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

Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

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

  • #16
    Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

    Originally posted by Joker View Post
    Woah, woah, woah. This will not be a great defensive team after that trade. It might appear a little better because of the major increase in perimeter defense, but you're also trading our best post defender away.

    Now, if you're comparing the post-trade team to the JO-less team, then yes that's big improvement. I really don't want Hughes, though. It'd be nice if we got their 2009 first rounder for taking him.
    I agree, a little better defensively.

    I think that is what I want the next 3 years with every move they make, how does this make us better DEFENSIVELY.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

      I am a big fan of Hinrich and I have always stated that we need to improve our defense. We scored a lot last season but we let our opponents score more. Something like:
      Tinsley, Daniels, Dunleavy and 2nd Rounder for Nocioni and Hinrich.

      Then hopefully pick some someone like Frye for Shawne Williams and Harrison

      We could have a starting 5 of:
      Hinrich
      Granger
      Nocioni
      Frye
      O'Neal

      Hinrich, Granger and Nocioni would be one of the best defensive back courts in the league. Another important aspect of these trade is that getting rid of Daniels, Tins, Williams and Harrison would fix our "thug" image. Plus we still keep our first round pick this year where we can hopefully pick up Love. And if JO doesnt heal fom his injury he'll be a good expirer for us
      Last edited by MillerTime; 05-21-2008, 10:52 AM.
      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
        I took the thinking to be that we could trade a bum for bums--isn't that what Kirk, Hughes, and JO are considered to be? Trade garbage and hope they play better in a new situation, I guess.
        JO & Hughes maybe. Hinrich didn't have a great year last season but I don't think they've given up on him.

        Of course Chicago needs a coach first.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

          If they go with Rose, I think that a Hughes/Hinrich for JO trade makes sense for the Bulls.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

            Originally posted by rexnom View Post
            If they go with Rose, I think that a Hughes/Hinrich for JO trade makes sense for the Bulls.
            ya it makes sense for the Bulls, but what are we going to do with Hughes? Just another Daniels kind of swingman. Where are you going to fit him into the rotation? Granger, Dunleavy, Williams, Daniels, Graham, and if we re-sign, then add Rush. We're in the need of a post player. And I dont like the mentality/attitude that Hughes will bring in. We already have a bad image
            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

              There's a reason Hinrich was being talked about as possible trade bait
              even before the chance to draft Rose came last night. He's not a
              natural PG. He struggles to beat guys off the bounce, etc. Sure,
              he's better than Diener. But at $10mil per for the next 4 yrs,
              MurphLeavy on the books at the same coin and DG poised to
              join them very soon, I'd pass on Hinrich unless the rest of the
              deal is just irresistable.

              With the Pacers' salary structure, I wouldn't pay a PG $10mil per
              unless he's a pure PG who has the skill-set to get everything
              done we need at the position. I don't see Hinrich as that guy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                There's a reason Hinrich was being talked about as possible trade bait
                even before the chance to draft Rose came last night. He's not a
                natural PG. He struggles to beat guys off the bounce, etc. Sure,
                he's better than Diener. But at $10mil per for the next 4 yrs,
                MurphLeavy on the books at the same coin and DG poised to
                join them very soon, I'd pass on Hinrich unless the rest of the
                deal is just irresistable.

                With the Pacers' salary structure, I wouldn't pay a PG $10mil per
                unless he's a pure PG who has the skill-set to get everything
                done we need at the position. I don't see Hinrich as that guy.
                Those are very valid criticisms of Kirk. But he does run the pick and roll very, very well (he's not Chris Paul or close to him, but Kirk is tough to guard in pick and rolls) He also is an excellent defender, can also guard a lot of the shooting guards as well. Plus in the system the Pacers ran last season I think Kirk would excel
                Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-21-2008, 12:01 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                  How about Hinrich and Gooden for JO?

                  Would you do it and would the Bulls?

                  Hughes would be nice for the expiring (13 mil), Gooden is expiring too at 7 mil but is a good post threat.

