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

Zach Lowe on George Hill

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

  • #61
    Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
    Ghill may not start for Jazz, he's competing with Exum.

    I think that says all you need to know.
    If it comes down to simply who is the better player, Hill is going to beat out Exum.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
      Why was George Hill unable to learn how to run a fast break? It was a disaster every time Hill had the ball on the fast break
      Funny that you mentioned this. To me, Hill was a very solid, steady player. Every team should have a George Hill type player. Good at many things, but not exceptionally great with just one thing. He's doesn't hurt the team on either side of the ball, and he's willing to change his role according to the team's needs.

      If I had to say what his true one weakness was, it would be fastbreaks. When Lance was here, our fastbreak game was deadly. Lance could get a rebound and begin running the break immediately. Lance put a LOT of pressure on the transition defense, and he was strong enough to finish at the rim.

      Hill didn't give us that. He'll run with you on the break, but he was rarely the one running it. In hindsight, it's actually pretty damn perplexing, because Hill made mostly good passes. Hill made bad decisions on occasion, but I never really worried about a turnover when the ball was in his hands in the half court set. Ellis could run a fastbreak, but he scares me with his decision making at times.

      Teague addresses our fastbreak off rebounds situation. Indiana was a Top 5 team scoring off turnovers, and now has a chance to be a Top 5 team that scores off fastbreaks. Plus, it may address our scoring droughts, because it gives us a genuine chance to score some easy points without setting up a play in the half court or getting a steal in the backcourt.


      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


      • #63
        Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

        Hill is a little like Derrick McKey on offense. He teases you once in awhile and you know he can do more. But he never sustains it. The same will hold for the rest of Hill's career IMO. I just think it's who he is as a player. Not a bad thing as a #4 or #5 option starting for a contender. That's high praise really for both of them, notwithstanding their demeanor on the floor.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

          Yes, George Hill was pretty miserable on the fast break, his indecisiveness would be maddening. I'm excited to see what Teague can do for our offense
          //

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

            Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
            If it comes down to simply who is the better player, Hill is going to beat out Exum.
            It will come down to who is the better point guard aka who sets up the starters the best.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

              Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
              Solid point, but I don't think Monta has ever help opponents to 38% shooting during any year of his career.
              Monta's DFG% last year wasn't 38%, but it was 40%.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                Ghill may not start for Jazz, he's competing with Exum.

                I think that says all you need to know.
                Yeah, I don't think GHill will have a problem beating out a guy who last averaged 4.8/1.6/2.4 and who's coming off a serious knee injury.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Yeah, I don't think GHill will have a problem beating out a guy who last averaged 4.8/1.6/2.4 and who's coming off a serious knee injury.
                  I don't either. But the fact that it's even a thing is concerning IMO.

                  I know everyone thinks it's a perfect fit, but I don't. I wish he was going somewhere else as he's one of my favorite Pacers ever.

                  Hope I'm wrong, but I envision GHill being in and out of Jazz starting lineup.

                  Jazz GM...

                  Former No. 5 pick Exum, Hill to compete for minutes on Jazz

                  "Last year before (Indiana) signed Monta Ellis, Larry Bird said, do you mind playing a bunch of two? Because they wanted to play Monta at one. And George said I'll do whatever you guys want. If they want him to come off the bench, he'll come off the bench. If they want him to start, he'll start."
                  http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...jazz/86358672/

                  If Hill was frustrated with his changing role, I'm sure he's not exited that he even has to compete with a player with the stats you described.
                  Last edited by freddielewis14; 06-27-2016, 11:22 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                    I like Hill. Solid, great character. Can score when called upon.

                    The only way I want him traded is for a deal we just pulled off—for someone who can create offense quickly. The inability to do so has been killing the Pacers for years.

                    PG needs help creating and is slow to get going. Lance was helpful in this area but unpredictable. David West was a big who didn't have the ball in his hands until late in the clock.

                    Teague is fast little waterbug. If there's 7 seconds on the clock, he can do something solid with it. If he brings the ball up the court, we are already set up to make something happen.

                    George Hill could make something happen eventually, but it took quite a while and he had to travel around the perimeter before attempting a rather difficult shot off the drive. Teague will make things happen instantly, and create better percentage shots for everybody.

                    This has been so needed for years. George Hill: excellent player. Hate to see him go, except for the ability to scratch this itch that's been aggravating us for a long time.
                    Seeing your new Avatar caused me to pause and think , Damn, if we had the Derrick McKey from his prime with the Pacers now?.....shoot he was a "stretch 4" before that was even a name
                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                      Seeing your new Avatar caused me to pause and think , Damn, if we had the Derrick McKey from his prime with the Pacers now?.....shoot he was a "stretch 4" before that was even a name
                      You're talking about the Derrick McKey who pretty much refused to take on any offense? He who was Satan before Satan was Satan?
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I'm a pretty big fan of George Hill. I was so happy when he took over for Darren Collison. He is one of the Pacer's best point guards in its history. He's all that even if he's really a combo guard. I don't think he's better than Jamaal Tinsley and Mark Jackson but otherwise he's got every other PG beat in the last 20 years which says a lot.
                        I know you said last 20 years, but if we go back further than that, I'd take Vern Fleming over George Hill, too. (pre Shaq collision)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                          Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                          I know you said last 20 years, but if we go back further than that, I'd take Vern Fleming over George Hill, too. (pre Shaq collision)
                          Not sure I would agree and the only Pacers jersey I own is a retro Vern Fleming from the late 80's. So close in so many ways, defense, rebounding, assist vs. turnovers etc. The thing that would clearly tip it George Hills way for me is his ability to be a threat from the perimeter and space the floor. Definitely two of the most under appreciated Pacers ever IMO.

                          Short Vern Fleming story. I was working in the twin cities in March of 94 (a few years before moving here) and the Pacers came to town to play the Wolves. Went to the game and the Pacers blew them out after taking something like a 40-15 lead. Ended up hanging out after the game a bar close to Target Center and noticed Vern standing close by. Got the courage to walk up and say something along the lines him being a favorite Pacer and how well they appeared to be playing. Vern was really nice, shook my hand and said watch out we are going to beat some teams come playoff time. He was right.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                            Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                            I know you said last 20 years, but if we go back further than that, I'd take Vern Fleming over George Hill, too. (pre Shaq collision)
                            Vern Fleming was the first NBA player I had an emotional attachment to. Being the first, it was always the strongest.

                            Having said that, George Hill IS Vern Fleming. They score the same, they moved the ball similarly, had similar AST rates, rebounded the same, played great defense.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                              Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post
                              The first year, with Collison still here, he accepted a role on the bench, just to make things work. I think that speaks volume about his character and his personality.
                              He was a bench player when he came from SA. There was nothing noble about his acceptance of that role here.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Zach Lowe on George Hill

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

                                Lance's emergence and Hill's versatility made it plausible for Lance to handle the ball more and Hill to be our designated 3point shooter. The issue is, that's NEVER been Hill's game.
                                The other side of that coin is that being a 3 point shooter is what he did best, offensively.

                                When he was made to be a point guard, he kept verbally reminding people that he was not a point guard. Then after being used primarily as a 3 point shooter (a real attribute of his), he reacted by saying "I sold that real estate".

                                I just believe those who say he didn't want to be here - from the start, and I think it showed at times. Long story short, it wasn't the position he disliked. It was playing here he disliked.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X