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

{RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

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

  • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    Monta hasn't been all that involved/engaged since the Denver game
    I am not a fan of Monta or his game, never have been. Would love to get something in return for him.

    Comment


    • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      Earl Watson has been showcasing him....and he's been averaging 17ppg/6rpg on 43% shooting. I'd consider trading for him if all it costs was Chase + Stuckey or Lavoy.
      A guy who is a headcase like that? No thanks.

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      Not that it would happen....but I mentioned it earlier. If the Hawks were willing to swap Korver for CJ....would you do it?

      2015-2016 Korver may suck more than the Legend of Korver that we are all familiar with....but this season's version of Korver is still a better 3pt specialist than CJ Miles is.
      No question. CJ is the worst player on this team. Korver hits open 3's even if he does nothing else. I don't see any way the Hawks are interested unless the Pacers threw in a first, which would be a terrible idea. We need to be in the talent acquisition phase. Guys like Korver (and CJ) fall into the "missing piece phase" category. Save that for next yr or the year after.

      Comment


      • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        You've said that Teague is a better point, and then here you're talking about PnR's and how GHill isn't a very good point, together. So it seems like you're implying better PG's are better at running PnR's right?

        The ironic part about that theory.....GHill is better as a PnR ballhandler than Teague this year.

        http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/bal...meAbbreviation

        Teague is in the 49.6 percentile, while Hill is in the 56.4percentile. Pacers score 35.7% of the time with GHill and turn the ball over 11.4% of the time. ATL scores 37% of the time with Teague, but turn the ball over 16.9% of the time. Pacers get .8pts per PnR possession with GHill handling the ball, ATL scores .76.



        I think this is the case where we don't see GHill do something a lot, so the assumption is he isn't very good at it while we see Teague do it all the time, and think he's good at it. GHill is slightly better than average, Teague is pretty much average in PnR situations.

        Pacers as whole squad is actually better in the PnR than the Hawks.
        http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/bal...m&OD=offensive
        Just like my reply, this will probably not be addressed. Not to mention, Teague has better pick n roll or pop pieces around him usually.

        Comment


        • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          You've said that Teague is a better point, and then here you're talking about PnR's and how GHill isn't a very good point, together. So it seems like you're implying better PG's are better at running PnR's right?

          The ironic part about that theory.....GHill is better as a PnR ballhandler than Teague this year.

          http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/bal...meAbbreviation

          Teague is in the 49.6 percentile, while Hill is in the 56.4percentile. Pacers score 35.7% of the time with GHill and turn the ball over 11.4% of the time. ATL scores 37% of the time with Teague, but turn the ball over 16.9% of the time. Pacers get .8pts per PnR possession with GHill handling the ball, ATL scores .76.



          I think this is the case where we don't see GHill do something a lot, so the assumption is he isn't very good at it while we see Teague do it all the time, and think he's good at it. GHill is slightly better than average, Teague is pretty much average in PnR situations.

          Pacers as whole squad is actually better in the PnR than the Hawks.
          http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/bal...m&OD=offensive
          You are not following. Teague's value isn't PnR so much. It's assists where he kills GHill. I'm explaining why GHill's best attributes are muffled when he starts, not that Teague is better at whatever GHill is good at in terms of point skills which involves more than PnR.

          Comment


          • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

            Originally posted by Ichi View Post
            Just like my reply, this will probably not be addressed. Not to mention, Teague has better pick n roll or pop pieces around him usually.
            Wanna bet? There's a good reason why Teague is an all-star and GHill isn't. I realize PacerDigest loves George. I like his game.

            Comment


            • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

              Originally posted by Ichi View Post
              What? I said we need a good catch and shoot guy, and that will open up Hill being able to run the offense and pick and roll successfully.
              Hill isn't running any offenses, which is the issue with him. They wouldn't be shopping him if he did that well. He does most everything else very good and he is a very good player. But they are looking at Teague because he's a better point. Assists...do I really have to point that out?

              Comment


              • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Hill isn't running any offenses, which is the issue with him. They wouldn't be shopping him if he did that well. He does most everything else very good and he is a very good player. But they are looking at Teague because he's a better point. Assists...do I really have to point that out?
                So since the Hawks turned down the initial offer of Hill for Teague if you were GM what would you be willing to add to sweeten the pot?

                Comment


                • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  So since the Hawks turned down the initial offer of Hill for Teague if you were GM what would you be willing to add to sweeten the pot?
                  Nothing. You walk away.

                  Comment


                  • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Nothing. You walk away.
                    I'd throw in Christmas. Or GRIII or maybe Stuckey. No picks. Unless it's a 2nd rounder. If they want Myles to get the deal done? Then it changes the complexion of the trade. I'd offer Myles if we get back Horford and their 2016 1st.

                    Comment


                    • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      So since the Hawks turned down the initial offer of Hill for Teague if you were GM what would you be willing to add to sweeten the pot?
                      You call up their GM, have him get a PD account, have him read this analysis, maybe look a few advanced stats...and I'm sure that would be more than enough to sweeten the pot. He might even give us Horford too for our superstar point.

                      Comment


                      • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Hill isn't running any offenses, which is the issue with him. They wouldn't be shopping him if he did that well. He does most everything else very good and he is a very good player. But they are looking at Teague because he's a better point. Assists...do I really have to point that out?
                        I actually think they're looking at Teague because of his quickness. Bird said he wanted to speed things up, and while George has great straight line speed, he has average quickness.

                        Hill plays better at a methodical pace, that's the opposite of Bird's plan

                        Comment


                        • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          You call up their GM, have him get a PD account, have him read this analysis, maybe look a few advanced stats...and I'm sure that would be more than enough to sweeten the pot. He might even give us Horford too for our superstar point.
                          Posts like this are totally unnecessary. NOBODY thinks that, and you know is smh.

                          I understand the hyperbole and sarcasm that came with the post. But it tends to ruffle feathers at times

                          Comment


                          • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                            First of all, I don't believe for a second that Indiana called the Hawks and offered George Hill for Teague. Considering an article with very similar wording about a different player came out around the same time, I think it's ********.

                            Secondly, no you don't sweeten the pot. Atlanta would be stupid to turn down that trade.

                            Comment


                            • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              So since the Hawks turned down the initial offer of Hill for Teague if you were GM what would you be willing to add to sweeten the pot?
                              Teague isn't that good to be willing to trade much else.

                              I know he was a 1X AS, but that was as much a product of his team's success as it was his individual talent. He's an above average Pg with different strengths and weaknesses than what we currently have. He's a marginal upgrade at best, who could struggle here initially given the rest of the roster

                              Comment


                              • Re: {RUMOR} Indiana Offers George Hill for Jeff Teague

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                                Teague isn't that good to be willing to trade much else.

                                I know he was a 1X AS, but that was as much a product of his team's success as it was his individual talent. He's an above average Pg with different strengths and weaknesses than what we currently have. He's a marginal upgrade at best, who could struggle here initially given the rest of the roster

                                So would you move on or wait them out? Meaning do you offer G. Hill elsewhere or do you keep the olive branch extended in case they (Atlanta) circles back around on deadline day and want to restart talks?

                                While I like the idea of getting Teague I doubt this deal happens because Atlanta is not just a conference rival but a divisional rival. They would want to bleed us dry in a trade. We're better off dealing with West teams.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X