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

Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

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

  • #16
    Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

    Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
    Says the same guy who decided it was a good idea to have one semi-point guard (George Hill) on our entire roster heading into last season. I still want to know why he thought that was even remotely a sane idea.
    I still think that Joe Young looked pretty good when he had extended minutes with Myles Turner. Those two played the best PnR/PnP game I've seen from this team in years. Granted, it was a very small sample size, but the few games they had like that together, Turner went off.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

      So Larry, if we really needed a PG last season, why did we pay $10.3 million for a SG in Ellis when we could have picked up Rondo for $9.5? And why did we give Ellis 4 years of that kind of money and more when Rondo only wanted one year to prove himself? And why in the world are we not looking for a sign and trade for Rondo and Ellis this year? We haven't had a 'true' point guard here since Tinsley and we haven't even tried to get one, IMO.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

        Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
        Says the same guy who decided it was a good idea to have one semi-point guard (George Hill) on our entire roster heading into last season. I still want to know why he thought that was even remotely a sane idea.
        It's easy.....going for Combo-Guards has been Bird's philosophy from Day 1. Hence why it was a "sane" idea to him.

        I am with able......until I see Bird sign a real PG and make him the actual Starter, I will believe it when I see it.

        Until then, I am going to go with my theory that one of the reasons ( besides placing some of the legit blame on Vogel himself ) that the offense has been so inefficient and ineffective is because we haven't had a real PG to actually run the offense ( GH and Monta can pretend to be real PGs but they aren't ) and Bird is beginning to realize that now. He tried to address it by bringing in Monta ( a Scoring Guard that averaged 4.1 to 6 APG in the last 5 seasons ) in the hopes that it would improve the offense. It became obvious that it didn't quite work out the way that it should have.

        I think that Bird is going to try it out once more by giving Lawson a chance at running the offense with a short 2 year deal to see if that improves the offense. If it doesn't work, Bird would have at least tried and will go back to hording ComboGuards like kids were collecting Pokeman cards in the early 2000s.

        On a related topic, I would be curious to see how Monta will function under a McMillan run offense as opposed to Vogel.

        I concede that the Monta/GH/Stuckey pairing wasn't conducive to a Backcourt that complemented each other since all could be considered ball dominant Guards ( as in, it was Bird's fault for creating such a non-complimentary Guard rotation in the first place ).....but I can also see that the way that Vogel ran the offense ( hence, it was Vogel's run offense ) does tend to lend credence that Indy is where PGs come to die when they put on the Blue and Gold.
        Last edited by CableKC; 05-22-2016, 07:23 PM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

          Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
          So Larry, if we really needed a PG last season, why did we pay $10.3 million for a SG in Ellis when we could have picked up Rondo for $9.5? And why did we give Ellis 4 years of that kind of money and more when Rondo only wanted one year to prove himself? And why in the world are we not looking for a sign and trade for Rondo and Ellis this year? We haven't had a 'true' point guard here since Tinsley and we haven't even tried to get one, IMO.
          It's cuz Bird still believed in the whole "You don't need a true PG on the Team" argument last season.

          Where did this notion originate with Bird? Is it because when he was making his championship run in Boston that they never had a true PG? They had PGs like Ainge and Dennis Johnson that weren't really PGs but complementary Guards that were effective playing next to one of the best Forward in NBA history.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

            Sounds like the George Hill/Jeff Teague swap is gaining some steam. Add in our first rounder and filler and I think we can convince ATL to pull the trigger. Teague is more of the assist-machine that Bird is looking for, although he's not Westbrook. Sign Ryan Anderson and we have a pretty good lineup with Teague/Ellis/PG/Anderson/Turner.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

              The second article references Cory Joseph as a career journeyman. I almost stopped reading after that, but the quotes were solid enough lol

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                Just to be clear, when I say Point Guard, I'm referring to the guy who sets the offense in motion, directs traffic to get open shots to players in the way and in the position the play is designed to produce. This player should be an extension of the Coach on the floor and have knowledge of the plays the team runs and which players fit best in those plays. Not an easy job and not an easy player to find.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                  Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                  So Larry, if we really needed a PG last season, why did we pay $10.3 million for a SG in Ellis when we could have picked up Rondo for $9.5? And why did we give Ellis 4 years of that kind of money and more when Rondo only wanted one year to prove himself? And why in the world are we not looking for a sign and trade for Rondo and Ellis this year? We haven't had a 'true' point guard here since Tinsley and we haven't even tried to get one, IMO.
                  Because Rondo is not a player you want to build a contending team with at this point. He doesn't play defense and basically accumulates stats.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                    Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                    Because Rondo is not a player you want to build a contending team with at this point. He doesn't play defense and basically accumulates stats.
                    And Monta is???

