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 Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

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

  • #46
    Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    Lets look at the teams and I apologize in advance if I missed a FA move that happen recently.

    Monta at the would go against:
    JR Smith on the Cavs assuming he is resigned - He basically is a floor spreader and camps at the corner three.

    Caroll on the Raptors - Bascially if I remember correctly in the playoffs this is who they had Monta on and Carroll had a .396 FG%

    Against Boston you got Avery Bradley - Not too concerned here.

    Tyler Johnson of the Heat or whoever they get to replace Wade - I am assuming they retained him but PG would be on Justin Winslow for sure.

    Hornets are tough to know but they have many big g/f combinations that could hurt the pacers. Batum at the 2 would be the biggest issue and Monta would be forced on MKG assuming he is healthy.

    Hawks you got Korver and who knows if he returns to form. He maybe gets replaced but he is a shell of his former self.

    Against the Pistons he would be on Pope who isn't a great shooter.

    So that was the previous playoff teams in the East.

    Teams that would give us issues would be the Wizards with Beal, Wall and Porter as they can all score more efficiently and have size. The Bulls with Wade, Rose and Butler and as I mention before the Hornets.

    Maybe I missed someone but that's 3 teams out of 15 in the East.
    Tyler Johnson went to the Nets

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      Lets look at the teams and I apologize in advance if I missed a FA move that happen recently.

      Monta at the would go against:
      JR Smith on the Cavs assuming he is resigned - He basically is a floor spreader and camps at the corner three.

      Our real competition in the east is Cleveland, Toronto, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta Charlotte and Washington. I think that's it.

      Cleveland: JR Smith isn't just a 3 point shooter. He recognizes mismatches and will go to the rack and convert well. Cleveland would be a serious mismatch.

      Toronto: Maybe not a problem. Not sure who starts at SG now, but maybe he will just guard Carroll Carroll is not a good offensive player.

      Boston: Minor problem. I would be more afraid of Bradley with Monta guarding him than George Hill, but he's probably manageable.

      Detroit: Problem. I think Pope and Stanley Johnson will cause Monta problems.

      Chicago: Big Problem. Neither Monta nor Teague can guard Wade. We have a problem with that matchup.

      Miami: ? I'm not sure they really qualify as competition now.

      Atlanta: Maybe a problem. The Hawks resigned Kent Bazemore who will give Monta problems. Also, Korver isn't dead yet and Monta is much shorter and aging as well. Korver might be too much for Monta to handle even now. If he starts hitting it gets ugly fast.

      Charlotte: Big Problem. Bad, bad matchup. Batum will destroy him and MKG is way too big.

      Washington: Major problem for the Pacers. Not just Monta. They present some problems for us in terms of matchups. Fortunately we got Thad who should help. But Monta will have a tough time handling Porter...and Wall could eat up Teague while Paul is occupied with Beal. Not a good matchup for the Pacers.

      So, I count at least 5 maybe 7 teams that we need to beat...where Monta is a problem for our D. Probably in 4 cases a big problem.
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-09-2016, 09:19 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

        Monta actually played pretty solid defense last season

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

          I do tend to think people underrate Monta's defense. Not saying he's good or anything but he's not terrible in my opinion.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

            To your JR Smith concern B&G 60% of JR Smith shots were threes. His 2 pnt fg% is not great so I don't think its an issue.as long as Monta is doesn't sag off.

            Also people need to realize how good Burkes system is. Dang near every so so defender we brought in to the Pacers have improved statistically on the defensive side of the ball and that includes Monta.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              To your JR Smith concern B&G 60% of JR Smith shots were threes. His 2 pnt fg% is not great so I don't think its an issue.as long as Monta is doesn't sag off.

              Also people need to realize how good Burkes system is. Dang near every so so defender we brought in to the Pacers have improved statistically on the defensive side of the ball and that includes Monta.
              Yes, but he's not normally guarded by a midget. Monta's wingspan is about 7 inches less than George Hill's.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                I'm seeing a shorten bench right now:
                3 guard rotation: Teague, Ellis, Stuckey
                SF: PG, Miles
                Big men: Turner, Jefferson, Thad, Allen (spot and situational)

                The rest of the bench will be Evans, GRIII and Joe Young

                Sounds like the Pacers are only planning to keep one of Whit or Christmas after the Evans trade. I really like Whit and I think he has the game to be in today's NBA, but I don't think he'll fit in the plan. So Niang and Christmas will be in the D-League

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                  I'm thinking this might be what our minutes distribution looks like to start the year. Added some PG at the 2 minutes after Larry's comments a few days ago, makes me think we might some big PG/Thad/Turner/Jefferson line ups.