                  Hughes seems like a overpaid Daniels who likes to shoot too many 3s - poor shot selection, athletic, lots of to's and dumb plays, but when he's on (which isn't often enough), he's like Arenas.

                  pacers:
                  hinrich
                  dun
                  granger
                  gooden
                  foster/murphy

                  bench:tinsley, shawne, ike, murphy/foster, diener, graham


                  bulls:
                  rose
                  hughes
                  noc
                  JO
                  noah

                  bench: gordon, deng, duhon, gray, sef, thomas

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                    Hinrich

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                      If they go with Rose, I think that a Hughes/Hinrich for JO trade makes sense for the Bulls.
                      thats a LOT of contract for use to take back though. we'd be more inclined to do a gooden/hinrich deal and that wouldn't be bad for the bulls either (as they'd keep thomas, noah and gray to rotate with o'neal). i think we'd only take hughes if we dumped tinsley in the process.

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Those are very valid criticism of Kirk. But he does run the pick and roll very, very well (he's not Chris Paul or close to him, but Kirk is tough to guard in pick and rolls) He also is an excellent defender, can also guard a lot of the shooting guards as well. Plus in the system the Pacers ran last season I think Kirk would excel
                      this is one thing i think is the key: the pacers don't really need a pure PG. they need someone who can handle the ball well enough to initiate the offense AND they need someone to be the first line of the harter defense -- 3PT shooting would be an added bonus. kirk has those three things. i don't think kirk is a great PG but i think he could fit here with o'brien.

                      Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                      How about Hinrich and Gooden for JO?

                      Would you do it and would the Bulls?

                      Hughes would be nice for the expiring (13 mil), Gooden is expiring too at 7 mil but is a good post threat.
                      hughes isn't expiring. he has two more years left at aprx $13mil each season.

                      Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                      Hughes seems like a overpaid Daniels who likes to shoot too many 3s - poor shot selection, athletic, lots of to's and dumb plays, but when he's on (which isn't often enough), he's like Arenas.
                      in theory our uptempo system would be better for hughes than cleveland. it'd be like his stay in DC. hughes also can be a decent perimeter defender.

                      that being said, the thought of putting hughes in an offense that encourages a high volume of 3s frightens the crap out of me.
                      Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 05-21-2008, 11:52 AM.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                        UB-

                        Understood. Agree with all that. He's definitely an upgrade. But
                        who's he gonna run the pick and roll with ? Do we have a big
                        who can run it with both the 'roll' (and finish in the lane) and
                        'pop' options available.

                        You can obviously run it out high w/o both options (see the Pacers'
                        ham-handed running of it w/ Foster in recent years). But it works best
                        with a big who can do both.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                          Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                          UB-

                          Understood. Agree with all that. He's definitely an upgrade. But
                          who's he gonna run the pick and roll with ? Do we have a big
                          who can run it with both the 'roll' (and finish in the lane) and
                          'pop' options available.

                          You can obviously run it out high w/o both options (see the Pacers'
                          ham-handed running of it w/ Foster in recent years). But it works best
                          with a big who can do both.
                          you draft Love at 11. Heinrich and Love could make a solid p'n'r combo.
                          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                            I would probably rather just draft DJ than go for Kirk.

                            How much better are we going to be with Kirk here? Is he really worth it? I don't think so.

                            I defiantly wouldn't trade Jermaine for Kirk. I'll tell you what though I would LOVE to do a sign and trade with Chicago and get Ben Gordon. Gordon can be a clutch player for us.

                            If we are talking a trade with the Bulls I want Ben Gordon.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                              If I'm Chicago, I don't think I would have any problem at all playing Hinrich WITH Rose in the backcourt.

                              Hinrich being in the backcourt would take a ton of pressure off of Rose as Rose develops into a solid NBA PG.

                              Combined they would lack a little height, but not any more so than Hinrich/Gordon. They would be a tremendous defensive duo for their backcourt, both are very capable 3-point shooters, both can penetrate with the ball and both are accomplished passers.

                              If Chicago takes Beasley instead, I see Miami improving significantly for exactly the same reasons. Pair Rose with Wade and that's one hell of a backcourt that will do nothing but cause problems for every team they face.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                                Obviously, it depends on what we have to give up to get Hinrich.

                                I've been pretty impressed with him, and it might give us some flexibility to draft big at the 11 spot. Without knowing much about most of the draft PGs, I'm happy taking Hinrich.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X