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

Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

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

  • #46
    Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

    Originally posted by Tom White View Post
    I wonder how many people would lose their minds if the Pacers found a way to trade Ellis for Stephenson?
    Depends on whether it is for contract-year-Lance (yikes) or not.

    Actually, I was thinking we probably already have the ultimate 3-and-D wing player on our roster. Problem is, he's a terrible ballhandler that is always trying to create something and he's been used in the wrong role for the past three seasons. Usually this turnover machine is dribbling off his foot, or passing the ball at somebody's shins. Just think how much better the Pacers would be if Teague and player-TBD could take all of PG's ball handling/ "creating" (ugh) responsibilities away and let him focus on being an all-world defender, excellent wing rebounder, and very reliable catch-and-shoot guy. I keep saying, I want PG's FGA to go up but his ball handling to go down. I want Teague and player-TBD to be setting PG up to succeed, not having PG set up a turnover.

    That player I'm describing has Lance's skill set, but I don't think it is Lance. That player also has a different skill set than Ellis.

    I know it is popular to say that Ellis and Teague won't mesh well, but I'm more concerned that there is no reason to believe Ellis and PG will mesh any better next season than they did last season.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

      ^ They're not going to ask Paul George to not be Paul George. Not going to happen. Accept the handling/creating, it's part of his game and it will continue to be part of his game.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

        Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
        ^ They're not going to ask Paul George to not be Paul George. Not going to happen. Accept the handling/creating, it's part of his game and it will continue to be part of his game.
        Agreed. It's too bad, because I think PG can benefit a lot as a finisher instead of always initiating the action. But for all of Larry's tough talk, it seems that PG will always get his way.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

          I am in the minority that would like to give Monta another chance. If he is not gelling with the new teammates and new coaching staff by then maybe move him at the deadline.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

            Originally posted by Mourning View Post
            What's with this love fest for Courtney Lee lately? I seriously don't get it. He's like super uninspiring to me to be honest. I hope we can do better then some 3rd rate dude who doesn't even want to play here. He's a good defender and he can hit some shots. Yeah, he's got some experience too. But, it's also not that he's going to improve much if at all for us given that he's allready 30, so declining production might very well be right around the corner. Why not try and make a run at someone younger who atleast gives us some growth potential and whom we can try to keep around longer.

            Not saying hes awfull, I just don't feel anything with this guy. I could be wrong, offcourse.

            Not likely the Knicks will let him go, easily, but that's the sort of player I'd rather us try to take a calculated ''gamble'' on.
            Given the revelation that it looks like Teague's extension will eat into the 2016-2017 $12+ mil in Salary Cap space that we have ( thus leaving between $5 to 8 mil in Salary Cap Space ), I've had to adjust my expectations.

            I don't think that we can really afford a Starting Quality Player at this point. I only want a quality Borderline Starting Wing that can shoot the 3pt shot, provide decent to solid perimeter defense and won't hurt us by on either ends of the court. Courtney Lee isn't a flashy name....but he seems to fit that description.
            Last edited by CableKC; 06-24-2016, 06:06 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

              I'm definitely all in for Courtney Lee. He isn't special, I just want someone on the team who can shoot.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                I am in the minority that would like to give Monta another chance. If he is not gelling with the new teammates and new coaching staff by then maybe move him at the deadline.
                Monta at starting shooting guard is a problem because shooting is not his skill-set. We need someone who is a gunner at that position.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section12 View Post
                  Depends on whether it is for contract-year-Lance (yikes) or not.

                  Actually, I was thinking we probably already have the ultimate 3-and-D wing player on our roster. Problem is, he's a terrible ballhandler that is always trying to create something and he's been used in the wrong role for the past three seasons. Usually this turnover machine is dribbling off his foot, or passing the ball at somebody's shins. Just think how much better the Pacers would be if Teague and player-TBD could take all of PG's ball handling/ "creating" (ugh) responsibilities away and let him focus on being an all-world defender, excellent wing rebounder, and very reliable catch-and-shoot guy. I keep saying, I want PG's FGA to go up but his ball handling to go down. I want Teague and player-TBD to be setting PG up to succeed, not having PG set up a turnover.

                  That player I'm describing has Lance's skill set, but I don't think it is Lance. That player also has a different skill set than Ellis.

                  I know it is popular to say that Ellis and Teague won't mesh well, but I'm more concerned that there is no reason to believe Ellis and PG will mesh any better next season than they did last season.
                  Am I confused or are you saying we should relegate PG to just a 3 and D guy?

