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

  • Re: The George Hill Trade

    Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    I'm not a big believer in individual offensive and defensive rating. It doesn't do many of the adjustments to filter out the noise like box plus/minus does.

    But if you are going to look at that, it should also be noted that Hill's offensive rating has easily been the best of any Pacer over the last few years. He got beat by Mahinmi last year, but every other year he was the top regular in offensive rating, and most years it wasn't even close.
    It's noted! Guys like GHill are great to have on the court. Korver for instance led the Hawks in offensive rating, BUT that doesn't mean he is the best offensive player.

    Can we agree that a great defensive player will usually be around the top of a team in defensive rating at least one year, while that might not be the case for offense?

    Comment


    • Re: The George Hill Trade

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      GHill defensive rating here was never good.
      Seriously? Unless you think 102, for one example, isn't "good" this statement is ridiculous.



      And please, please, please try to argue that 102 isn't any good.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: The George Hill Trade

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Okay but what about his offensive rating being much better? (9th in the league in fact)

        You seem to think that individual ratings tell the story of effectiveness on each side of the ball, so why isn't Teague's offensive rating much better than George's If Teague is so much better on offense?
        Lol, I answered that below.

        I'll add that I clearly don't think rating tell the entire story, as I don't think GHill is a bad defender. I just think it's a small piece of a bigger puzzle, that GHill isn't a big leap from Teague in the defense category. Especially not a large enough gap to supplement Teague's playmaking.

        Comment


        • Re: The George Hill Trade

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Seriously? Unless you think 102, for one example, isn't "good" this statement is ridiculous.


          And please, please, please try to argue that 102 isn't any good.
          If you read the entire post, GHill was never above our team average. SO while 102 is good for the league, it was worse than the team usually did that year, which is not good.

          Comment


          • Re: The George Hill Trade

            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
            I just want to reiterate nothing is being said that isn't being said in the local Utah media, message boards and twitter...





            And maybe someone who has watched more Jazz than me can answer this. Do the injury issues have something to do with this and lack of depth...

            I mean you can search twitter and find a bunch of noise on anyone during most any game. I was also cursing at the TV because George kept missing shots he normally hits the last two games.

            Quin can't put in Mack, Neto, or Exum for more than 6 minutes before the team find itself in a hole.

            Comment


            • Re: The George Hill Trade

              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
              If you read the entire post, GHill was never above our team average. SO while 102 is good for the league, it was worse than the team usually did that year, which is not good.
              I read it. You said Hill's defensive rating was never good. Saying he didn't lead the team, and saying he was never good, are two completely different statements that have nothing to do with each other.

              Saying Hill never had a good defensive rating is absolutely ridiculous. Either you don't know what a "good" defensive rating is, you don't know what Hill's defrtg with Indiana was, or you're lying. Pick one.

              You can end it all right here and now by admitting 102 is good, and that particular statement is ridiculous. Or you can defend it, and shown how absolutely stupid that statement is with one relative ranking.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: The George Hill Trade

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                I read it. You said Hill's defensive rating was never good. Saying he didn't lead the team, and saying he was never good, are two completely different statements that have nothing to do with each other.

                Saying Hill never had a good defensive rating is absolutely ridiculous. Either you don't know what a "good" defensive rating is, you don't know what Hill's defrtg with Indiana was, or you're lying. Pick one.
                Look, I explained it wasn't good for that team. When Hill was on the court, the defense was below our average according to the rating. You think I still can't say it wasn't good? Great, agree to disagree. Move on.

                Comment


                • Re: The George Hill Trade

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  I mean you can search twitter and find a bunch of noise on anyone during most any game. I was also cursing at the TV because George kept missing shots he normally hits the last two games.

                  Quin can't put in Mack, Neto, or Exum for more than 6 minutes before the team find itself in a hole.
                  For sure, I'm just saying GHill's defense is being questioned because he got tourched by Elfrid and Bledsoe in back to back games. For a team trying to make a deep playoff run in the West and GHill defense being a big part of that, is it not fair to question how much of a factor his defense will be?

                  Comment


                  • Re: The George Hill Trade

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    Look, I explained it wasn't good for that team. When Hill was on the court, the defense was below our average according to the rating. You think I still can't say it wasn't good? Great, agree to disagree. Move on.
                    102 isn't good for the team?

                    Hill was ranked 19th in the entire NBA at one point. All five starters were top 20, and you're going to argue that Hill was "never good" because the rest of the squad (along with him) was flat out outstanding?

                    This is a perfect example of you taking something, and twisting it in to the most negative light you possibly can in order to get points. It's moronic to suggest Hill never had a good defensive rating, regardless of whatever qualifiers you put on it.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The George Hill Trade

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      Okay I tried staying out of it but this is silly.

                      We've already debunked the argument that Conley or Harden "killed" Hill offensively. Both had nice games, but they're also very good players. Not to mention Hill wasn't Harden's primary defender.

