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

Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

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

  • #16
    Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

    I'm just happy we added talent DC has been nothing but professional since he got here and I don't expect it to be an issue one way or the other.


    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

      I'm glad to see some consensus on this issue. If we were entertaining the idea of Mayo being our game's-end closer, even better to have a true combo guard for such purposes, n'est ce pas?

      Sookie, would you agree with the assertion that AJ Price may be kept around until mid-season to duel with Lance for back-up PG?

      I've been chewing on Tbird's opinion that Larry (has stated (?) that he) prefers "pure-position" players. I also remember, however, Isaiah's "interchangeable parts" philosophy. (No groans, please.) My preference is for the starters to be rather "pure" and the primary subs to be interchangeable, thus creating a nine-man rotation. Add a "pure" PG and C, since they're the most difficult to fill, and a few developmental prospects, and you've got an ideal team structure, IMO. If Brandon Rush were (had been?) more reliable, we'd be set in the back-court; but as things stand, he and Paulie are switched. We're gettin' there!

      ____1____________2_____________3____________4_____ ________5
      D Collison______P George______D Granger_______(TBD)________R Hibbert
      _________G Hill_________B Rush_________(TBD)_______McBob?
      ________Lance__D Jones______(J Posey)________Hans_________Foster?
      __________AJ______________________________________ ______Stanko??


      EDIT: I put in the underscores to keep the columns aligned. HTML advice, please: if I do it in Excel, can I just copy/paste the cells? Do I use ??
      Last edited by DrFife; 06-24-2011, 11:41 PM.


      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

        Originally posted by Freddie fan View Post
        I'm not saying that HIll should or will start, but I think you (BBQ) aren't giving enough consideration to the value of defense at the point guard position. Hill is considered a very good perimeter defender. Collison is considered a below average defender.

        Defense, obviously, is half the game and it's particularly important at the point guard position, which too often in the Pacers' recent past has allowed opposing point guards to penetrate and break down the defense -- creating easy buckets and getting the Pacers' big men in foul trouble. This isn't something you can compare in your statistical breakdown, but it matters greatly.
        I can see why you assumed I was undervaluing defense. I don't think that I do though, however that'll be a difficult point for me to make when I'm picking the offensive guard over the defensive one. If we need a stop, of course I'd go with Hill. But I really like the idea of making the opposing guard chase Collison all over the court 30 minutes a night.

        Not necessarily a reply to your points alone: I think there is a lot of merit to the idea of Hill having produced quality numbers on a quality team and having backed up a world class point guard. In my opinion Collison did the same thing in New Orleans. I'm not sure why DC's number in New Orleans should be discredit because of the system. We could run a similar system here and see the same production, and I'm not sure just anyone could have put together those numbers just because the system was in place.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

          While I value the huge upgrade defensively over the very slight offensive downgrade Hill brings over Collison and thus disagree with your analysis, I appreciate that you actually made a case and tried to justify it with fact.
          "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

          -Lance Stephenson

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

            From someone who has watched Hill from his first summer league to every game he played with the Spurs I can say there really shouldn't be a controversy over who starts at the point.

            I've only seen a handful of Pacers games with Collison and then the year before last when he was with NO. Collison is worlds better a playmaker than Hill. In fact, Hill is not a good point guard at all. That's just not a strength of his game. He's bad in running P&R's and fast breaks and he's really slow to set up the offense.

            His best role is being a spark off the bench or starting at the two guard. That's why he was so valuable in SA since he flourished next to either Parker or Manu and was able to transition fairly easily to the 6th man role when called upon.

            As far as his ability to defend PG's, that seems to vary. In ISO situations he's an awesome defender against 1's or 2's. But for whatever reason, when he has to defend in a screen and roll he turns into matador and is completely taken out of the play. He really needs to work on getting over screens better. Even so I'd still say he'll be a big improvement on that end of the court over Collison.

            He'll be really useful at the end of games as well. I wouldn't call him a closer, but he's a clutch free throw shooter (him or Manu always shot free throws at the end of the game) and gets to the line really well (probably the second or third best on the Spurs). You'll love some of the BS fouls he gets at the end of quarters by just throwing crap up full court and getting three free throws out of it.

            I'm really hoping Hill can become a better play maker and flourishes as a player in Indiana. I'm a huge fan of his and will miss watching him play for the Spurs. I'll definitely be watching a lot more Pacers games now.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

              Originally posted by DrFife View Post
              I'm glad to see some consensus on this issue. If we were entertaining the idea of Mayo being our game's-end closer, even better to have a true combo guard for such purposes, n'est ce pas?

              Sookie, would you agree with the assertion that AJ Price may be kept around until mid-season to duel with Lance for back-up PG?

