
                    If you look at most of the teams that have won championships, they're #2 options are perennial all star type of players, OR they have a team with two or three Monta Ellis types (guys that excel in one specific skill at a high level; IE scoring, shooting, etc)

                    I think if Monta is our "number two", then we definitely need to fill out the rest of the roster with players who compliment us and are similarly tiered/talented/productive players (borderline All Star types) If not, then he would be better served as a number three option (again if we are talking about truly contending)

                    But outside of a few games, we have yet to see that Monta Ellis on this team. So we are talking in hypotheticals at this point.
                    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 11-26-2015, 04:43 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: The George Hill Trade

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      New PD drinking game I'm going to start playing: Take a shot every time Grimp mentions Markieff Morris. You talk about him more than you do any actual Pacer.
                      Between the off season incident, his trade demands and his brother outplaying him, this is definitely not the year to be pushing the Markieff.

                      He's a guy that has some nice offensive talent, but he's not good enough to overcome his lack of rebounding and defense. I think that makes him more of an offensive guy coming off the bench type as opposed to a starter on a good team.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: The George Hill Trade

                        Batum is a UFA this Summer. GHill/Batum/PG/Miles/(Ian/Turner) with Monta the 6th man would be scary fun. Especially defensively in Vogel's hands (you'd have so many long versatile skilled players that can switch).

                        Batum is also young (for FA, would be 27), multi-skilled, good D. Just seems to fit the mold of the type of player the Pacers are trying to bring into this type of system. Might fit a little better than Gallinari (but I could see us going for one or the other... or both if one willing to come off bench with Monta, we should have the capspace).

                        Those two are probably slightly more likely than Hortford, simply because like Milsap I doubt he leaves Atlanta.

                        Yes, this approach won't give us an All Star #2 next to PG (maybe Turner in the future). But, with the sharing the ball approach we take, having at least 5 or so guys capable on any night of scoring 20+ isn't anything to sneeze at.
                        "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: The George Hill Trade

                          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                          I agree with your views on Bargani's b-ball IQ but I mean his positional ability. He can play the 4 or the 5. So getting someone who can do that would be optimal.
                          Haha, just about every big in the NBA can play the 4 And 5 better than Bargs. I get what you mean, but he is a horrid example.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The George Hill Trade

                            Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                            Batum is a UFA this Summer. GHill/Batum/PG/Miles/(Ian/Turner) with Monta the 6th man would be scary fun. Especially defensively in Vogel's hands (you'd have so many long versatile skilled players that can switch).

                            Batum is also young (for FA, would be 27), multi-skilled, good D. Just seems to fit the mold of the type of player the Pacers are trying to bring into this type of system. Might fit a little better than Gallinari (but I could see us going for one or the other... or both if one willing to come off bench with Monta, we should have the capspace).

                            Those two are probably slightly more likely than Hortford, simply because like Milsap I doubt he leaves Atlanta.

                            Yes, this approach won't give us an All Star #2 next to PG (maybe Turner in the future). But, with the sharing the ball approach we take, having at least 5 or so guys capable on any night of scoring 20+ isn't anything to sneeze at.

                            I want to play this season out. See what happens and then make a wise decision after that. Any player they bring in should be able to score and defend. Batum certainly fits that bill. The right player would and I mean just ONE player not multiple as some as suggested will make the Pacers are very real contender. I like Festus Ezeli somewhat also as a center prospect and I believe is a free agent next year. I love the chemistry on this team. It is off the charts and Monta is a big part of that. I think we are also still over looking some of the Pacers current bigs.
                            {o,o}
                            |)__)
                            -"-"-

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: The George Hill Trade

                              Originally posted by owl View Post
                              I want to play this season out. See what happens and then make a wise decision after that. Any player they bring in should be able to score and defend. Batum certainly fits that bill. The right player would and I mean just ONE player not multiple as some as suggested will make the Pacers are very real contender.
                              Agreed. That's why Batum came to mind, I think he possibly could be that one player (and fits the description of the type of players Pritchard says they want to bring in).

                              Should be interesting, but one thing I'm confident in is that Bird and Pirtchard have a plan/road-map and they won't stray from it.

                              Also agree with the let this season play out, I doubt we'll see them make much if any moves during this season. They'll let this group gel and the young guys develop to see what they have, so they'll know what they need to do in the off-season.
                              "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: The George Hill Trade

                                Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                                Batum is a UFA this Summer. GHill/Batum/PG/Miles/(Ian/Turner) with Monta the 6th man would be scary fun. Especially defensively in Vogel's hands (you'd have so many long versatile skilled players that can switch).

                                Batum is also young (for FA, would be 27), multi-skilled, good D. Just seems to fit the mold of the type of player the Pacers are trying to bring into this type of system. Might fit a little better than Gallinari (but I could see us going for one or the other... or both if one willing to come off bench with Monta, we should have the capspace).

                                Those two are probably slightly more likely than Hortford, simply because like Milsap I doubt he leaves Atlanta.

                                Yes, this approach won't give us an All Star #2 next to PG (maybe Turner in the future). But, with the sharing the ball approach we take, having at least 5 or so guys capable on any night of scoring 20+ isn't anything to sneeze at.
                                If you get Batum that means CJ Miles or Monta come off the bench. Not sure either would be happy about that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X