                  Did you miss the playoffs?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                    Courtney Lee isn't special.. But we don't need special, we need a role player who can hit the three and play defense at the SG position. Lee fits that description.
                    Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 06-24-2016, 06:47 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                      At the risk of being banished from PD, I would trade Ellis or Stuckey to Memphis for Lance. We would have him for one year at 9 million and team option. Ellis would probably help Memphis the most and be happier, but Stuckey might fit just as well. I Monta was really slowed down by his knee surgery this last season, it might prove to be a mistake to trade him. However, I think most of Pacerdom would be pleased to see him go. Could/would Lance be an improvement for us? Don't know. But, he would raise the excitement level by a bunch if he was working for a contract again!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                        Courtney Lee isn't special.. But we don't need special, we need a role player who can hit the three and play defense at the SG position. Lee fits that description.
                        I think that is kind of our issue right now. Too focused on special, and not focused enough on getting the right role players. Just look at the quintessential model for the smaller faster style Golden State. They are essentially one all-time great player in Curry, and a bunch of glorified role players (this isn't a negative term). The reason it works so well is because their skill sets compliment each other so well. Larry though is more looking at the Lebron model of winning a championship which has nothing to do with fit, and everything to do with just having more raw talent than the other team. That simply doesn't work when you bring in third rate talent like Monta to be your Wade to Paul's Lebron.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                          Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                          At the risk of being banished from PD, I would trade Ellis or Stuckey to Memphis for Lance. We would have him for one year at 9 million and team option. Ellis would probably help Memphis the most and be happier, but Stuckey might fit just as well. I Monta was really slowed down by his knee surgery this last season, it might prove to be a mistake to trade him. However, I think most of Pacerdom would be pleased to see him go. Could/would Lance be an improvement for us? Don't know. But, he would raise the excitement level by a bunch if he was working for a contract again!
                          I mean, if Memphis would do that deal then it's probably a no brainer. Lance knows he's a bench player at this point, so have him lead the second unit and go find an actual 3 pt shooter to start at the shooting guard position. Monta would be the guy to trade in that scenario. I like Lance but I do not see he and Monta coexisting for an entire season.

                          On the topic of the Kings, they have a ton of bigs. We could use a backup big. The fit is there.

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          I think that is kind of our issue right now. Too focused on special, and not focused enough on getting the right role players. Just look at the quintessential model for the smaller faster style Golden State. They are essentially one all-time great player in Curry, and a bunch of glorified role players (this isn't a negative term). The reason it works so well is because their skill sets compliment each other so well. Larry though is more looking at the Lebron model of winning a championship which has nothing to do with fit, and everything to do with just having more raw talent than the other team. That simply doesn't work when you bring in third rate talent like Monta to be your Wade to Paul's Lebron.
                          Klay Thompson and Draymond Green are not what I'd call glorified role players. You put either of those guys on any team and they will ball.
                          Last edited by 3rdStrike; 06-24-2016, 07:51 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                            Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                            At the risk of being banished from PD, I would trade Ellis or Stuckey to Memphis for Lance. We would have him for one year at 9 million and team option. Ellis would probably help Memphis the most and be happier, but Stuckey might fit just as well. I Monta was really slowed down by his knee surgery this last season, it might prove to be a mistake to trade him. However, I think most of Pacerdom would be pleased to see him go. Could/would Lance be an improvement for us? Don't know. But, he would raise the excitement level by a bunch if he was working for a contract again!
                            As much as I have absolutely hated the thought of having Lance back, I would gladly take him back for the remainder of his contract just to get rid of Ellis. And make no mistake, I would take Stuckey every day of the week and twice on Sunday rather than get rid of Ellis.

                            Stuckey is a pretty good offensive contributor, and is more than willing to work with and through his teammates. I can't say the same for Ellis. In my opinion, he works with his teammates only when forced to as his own options have disappeared. I hated that so many halves last year ended with the plays that entrusted the ball to his hands. It was obvious to me that Ellis had no problem, perhaps even a thirsting desire, to operate "off script".

                            Even if Ellis stays, I see the addition of Teague to this roster as a god-send. There is no longer a question as to whom the ball distributor is and who the player is into which the ball will be placed to end halves and games.

                            Teague will get the ball and it will be his responsibility to run the play that McMillen calls. In those situations, it will be Ellis, if still on the team, that will fill the role formerly held by Hill as spot/corner shooter. If only Ellis could have been traded rather than Hill, think how happy most of us would be.

                            At this point, I would be happy to take a shorter term contract for any half-way productive/tradeable player than to continue with Ellis. I'm certain that Bird will find a better deal than that by summer's end.
                            Last edited by beast23; 06-25-2016, 12:14 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                              Am I confused or are you saying we should relegate PG to just a 3 and D guy?

                              Did you miss the playoffs?
                              If PG can play like that all the time, then sure just give him the ball and let him be Kobe.

                              Post season PG (7 games): PER 27.5, 0.632 TS%, WS/48 .284, 30.5% USG
                              Regular season PG (81 games): PER 20.9, 0.557 TS%, WS/48 .157, 30.4% USG

                              Not saying regular season PG is bad, because he is still by far our best player, but there's reason to think that cutting his usage would improve his efficiency. But if he can turn on his efficiency to playoff level all the time with no other changes, then sure by all means take all the possessions you want.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Targets for Ellis and/or Stuckey?

                                Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
                                Klay Thompson and Draymond Green are not what I'd call glorified role players. You put either of those guys on any team and they will ball.
                                I don't think they would necessarily be super stars on their own. Good, sure, but not great. Like Harden - to me anyway. He's a great scorer and individual player, but his teams never do anything and he's an embarrassment on defense.

                                I could see Green's emotion wearing thin on a team that is not as good, or Klay's ridiculous shots getting him in trouble with another team. Not to say they aren't supreme talents, just not sure they are players that would be great in any role.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X