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

The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

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

  • The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

    First this isn't to suggest DC is or isn't doing his job. This is not suggesting George Hill isn't doing his job. It's too early anyways!!

    What I am asking if their rolls could be or should be changed for the betterment of the team? I think if they did swap rolls it is important to note that it'd be virtually impossible to be a sort of demotion for DC. I think you're going to have a guard coming off the bench playing heavy minutes. So it's not as if you'd be sending a message to DC, "Hey you failed."

    The emphasis is important. I think if we all look at this the right way we'll get a better answer to the question. For instance, a good question to ask ourselves as we discuss this is,

    "Would Darren Collison be much more effective playing with the second unit where he wouldn't be having to defend starting two guards/point guards?"

    "Can DC play off the bench next to Lance Stephenson?"

    "Would George Hill play better in the starting unit?"

    "Will the team improve if the swapped rolls?"

    Again, I know it's too early to tell what kind of production we're going to get from players all season, but I figured as we're starting to get a feel of the players that we could start the discussion and let it evolve.

    This what leads me to ask in the first place: defensively George Hill is just far superior to DC. We'd have the best defensive frontcourt in the NBA. Easily. On top of this, it might actually be helpful for DC as well! Off the bench DC would have the opportunity instead of defending guards that can really just beat him up= he is playing against bench players, and then with the second unit DC would be able to attack as much as he wanted to on offense or try to work on developing PnR game with Tyler.

    Also, in doing a little research I found out that a lot of Spurs fans that either A. thought George Hill would take over the PG position over Tony Parker this season, or B. George Hill eventually would start on down the line, just not immediately. So as many on this board have high opinions of Tony Parker, keep in mind that Spurs fans were asking if Hill should start of Tony Parker, someone who is superior to Darren Collison.

    So we'll let this discussion evolve over the season and see how it plays out.

    My quick thoughts on the subject:

    * From sort of a technical aspect I think it can happen. Just so we don't get derailed by, "But Hill plays 2 guard too, so he has to on the bench to be backup 2 guard." I don't see any reason why DC couldn't do the same, and DC might just excel in that role.

    * There is no question the team as a defensive unit would improve. Hill can flat out play D much better than I remember him ever playing

    *The style of offense that the Pacers would play would have to evolve I think, but I don't think there is a question that you can start a "combo guard" at two, or someone who plays like Hill at PG. Many teams to do that, so I wonder if it would be the right thing to do.

    *Hill would be playing probably 35 minutes a night at PG instead of 30 swapping between PG/SG

    *DC would play 25-30 playing off guard on offense when Lance was in the game.
    141
    I think Hill should start playing almost all minutes at point next to Paul
    25.53%
    36
    I think it will be fine the way it is, DC is fine, and Hill excels as a combo guard off the bench
    74.47%
    105
    Last edited by mattie; 01-03-2012, 06:50 AM.

  • #2
    Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

    No.

    DC = point guard
    GH = guard who can point a little bit.

    -eof-

    I did not vote because I refuse to say GH excels, he's useful, Dwade excels.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

      Rude.
      Last edited by mattie; 01-03-2012, 08:59 AM. Reason: I'd argue my response is at least on some level equivalent to his. but. eh.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

        Collison is a much better point guard than George Hill, he's our best plus minus guy so far, and has been passing far better than we've seen since he's been here , plus his defense has actually been quite good this year.

        Hill is pretty clearly a SG who can handle the ball a bit.
        Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

          There's a debate?

          I'm no fan of DC, but he's by far the best PG for us so far. In fact, I think playing George Hill as the main backup PG is hurting our second unit. I'm a huge fan of Hill, but not of his PG abilities.

          I'd like to see Price get a shot at being the main backup, with Hill playing SG.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            There's a debate?

            I'm no fan of DC, but he's by far the best PG for us so far. In fact, I think playing George Hill as the main backup PG is hurting our second unit. I'm a huge fan of Hill, but not of his PG abilities.

            I'd like to see Price get a shot at being the main backup, with Hill playing SG.
            It should be asked. I don't know if people are asking themselves or not, but yes it absolutely should be a question that needs to be answered at some point.

            I'm motivated to ask, because if the team could efficiently score every night with George Hill in the starting lineup at two guard, the ceiling of this team would go much higher. That is easily the best defensive unit in the NBA. No question.

            Hill has always been considered a two guard, but he has exceptional ball handling skills, he doesn't ever turn the ball over and I wonder if he could effectively do it? He'd never be a great assist man, but effective point guards like Mike Conley and Stephen Curry aren't either. Curry's main skill is scoring. So it's not as if teams don't start point guards that aren't the most effective passers. It's actually fairly common.
            Last edited by mattie; 01-03-2012, 07:35 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

              No

              Collison might be playing the best ball on the team right now. 10pnts 7 ast 48%fg and 66% 3ball. Not to mention he's been pretty darn good on defense. Almost a block and 2 rips a game and only 1.8 fouls per game in doing so.