                      The lower your defensive rating, the better. So even if Hill is slipping defensively (more on that in a second) he's still better than Teague.

                      Utah has 5 players in the top 40 in defensive rating. Indiana? 1. Hell Indiana has 2 players in the top 60. Not a good way to compare there.

                      Also, Hill's offensive rating and PER are better than Jeff's. You'll argue that's due to sample size, yet back off that idea when talking about defensive rating?Consistency gentlemen.

                      None of Hill's supporters said he was elite defensively. He's good, better than Teague, but not elite. Bledsoe did major punishment last night. Hill was able to make him pay on the other end, but could have had an even bigger game had he knocked down a few open 3s. Even his biggest detractors can't think he would shoot that poorly.

                      Nobody expected him to shoot 55% from the field and 3 for the entire season. But even as his percentages come back to Earth, his production is still there.

                      He's "struggled" recently to the tune of 17, 4 and 4 on 43% and 40% from 3 from his last 6. And even with that, he's still second among points in TS%.

                      You guys are crazy to try and make it seem like his production is pummeling and that he's getting blitzed defensively on a nightly basis. He's had two games where opposing PGs scored on him, and yet he still has one of the best defensive ratings for point guards.

                      Edit: better defensive ratings among starters


                      Let's see, Bledsoe vs Teague 1st game: 6, 2 assists and 3 rebounds, Teague made him look so bad Bledsoe got benched that game.

                      2nd game: 15, 4 assists and 3 rebounds, better but nothing close to what he got vs Hill, the evidence keeps proving Teague is the better defender and is not even close my guy.
                      Last edited by vnzla81; 01-17-2017, 12:21 PM.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: The George Hill Trade

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        102 isn't good for the team?

                        Hill was ranked 19th in the entire NBA at one point. All five starters were top 20, and you're going to argue that Hill was "never good" because the rest of the squad (along with him) was flat out outstanding?

                        This is a perfect example of you taking something, and twisting it in to the most negative light you possibly can in order to get points. It's moronic to suggest Hill never had a good defensive rating, regardless of whatever qualifiers you put on it.
                        First off, I said it was a small piece of the puzzle. Weird that someone who played with the best defenders and was supposedly one of our best defenders never ranked with our best defenders in rating.

                        According to defensive rating,he was average at best for that team, because yes, the team was that good. Average isn't good.

                        This is a good example of using a bunch of smiley faces and insults just because a stat disagrees with you, instead of just accepting it. I'm not debating if GHill is a good defender or not, I think he is a good defender. I'm saying a fact, on that Pacer team, GHill's defensive rating rank for that team was not good, period.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The George Hill Trade

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          I mean you can search twitter and find a bunch of noise on anyone during most any game. I was also cursing at the TV because George kept missing shots he normally hits the last two games.

                          Quin can't put in Mack, Neto, or Exum for more than 6 minutes before the team find itself in a hole.
                          He did put Exum in when Hill was getting torched by Payton but he couldn't do **** either(ended up putting Hayward on him).
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Re: The George Hill Trade

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            This is a good example of using a bunch of smiley faces and insults just because a stat disagrees with you, instead of just accepting it. I'm not debating if GHill is a good defender or not, I think he is a good defender. I'm saying a fact, on that Pacer team, GHill's defensive rating rank for that team was not good, period.
                            The stats don't disagree with me. You're trying to use them in such a narrow fashion to support your ridiculous statement. I'll continue with the laughing smileys because it might be the dumbest thing said in 32 pages worth of dumbness.

                            You think stats backup you up when his defensive ranking was top 20 in a league of over 400 players.


                            I'll get back to just reading this stupidity and laughing in internet silence. #1 defrtg in the league for PGs, but it's not any good because he wasn't at the top of his team.
                            Last edited by Since86; 01-17-2017, 12:27 PM.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The George Hill Trade

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              The stats don't disagree with me. You're trying to use them in such a narrow fashion to support your ridiculous statement. I'll continue with the laughing smileys because it might be the dumbest thing said in 32 pages worth of dumbness.

                              You think stats backup you up when his defensive ranking was top 20 in a league of over 400 players.


                              I'll get back to just reading this stupidity and laughing in internet silence.

                              Aren't those the same stats that tell us San Antonio is better with KL off the court than on the court?
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: The George Hill Trade

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                The stats don't disagree with me. You're trying to use them in such a narrow fashion to support your ridiculous statement. I'll continue with the laughing smileys because it might be the dumbest thing said in 32 pages worth of dumbness.

                                You think stats backup you up when his defensive ranking was top 20 in a league of over 400 players. :laugh;


                                I'll get back to just reading this stupidity and laughing in internet silence.
                                The only statement I made was among Pacer players, GHill defensive rating wasn't very good, which is absolutely true.

                                Please go back to "laughing in internet silence," instead of arguing points not being made and lobbing internet smileys and insults big guy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X