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

Paul George on the competition at wing

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

  • #31
    Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    Agreed. That'll be a nice rotation. Maybe George is good enough to start in a year, maybe not. But having three solid wing players will be great.

    I don't understand the "Brandon needs to take a page out of his book" comments (in this thread and others). I don't remember Brandon ever saying he didn't want competition.
    Ditto! And if it were up too me, I would keep all these three guys and rotate them. IMHO Dun Dun and Jones (alas, as I like him) would be the ones getting hit by this. Stephenson has a chance to enter the competition aswell.

    OTOH, maybe it's better to let Rush go in a trade, combine it with an expiring and/or some other smaller asset(s) and get something substantial back at PG or PF and let Jones focus more on what he is good at, defending ths SG spot, and together with Stephenson and George form our SG trio, while George could also get some SF minutes.
    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
      Kobe wasn't NBA ready either.

      That's not true at all.

      When The Mamba was a rookie, he was an 18 year old kid playing on a super talented team that featured the likes of Shaq, Eddie Jones, and Nick Van Exel - guys who obviously wanted to have a substantial amount of shots. In his first season, Kobe averaged a respectable 7.6 points in just 15.5 minutes a game. Then he exploded in his second season as a 19 year old, averaging 15.4 points off of the bench in just 26 minutes of play. Finally in his third season he was granted a starting role and got his fair share of shots as the Lakers traded away guys like Eddie Jones and Van Exel, thus granting Kobe a huge share of the offense. His response? He averaged 20 points as a 20 year old....

      If that's not NBA ready I don't know what is.....

      The difference between Kobe and Lebron in the first couple of years of their careers is that Kobe was on a super talented veteran with well established players who weren't about to let an 18 year old kid take a bunch of shots away from them. He'd only get that chance when those guys were traded away. Lebron, OTOH, was the Messiah on a worthless Cleveland roster and was clearly already the best player on the team the moment he was drafted. He could do whatever he wanted offensively from day 1.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

        Originally posted by Magic P View Post
        Numbers are deceiving. Kobe took bad shots and he really wasn't ready for the big stage. Those air balls he shot against Utah in the playoffs proved that.



        And how many other 18 year-olds have the stones to take those shots in that situation? In fact, Shaquille O'Neal said years later that Bryant was the "only guy at the time who had the guts at the time to take shots like that."

        So he failed to come big in that situation as an 18 year old. Big deal. Experiencing failure is a right of passage in the NBA, something every young star has to have a taste of before they can achieve finer things. All Kobe did was build on that experience and came back the next year averaging 15 points off of the bench. The year after that? 20 points as a 20 year old. The guy was as NBA ready as it gets.

        You're using the Utah airballs to support your assertion that he wasn't NBA ready when in fact they say just the opposite........

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

          Can you imagine how this board would react to our rookie shootings those air balls? You'd expect fires at Conseco if he wasn't traded....

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

            Originally posted by Trophy View Post
            If Brandon is traded, I can see us starting Mike at SG and not immediately throw the starting pressure on Paul right away.

            SG Dunleavy/Stephenson
            SF Granger/George/DJones

            By doing this, it'll allow Paul to learn from Danny as his backup for a few months and then possibly switch places with Mike once he feels he's ready to take over the starting SG spot.
            I agree with you. Plus I see Mike coming back strong this season.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

              Originally posted by Magic P View Post
              Numbers are deceiving. Kobe took bad shots and he really wasn't ready for the big stage. Those air balls he shot against Utah in the playoffs proved that.



              That was awesome to watch.

              Think we can talk Stockton into coming out of retirement?

              --pizza
              It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

                Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                And how many other 18 year-olds have the stones to take those shots in that situation? In fact, Shaquille O'Neal said years later that Bryant was the "only guy at the time who had the guts at the time to take shots like that."

                So he failed to come big in that situation as an 18 year old. Big deal. Experiencing failure is a right of passage in the NBA, something every young star has to have a taste of before they can achieve finer things. All Kobe did was build on that experience and came back the next year averaging 15 points off of the bench. The year after that? 20 points as a 20 year old. The guy was as NBA ready as it gets.

                You're using the Utah airballs to support your assertion that he wasn't NBA ready when in fact they say just the opposite........
                Is this the same Shaq who told Kobe how his *** taste because he couldn't win without him?

                The video does prove Kobe wasn't NBA ready, he was far from the black mamba in the clip, he was more like a garden snake. I agree with your experience statement. Kobe had to grow into the player he is now, hopefully George will grow to be a great player as well. But he clearly was not NBA ready in '97.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

                  Maybe this competition with Rush will light a fire under his keister. If Rush could keep his job at the 2 maybe we could use George as a back-up for both 2 and the 3 having him get his 25-30 minutes a night without the starter pressure.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

                    Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                    Maybe this competition with Rush will light a fire under his keister. If Rush could keep his job at the 2 maybe we could use George as a back-up for both 2 and the 3 having him get his 25-30 minutes a night without the starter pressure.
                    if this doesnt, i dont know what will, and rush deserves to get traded
                    Peck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Paul George on the competition at wing

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Can you imagine how this board would react to our rookie shootings those air balls? You'd expect fires at Conseco if he wasn't traded....

                      I don't know about that... So many variables that fans look for that the airballs alone wouldn't do it (I'm sure somebody would say something but I'm talking overall).

                      For one thing, some players have an aura of confidence around them and some have a deer in the headlights look. Some look like they are a sponge and soaking up the NBA game... some look like they might have the same basketball IQ as a sponge. Some show improvements and new things seemingly each time they step on the court... Some look worse each time they step on the court... while some seemingly twist/break/injure something each time they step on the court.

                      A few airballs alone need to be looked at in context and not necessarily be a cause for worry... Especially if you know the player has a head and body for the game, can hit those shots in practice, has hit them in HS and/or college, etc...
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X