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

Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

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

  • #16
    Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

    I think it's more of a priority than finding a starting wing. We have starting quality wings.
    Pacers,baby!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

      Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
      Say that we get a shooting guard such as Crawford, Mayo, etc.. Who's main objection is to get the ball in the basket. He plays around 28-30 minutes, Hill gets 10-15 minutes behind him, and he gets 10-15 minutes at backup point. Granger gets 35 minutes, and George gets 13 minutes behind him, and the scrap minutes as the two so that he gets more than plenty of time to develop (I am one of George's biggest fans so I'm not throwing him under the bus). Wouldn't that be a great thing?
      paul isn't going to develop the way we want with those minutes. he's the future of the franchise. if we get crawford or mayo, i think paul should start over either one. i really hope we dont resign dunleavy. he's a great guy, but doesnt fit into the future plans of this team. brandon rush is all but gone. that leaves us with d. jones, lance, PG, and geoge hill. i think we're set at the two spot. something i've been thinking about is the three spot. we have granger and PG, but with paul starting at the two, who else do we have to back up granger?
      Last edited by adamscb; 07-30-2011, 03:40 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

        Originally posted by ballism View Post
        Why does the discussion have to turn to power forwards everytime?
        It's not an "either or" proposition. We are more than able to add a PF and still keep looking.

        Tunnel vision is generally a bad thing in management.
        Probably because PF (and C for that matter) is our thinnest position right now. We only have Hibbert and Hansbrough under contract right now.


        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
          Probably because PF (and C for that matter) is our thinnest position right now. We only have Hibbert and Hansbrough under contract right now.
          Ohh really? I guess I just have this weird approach where I want to look at quality, not only number of bodies.

          We don't have an above average starter other than Danny.
          Moreover, we have only 3 wings that deserve to get significant minutes on a deep playoff team, and one of them will play big minutes as a point guard. S
          o while a starting 4 is a priority, I don't see why Bird should pass opportunities to upgrade wings.

          Especially when we have a ton of cap to pursue several targets.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

            Originally posted by ballism View Post
            Ohh really? I guess I just have this weird approach where I want to look at quality, not only number of bodies.

            We don't have an above average starter other than Danny.
            Moreover, we have only 3 wings that deserve to get significant minutes on a deep playoff team, and one of them will play big minutes as a point guard. S
            o while a starting 4 is a priority, I don't see why Bird should pass opportunities to upgrade wings.

            Especially when we have a ton of cap to pursue several targets.
            Probably because Hibbert and Hansbrough can't play 48 MPG. That's just my two cents.


            Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

              I still like a

              DC/Hill
              PG/Hill
              DG/PG

              rotation for the 1-3. Throw in a little Lance, Rush, or DJ as needed and I think we are pretty solid. Like others said, 4 and 5 are what we need most.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                Probably because Hibbert and Hansbrough can't play 48 MPG. That's just my two cents.
                I see you can't comprehend the "several targets" part. But I'm confused how you get stuck. So I guess I'll leave it at that and blame my ability to write.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                  Originally posted by ballism View Post
                  I see you can't comprehend the "several targets" part. But I'm confused how you get stuck. So I guess I'll leave it at that and blame my ability to write.
                  No...I read it, but then I thought...upgrading or going after "serveral targets" at the wing spot would totally defeat the purpose of acquiring George Hill on draft night. With Paul George at the SG spot, what more do you want, or are you in that small camp that wants Paul George to come off the bench to "give us a spark"?


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                    would totally defeat the purpose of acquiring George Hill
                    So we aquired Hill to only play on the wing? Well, I disagree. I assume he'll do the same thing he did in San Antonio. He'll take a good share of minutes at 1 and 2.

                    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                    With Paul George at the SG spot, what more do you want
                    What more could I want from a starting shooting guard?
                    Man... Unless George takes a huge leap forward, how about a lot more?
                    Aren't you overrating George's current game "a little bit"?
                    George is years away from his prime.
                    He was nowhere near an above average starter this season.
                    I'd be perfectly fine with a quality veteran wing who could start at 2 while George keeps developing.

                    And even if it's not a starter (a good wing would probably take moving Posey&co to make some room)...
                    Ideally, you want at least 3 quality wings in the rotation. With Hill playing the backup 1 a lot, we maybe have 2.5. That's assuming good consistent play from George.
                    After that, it's a poo-poo platter of Rushs and Dahntays who are bound to get good minutes right now.

                    I'd salute Bird if he attempts to clean the house and bring a quality veteran wing. Whether a starter or a good backup.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                      I don't think we have a need at SG. Yes, we can do better than Rush and Dunleavy on the free agent market. But I don't think we can really beat the George brothers.

                      George Hill is really a SG and if Lance plays much GH will play 90% of his minutes at SG. That will leave 25 or 30 minutes for the starter. Paul already showed...as a rookie...that he can guard the MVP of the league very well. Then you have to factor in that a second year player usually develops considerably in preparation for their second year. That happened with Granger and Hibbert, for example.

