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

Finding a big brother for a thin squad

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

  • Finding a big brother for a thin squad

    This thread should wait for another time, but I am anxious to see it.
    I've been saying for awhile that we need two guys of a certain type to turn us around.

    Small ball blows, and I'm hoping for some swagger.
    I am going to be optimistic for a moment and believe we have got one of the guys now. So indulge me with your insights for a piece to fit my puzzle...

    We need Lance's big brother.
    Who is that thick, gritty rebounding big?

    6'9"- 6"11" 245+ 7' wingspan
    glass eating, fearless brawler?

    Can we still get Ibaka?
    Drummond!
    Is there someone who fits that description better?
    Could Mahinmi have filled that roll?
    Is Taj too small or too old?
    Could we entice Milsap, and make due with his all around game at expense of needed size?
    How about Harry Giles?
    How the heck is a guy like Swanigan who looks to fit perfectly a late first pick?
    Could we move down for him and a 2nd and trade both 2nds for a late (or next years) 1st?
    Trade the first and Jefferson or Lavoy for an established vet? Which one?
    Maybe the physical Mason Plumlee?
    Valanciunas?
    Favors?
    Who else?

    We added 230 lbs of much needed grit, so now I'm interested again.
    Find me two hundred and fifty more!

  • #2
    Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

    I'll just throw this out there now that we got Stephenson back for cheap. We could now get Hibbert cheap to come off the bench. Hansbrough would be cheap too. George Hill will be a free agent I think (but would not be cheap). Could put the conference finals team minus David West back together along with Teague, Thad, and Turner. That's a nice top 8 players there that offers a lot of different combinations. Also assuming PG might stay. Could play big or small. Swagger back, good defense too.

    Guards and wings:
    Teague, Hill, Stephenson, George

    Bigs:
    Turner, Young, Hibbert, Hansbrough

    Other subs:
    Robinson III, Christmas

    Need to dump:
    Ellis, Jefferson, Allen, C.J. Miles
    Last edited by dlewyus; 03-31-2017, 08:17 PM.
    “It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts” - John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

      Caleb Swanigan...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

        I'd be fine with bringing Hibbert back and was one of his biggest fans but the big man we need must be able to play with Turner not just play off the bench and I doubt if Hibbert would be a good fit for that. Now if we could sign a more mobile yet physical big to compliment Turner while moving Al to save Cap space and have Hibbert come off the bench with Thad that would be a nice rotation.
        Favors is our best option although the amount of time he's taking to recover from the bone bruise to his knee is concerning.
        Your description of who we need is perfect Solid, finding that player is tough. Like you I'm sick of wussy ball playing 2 rail thin stretch players in the front court.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

          What's Dale Davis up to these days?


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

            Originally posted by Shade View Post
            What's Dale Davis up to these days?


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
            Getting DD all those years ago taught me that the NBA is a man's game.
            We sort of looked good on paper before that.
            But half a dozen times per game (it felt like) someone slammed it in our face like we were their little sister. We shied away from contact. Rebounds were generally not in our favor. Late in the games it was widely known all you had to do was take it to the paint. Pacers would either get out of your way or make a cheap foul.

            Then all of the sudden those problems disappeared. Our long thin guys could stand outside and not look like sissies. By the end of the game people were pretty much tired of trying to drive into our paint. We just were not anybody's punks anymore. Once our thins didn't have to do so much bruising help inside, their confidence grew because of what they were good at instead of shrink because of what they were not.

            I saw the same thing the year before we got D West. I remember saying that if we got either West or Nene we'd start HOSTING playoff games. That was not well received.

            This team was short two players. May still be, idk.

            Swanigan looks great to me, btw. State champion in High school, big ten star. Great size and strength. Was a complete tub of lard only a few years ago. His trajectory has been incredible. If he would happen to continue the pace he's accomplished the last few years, for even a couple more years, he'd be a monster.
            I don't follow NCAA too much. I searched him figuring I find he was a thug, really only 6'7", and had croc arms...not the case.
            Hard to think he's projected at bottom of the round.
            Last edited by solid; 04-02-2017, 05:32 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

              Tank Thompson still available?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

                I missed this thread in the Lance-crazed hysteria of the last couple days, but I'm gonna go ahead and bump it because I'm tired of reading about Lance's layup.