                  PG - Teague 34, Young 10, Ellis 4
                  SG - Ellis 30, Stuckey 14, PG 4
                  SF - PG 30, Miles 15, Thad 3
                  PF - Thad 30, Niang/Allen 10, Turner 6
                  C - Turner 26, Jefferson 22

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                    Bump. Any thoughts on what the depth chart would be assuming no further changes? We currently have 16, so I'm gonna assume that Whit will be the likely odd man out, though I wouldn't really rule out, say, Evans.

                    PG - Teague, Brooks, J Young
                    SG - Ellis, Stuckey
                    SF - George, Miles, Robinson
                    PF - T Young, Niang, Evans, Christmas
                    C - Turner, Jefferson, Allen

                    A bit heavy on the bigs, kind of light on swingmen, especially if we intend to play small. But I guess PG playing 40 mpg might be a thing?

                    The backcourt rotation looks pretty weird unless we're intending to play Teague at SG some. Or maybe bump down PG or CJ to the 2 spot? But then you'd need to bump down Thad or Evans to the 3, and what happened to the whole playing small thing? There is some flexibility possible with this roster, but it seems to be geared towards playing big rather than playing small. The starters are kind of small though.

                    Not sure I like this roster much more than last year's TBH. Kind of scary that our big man defense is basically Turner, and our wing defense is basically PG. Wish we had more wing options. Really need Medium Dog to show something this year.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                      Barring any more moves or any of the young guys working their way into the rotation, I think we will be seeing a 9 man rotation.

                      PG-Teague (32 mpg); Brooks (16mpg)
                      SG-Ellis (30-32 mpg); Stuckey (16-18 mpg)
                      SF-George (35 mpg); Miles (13 mpg)
                      PF-Young (34 mpg); Turner (6 mpg); Miles (8 mpg)
                      C-Turner (24 mpg); Jefferson (24 mpg)

                      The total minutes played would be as follows:
                      George...35
                      Young...34
                      Teague...32
                      Ellis...30-32
                      Turner...30
                      Jefferson...24
                      Miles...19
                      Stuckey...16-18
                      Brooks...16

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                        I would prefer to start Stuckey over Monta honestly. At least with Stuckey you get a little bit more size, and he's slightly less ball dominant than Monta. Hopefully last season was just an injury issue and he can get back to shooting like he did a couple seasons ago.
                        Stuckey should never play for this team again. Lavoy as well.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                          Stuckey should never play for this team again. Lavoy as well.
                          Bold statement.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                            Originally posted by sav View Post
                            Barring any more moves or any of the young guys working their way into the rotation, I think we will be seeing a 9 man rotation.

                            PG-Teague (32 mpg); Brooks (16mpg)
                            SG-Ellis (30-32 mpg); Stuckey (16-18 mpg)
                            SF-George (35 mpg); Miles (13 mpg)
                            PF-Young (34 mpg); Turner (6 mpg); Miles (8 mpg)
                            C-Turner (24 mpg); Jefferson (24 mpg)

                            The total minutes played would be as follows:
                            George...35
                            Young...34
                            Teague...32
                            Ellis...30-32
                            Turner...30
                            Jefferson...24
                            Miles...19
                            Stuckey...16-18
                            Brooks...16
                            Yeah that seems not unreasonable, assuming everyone stays healthy. But if disaster strikes, we'll have 4 third-string bigs and 2 third-string non-bigs. Of course, we could do like last year and stash away 2 bigs on the Ants all season (Xmas and Niang), but I have higher hopes for Niang at least. Also, that rotation makes us weirdly reliant on both Ellis and Stuckey. Hmm.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              Yeah that seems not unreasonable, assuming everyone stays healthy. But if disaster strikes, we'll have 4 third-string bigs and 2 third-string non-bigs. Of course, we could do like last year and stash away 2 bigs on the Ants all season (Xmas and Niang), but I have higher hopes for Niang at least. Also, that rotation makes us weirdly reliant on both Ellis and Stuckey. Hmm.
                              That's what we seem to have to work with at this time. Personally, I think GRIII is going to work his way into the rotation which would most likely cut minutes from Miles and/or Stuckey.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The Pacers Depth Chart as of today.

                                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                                Bold statement.
                                Under performing doesn't even begin to describe the playoffs they had this Spring. Stuckey showed up in 1 game, and that seemed to be more an outlier as opposed to a strong effort.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X