                      Then you look at the options. Who is really going to be available AND add much more? JRich, a 30 year old vet, has seen his numbers go downhill as he's bounced around the league the last 4 years. ...and his numbers are similar to a pretty inexperienced George Hill's on a per minute basis. You really have to question how much (if any) JRich would add to the Pacers next year in comparison to the George brothers.

                      Is it possible a free agent SG could help us? Sure. The question though is what is more likely? This might depend on where you think Paul George will be this winter. I think he was supremely confident as a rookie which is half the battle. He has every tool it takes to be a great player. It's time to step back and watch IMHO....

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                        Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
                        I still like a

                        DC/Hill
                        PG/Hill
                        DG/PG

                        rotation for the 1-3. Throw in a little Lance, Rush, or DJ as needed and I think we are pretty solid. Like others said, 4 and 5 are what we need most.
                        No question about it. DC, Hill and PG are all young improving players who were pretty good last year. Combine Lance into that equation, we should be solid at SG and PG. Far better than last year.

                        Think about it. We had AJ Price, Rush and Dunleavy playing in the playoffs. We will now have a more mature version of DC, George Hill and probably Lance. That sir, is a very clear talent upgrade.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                          Originally posted by ballism View Post
                          So we aquired Hill to only play on the wing? Well, I disagree. I assume he'll do the same thing he did in San Antonio. He'll take a good share of minutes at 1 and 2.



                          What more could I want from a starting shooting guard?
                          Man... Unless George takes a huge leap forward, how about a lot more?
                          Aren't you overrating George's current game "a little bit"?
                          George is years away from his prime.
                          He was nowhere near an above average starter this season.
                          I'd be perfectly fine with a quality veteran wing who could start at 2 while George keeps developing.

                          And even if it's not a starter (a good wing would probably take moving Posey&co to make some room)...
                          Ideally, you want at least 3 quality wings in the rotation. With Hill playing the backup 1 a lot, we maybe have 2.5. That's assuming good consistent play from George.
                          After that, it's a poo-poo platter of Rushs and Dahntays who are bound to get good minutes right now.

                          I'd salute Bird if he attempts to clean the house and bring a quality veteran wing. Whether a starter or a good backup.
                          I'm not overrating him, but I'm NOT underrating him either. I'm tired of the "Let our young players develop from the bench" concept. I say throw him to the fire and let's see what we got in Paul George.


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                            At first I thought the thread topic asked if Bird wants another "ring."
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                              Considering that we have only Hans and Hibbert up front, I think the PF and C positions are of greater need to fill out the roster. BUT, I think SG is where we need the biggest UPGRADE in overall talent.

                              I wouldn't mind having Hill be the backup at both guard positions and PG24 being the backup at SF then SG if we were able to get ourselves a higher quality SG. I'd be fine with losing Dahntay, Rush, Dun, Lance, and Posey and getting someone like JRich. He's probably my first choice for a free agent this season.

                              I think we could easily fill in the holes behind Hibbert and Hans (and yes, I believe Hans is the starter at PF for us) with a handful of guys this year and next on the free agent market. If you think we need a tough guy, sign a guy whose only strength is strength. If you think we need a rebounder, sign a rebounder. I think Hibbert and Hans will be starting together unless we somehow get DHoward or KLove, and then we can use our cap space to fill in with those mid-level, niche players for depth.

                              The reason I say that is two-fold. First, I have confidence in #55 and #50. Second, I believe the NBA is a game made for SGs and PGs, and it takes a superstar at one of those two positions to win a title. I like DC a lot, but he's not going to be our superstar. So, if we can land Eric Gordon next year, we're made. This year, I'd go after JRich, and probably see if we can still get Mayo. The second two may not be the Kobe-level we all dream of, but on our team, I think they would succeed and push us a little closer to where we want to be.

                              Paul George may develop into that guy, but he's not going to be there yet this year, so I would gladly add someone to the mix who's on that next level and just get rid of the mediocre guys we've got on the wing.
                              It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Does anybody else wonder if Bird wants another wing? Or are we all set?

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                No question about it. DC, Hill and PG are all young improving players who were pretty good last year. Combine Lance into that equation, we should be solid at SG and PG. Far better than last year.
                                Adding GH into the equation ( or more specifically removing AJ from the equation and substituting GH into his spot on the rotation ) does mean an increase in talent at the Guard rotation....but Lance IMHO still is an "unknown variable" to me.

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                Think about it. We had AJ Price, Rush and Dunleavy playing in the playoffs. We will now have a more mature version of DC, George Hill and probably Lance. That sir, is a very clear talent upgrade.
                                Sorry, but I don't consider any of the above a "very clear" upgrade at all....despite getting some Playoff experience and another year underneath the belt, I don't think that AJ, BRush or Dunleavy are going to make that much of a difference that you think it will. At least for AJ, BRush and Dunleavy.....I've seen enough of them to know what they are capable of and that we have seen their "ceiling". A Playoff run isn't going to equate to a "very clear" upgrade in talent whenever the next season is going starts.

                                As for Lance; IMHO, despite all the uptalk that Brid has been heaving on him, I need to see him play more before I consider him a solid rotational Guard. I'm not going to annoint him anything until he gets consistent minutes.
                                Last edited by CableKC; 08-01-2011, 03:08 AM.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X