                Swanigan still could stand to trim down and speed up a little, at least for our roster. All signs indicate that he could, of course. And his rebounding and size would be great here, not to mention the potential hype of drafting an in-state guy. He's not the fastest guy around though, and given Turner's issues guarding out to the 3-pt line, I think we need an athlete.

                -Odds we even call Blake Griffin are slimmer than slim.
                -Drummond is intriguing because his numbers have dipped and he may come a little cheaper than maybe he would've a couple years ago. But he's still a monster and I'd be pretty pumped to get him.
                -After watching Jonas V eat our lunch game after game, and knowing the attitude he would bring, I think he'd be a GREAT fit. Pretty sure he's signed for a few years in Toronto though, and unless they plan to break the bank on Lowry, they won't be moving Jonas.
                -I don't know much about Giles, but he does seem like a guy that fits perfectly - if his knees hold up. Seeing the news on DRose (again) makes me hesitant to embrace that pick.
                -I'm a big fan of Mathias Lessort, out of France. International experience means he's probably a contributor sooner than later, while being just 21 right now. Dude looks like a French Amare Stoudamire to me.
                It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  Caleb Swanigan...
                  Maybe im completely off base here, but does swanigan remind anyone else of towns?
                  Lifelong pacers fan

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

                    I think looking at centers is a mistake, because Myles can't defend the perimeter well. I expect he will improve on defending the post in time. I'm trying to bring in toughness at the PF position.

                    I've been saying the same thing for awhile, go after Paul Millsap. His all around game is just so nice and he has legit size and a winning demeanor, and can also be a "stretch" big if called for. He kinda does everything and was a recent All Defense choice. Could bring that "David West" style leadership to the team.

                    I'd also draft Harry Giles and bring him along slowly, so that hopefully by the time Millsap starts to decline later in his contract Giles can start to pick up some of the slack. That'd be my plan.
                    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                    - ilive4sports

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

                      A big on the front line is a must and Swanigan on the defensive side is going to struggle. I want a giant in the middle. Brook Lopez? With Lopez you get a great free throw shooter and scorer and rebound reasonably well and he would free up Myles at PF
                      Another defender to help PG is also almost as big a need. I keep bringing up Nigel Hayes. 6'8", 245 and 7'3" wingspan. Great passer and rebounds well.
                      Just what PG needs to help out on Lebron or Butler.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

                        I strongly believe the Pacers will trade the first for a veteran. I am nervous about Bird making that call. Traded a first for Hill, lose Leonard. words cannot describe how bad a move that was. Not quite as bad as the Pacers not taking Bird. Trade first for Thaddeus Young. That was ok.
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

                          As much as it pains me to say it, Swanigan may be exactly what this team needs to look for in the draft. Our pick will likely be too early to swing on him, but if we could trade back to mid 20s and pick him up I'd be psyched. Just have to manage his weight closely.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

                            Originally posted by pacers_heath View Post
                            Maybe im completely off base here, but does swanigan remind anyone else of towns?
                            Uh, no. Totally different guys.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Finding a big brother for a thin squad

                              Originally posted by dlewyus View Post
                              I'll just throw this out there now that we got Stephenson back for cheap. We could now get Hibbert cheap to come off the bench. Hansbrough would be cheap too. George Hill will be a free agent I think (but would not be cheap). Could put the conference finals team minus David West back together along with Teague, Thad, and Turner. That's a nice top 8 players there that offers a lot of different combinations. Also assuming PG might stay. Could play big or small. Swagger back, good defense too.

                              Guards and wings:
                              Teague, Hill, Stephenson, George

                              Bigs:
                              Turner, Young, Hibbert, Hansbrough

                              Other subs:
                              Robinson III, Christmas

                              Need to dump:
                              Ellis, Jefferson, Allen, C.J. Miles
                              I think Hans will be back next year. Pretty sure he'll replace Allen (though I think is a mistake, 3.5 mil for a rebounder is cheap). As far as Hibs goes, yes he can probably be had for Vet min. but I'd take Seraphin and Allen over him. It'd be awesome to have Hill back as our starting shooting guard but don't see it happening.
                              I agree that we need an upgraded at PF, but I think our biggest issue next year will be our starting SG. We lose CJ this year and I want Monta moved to the backup pg position. I would prefer not to start Lance and bring him off the bench.
                              So the big question is do we sign a starting SG and draft a big or sign a big and draft a guard?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X