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                      Originally posted by Ransom View Post
                      Because Rondo is not a player you want to build a contending team with at this point. He doesn't play defense and basically accumulates stats.
                      Maybe some injury has limited his overall effectiveness in recent years...but I'd think that Rondo is AT LEAST a Net-Neutral to Net-Positive Guard on defense ( meaning that he won't...at worst...hurt you on the defensive end ). The guy was named to the NBA All Defensive 1st and 2nd Teams for 4 straight seasons between the 2008 to 2011 seasons.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                        I still think that Joe Young looked pretty good when he had extended minutes with Myles Turner. Those two played the best PnR/PnP game I've seen from this team in years. Granted, it was a very small sample size, but the few games they had like that together, Turner went off.
                        Yes, I think Joe Young is going to be a good rotational player in a year or two. He does what I wish the other players would have: push the pace and look to get buckets for himself and others.

                        Originally posted by Ichi View Post
                        The second article references Cory Joseph as a career journeyman. I almost stopped reading after that, but the quotes were solid enough lol
                        Yeah I was gonna mention that but I figure they were trying to put Lawson down lol.
                        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                        Being unsuccessful in trading for a point guard doesn't mean that you have to go out and sign a bunch of similar combo guards to try and fill the void.

                        Also, he could have signed Rondo this past season but we pursued Monta.

                        Any PG that we get we have to consider how they would fit with Monta or Hill in the backcourt both offensively and defensively. I'm not sure we would want a smaller, defensively challenged point to pair with Monta. Nor would we want a less aggressive PG to pair with Hill. Obviously Hill would fit more with most available Pg's, but it all depends on whom Larry values more as a backcourt piece moving forward.
                        Getting Rondo would not have been a smart move, all things considered. You don't bring a guy like that into a situation where the coach doesn't have much control over the lockerroom/doesn't hold players accountable. Also, all the excuses about Vogel not cutting it would have been blamed on Rondo anyway. What you want is a guy who can do some of what Rondo does as far as passing but without the baggage (I keep saying Elfrid Payton but there may be others). Lawson looked really good as a floor general, he just couldn't hit water from a boat and he obviously suffered from being out/injured for so long.

                        I agree locking up Stuckey was a mistake but how many here really disliked the move at the time? Everything I read was how Stuckey was now a 3 pt threat and doing everything that Lance did and more, etc. It's still not a bad deal all things considered. I think CJ Miles was the awful contract but I've beat that horse enough times already. Monta was a solid signing for the price, he's probably the 2nd biggest FA to come to the Pacers after West (may be even actually) and he fits the uptempto style that the boss (but not the coach) wanted to run.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                          Pass on this alcoholic Ty Lawson. He is a good floor general, but cannot shoot. Lawson could also relapse at any time, and I would rather not deal with a player having alcoholism. We need a pg that is a threat to make 3 pointers.
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                            I still think that Joe Young looked pretty good when he had extended minutes with Myles Turner. Those two played the best PnR/PnP game I've seen from this team in years. Granted, it was a very small sample size, but the few games they had like that together, Turner went off.
                            I believe that the Hill/West PnP was better but I agree that Joe Young looked quite good.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              Maybe some injury has limited his overall effectiveness in recent years...but I'd think that Rondo is AT LEAST a Net-Neutral to Net-Positive Guard on defense ( meaning that he won't...at worst...hurt you on the defensive end ). The guy was named to the NBA All Defensive 1st and 2nd Teams for 4 straight seasons between the 2008 to 2011 seasons.
                              I confess to not watching many Kings games but the general assessment I've heard is that Rondo, at this point, didn't even try to play defense for long stretches of time this year.

                              Not really saying Ellis is the answer but I want no part of Rondo at this point in his career.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Bird: "I would like to have a real point guard"

                                Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                                I agree locking up Stuckey was a mistake but how many here really disliked the move at the time? Everything I read was how Stuckey was now a 3 pt threat and doing everything that Lance did and more, etc. It's still not a bad deal all things considered.
                                Not me.

                                If we didn't sign Monta, I would have been fine with the Stuckey re-signing. But after signing a Ball Dominant Guard, re-signing another ball dominant Guard that will share key minutes with that Ball dominant Guard was something that many here could have figured to be a problem. At most, we were hoping that Vogel could figure out a way to make it work....which he clearly didn't and we have what we have now.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X