              I've been chewing on Tbird's opinion that Larry (has stated (?) that he) prefers "pure-position" players. I also remember, however, Isaiah's "interchangeable parts" philosophy. (No groans, please.) My preference is for the starters to be rather "pure" and the primary subs to be interchangeable, thus creating a nine-man rotation. Add a "pure" PG and C, since they're the most difficult to fill, and a few developmental prospects, and you've got an ideal team structure, IMO. If Brandon Rush were (had been?) more reliable, we'd be set in the back-court; but as things stand, he and Paulie are switched. We're gettin' there!

              ____1____________2_____________3____________4_____ ________5
              D Collison______P George______D Granger_______(TBD)________R Hibbert
              _________G Hill_________B Rush_________(TBD)_______McBob?
              ________Lance__D Jones______(J Posey)________Hans_________Foster?
              __________AJ______________________________________ ______Stanko??


              EDIT: I put in the underscores to keep the columns aligned. HTML advice, please: if I do it in Excel, can I just copy/paste the cells? Do I use ??
              I basically completely agree with everything you said.

              P.S. here is your table. I don't know why there is so much space between, but if you want to see the code just quote my post.





































              1 2 3 4 5
              D Collison P George D Granger (TBD) R Hibbert
              G Hill B Rush (TBD) McBob? 5
              Lance D Jones (J Posey) Hans Foster?
              AJ 2 3 4 Stanko

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                I don't think getting Hill means Collison will be used much differently. Perhaps Collison will play less when the other team has a larger, scoring point guard. I think both Collison and Hill will both play around 30 minutes a game.

                Hill will get minutes at both guard spots. He'll get 16 - 22 minutes backing up Collison and 8 - 15 minutes at the 2, depending on the matchups.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                  Hill can do as much as DC on offense. They move handle the ball well, DC might drive better but Hill is a better outside shooter. Hill is a lot better on defense and that's why i hope he is the starter. Finally someone to guard these quick PG's coming into the league. I have nothing against DC, i was happier than a motha.... when we got him. But Hill was a backup last year and almost put up the stats DC did.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                    Originally posted by LeeTheG7 View Post
                    I'm a big Collison fan but I've seen George Hill play a bunch. He wasn't one of the main options for the spurs like Collison was for the Pacers. So obviously he got less points. From what I've seen he is smarter with the ball and is a better spot up shooter then Collison. You throw defense in the mix and I won't be suprised to see George Hill starting. Remember he backed up TONY PARKER!!!!! Collison isn't that type of player George Hill will start.
                    I agree with your thoughts on Hill being a smart player and better defender.... but Remember , Collison backed up CHRIS PAUL .. lol so that particular point you were trying to make is moot ...
                    "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                      Originally posted by Kemo View Post
                      I agree with your thoughts on Hill being a smart player and better defender.... but Remember , Collison backed up CHRIS PAUL .. lol so that particular point you were trying to make is moot ...
                      That isn't the point I'm making. That point was for all the people saying that George Hill is a combo guard. I think he can play point guard but was only a shooting guard because of Tony Parker. He also played point when Tony went out. Collison isn't quite as good as Tony Parker or experienced. George Hill won't have to play combo guard role if he is the best guy for the job at point guard.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post




































                        1 2 3 4 5
                        D Collison P George D Granger (TBD) R Hibbert
                        G Hill B Rush (TBD) McBob? 5
                        Lance D Jones (J Posey) Hans Foster?
                        AJ 2 3 4 Stanko
                        Many thanks, Eleazar, although can you help adjust the 2nd row to the right, please? G Hill, for example should fit in between the 1 and 2 columns, thus illustrating his 1-2 "interchangeable" role.


                        "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                        - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                          Collison will start at PG but Hill will close a lot of games. Especially tight games against teams with good offensive points like Rose, Rondo, Paul etc. Hill can defend them and is also good enough offensively to make these guys work on defense too.

                          Travis Best played the same roll for the late 90's Pacers when Mark Jackson couldn't be counted on to stay in front of his man late in games. What makes Hill much better than Best is the ability to give solid minutes (offense & defense) at 2-Guard as well.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                            I would hope that if Collison is losing playing time to Hill because he is a better defender that it would motivate Collision to focus on playing better defense.

                            And if Collison became a better defender then Lance would realize that he would need to work on his defense as well to get more playing time.

                            Then the whole team is better no matter who is playing the point.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                              Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
                              I would hope that if Collison is losing playing time to Hill because he is a better defender that it would motivate Collision to focus on playing better defense.

                              And if Collison became a better defender then Lance would realize that he would need to work on his defense as well to get more playing time.

                              Then the whole team is better no matter who is playing the point.
                              In my mind if Danny Granger payed better attention to defense, everyone else might as well. And like I said in a different thread, I sure wish we could hear more about Paul George's statement that Danny is known as a lazy guy...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Point Guard Controvery: Maybe There Isn't One

                                I think people are confusing what Hill is capable of and how Hill was used in SA.

                                I can't wait til George and Hill are on the court at the same time... Can't wait to see all the fast break plays after steals...
                                Why so SERIOUS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X