              Yah.....no
              Last edited by Foul on Smits; 01-03-2012, 08:02 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                Originally posted by mattie View Post

                Hill has always been considered a two guard, but he has exceptional ball handling skills, he doesn't ever turn the ball over and I wonder if he could effectively do it? He'd never be a great assist man, but effective point guards like Mike Conley and Stephen Curry aren't either. Curry's main skill is scoring. So it's not as if teams don't start point guards that aren't the most effective passers. It's actually fairly common.
                Conley is most definitely a PG. He averaged 6.5 assists last season, with an A/TO ratio of 3.0 (10th in the league).

                You might have a case with Curry, who's not a pure PG. But even then, his 6.2 assists per 36 dwarfs Hill's 3.2 assists per 36.

                Yeah, Hill does take care of the ball, but you want more than that from your starting PG. Especially with our roster, where you can't expect much playmaking from the other positions.

                I suppose Hill could an effective starting PG in the way Derek Fisher was an effective starter, but he'd need to be playing next to a Kobe Bryant type of player, which we obviously don't have.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                  Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                  No

                  Collison might be playing the best ball on the team right now. 10pnts 7 *** 48%fg and 66% 3ball

                  Yah.....no
                  Your position could be right, but your argument is incredibly weak bringing absolutely nothing to a potentially interesting discussion.

                  I mean what's the point of responding if you're not at least slightly interested in challenging what is clearly your predisposed perception?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                    Originally posted by mattie View Post
                    It should be asked. I don't know if people are asking themselves or not, but yes it absolutely should be a question that needs to be answered at some point.

                    I'm motivated to ask, because if the team could efficiently score every night with George Hill in the starting lineup at two guard, the ceiling of this team would go much higher. That is easily the best defensive unit in the NBA. No question.

                    Hill has always been considered a two guard, but he has exceptional ball handling skills, he doesn't ever turn the ball over and I wonder if he could effectively do it? He'd never be a great assist man, but effective point guards like Mike Conley and Stephen Curry aren't either. Curry's main skill is scoring. So it's not as if teams don't start point guards that aren't the most effective passers. It's actually fairly common.
                    In general teams start and play those kind of players at PG instead of SG because they are too short to guard bigger SGs, and there just aren't that many good PG's out there. Hill is a SG who can play some PG. If you don't have to play him at PG you only play him there to mix things up a bit. If you do, you have an effective back-up PG, but not an ideal PG.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                      Originally posted by mattie View Post
                      Your position could be right, but your argument is incredibly weak bringing absolutely nothing to a potentially interesting discussion.

                      I mean what's the point of responding if you're not at least slightly interested in challenging what is clearly your predisposed perception?
                      If it's not broke, don't fix it.


                      There, I win.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        Conley is most definitely a PG. He averaged 6.5 assists last season, with an A/TO ratio of 3.0 (10th in the league).

                        You might have a case with Curry, who's not a pure PG. But even then, his 6.2 assists per 36 dwarfs Hill's 3.2 assists per 36.

                        Yeah, Hill does take care of the ball, but you want more than that from your starting PG. Especially with our roster, where you can't expect much playmaking from the other positions.

                        I suppose Hill could an effective starting PG in the way Derek Fisher was an effective starter, but he'd need to be playing next to a Kobe Bryant type of player, which we obviously don't have.
                        That is one of the biggest problems this team has, and will have for some time, the lack of ball movement on offense. Which of course I don't put the fault of that on DC.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                          I'm hoping that Hill is still adjusting and learning the offense - he is taking too much time off the shot clock whenever he tries to initiate an offense...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                            Mattie,

                            I have no clue who you are, but your tone of debate here, towards me and other posters is to say it very friendly, obnoxious.

                            I have no need whatsoever to read a dictionary, excel does not equal being proficient.
                            Next point; if you are so proficient in English, perhaps you can come school me in the 7 other languages I speak, 2 of them being my mother tongue and neither being English?

                            Don't open a thread if you can only take answers of people who are in agreement with you or lay bare what you propose, the idea in itself is in my opinion preposterous and I answered it as I see the case.
                            I have been a proponent of "pointing" point guards for as long as I can remember, and that is long, so don't ask me if a combo-guard should become pointguard, they are not the same kettle of fish.
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The debate: Should George Hill start? Note: A focus on swapping roles with Darren Collison

                              Originally posted by able View Post
                              Mattie,

                              I have no clue who you are, but your tone of debate here, towards me and other posters is to say it very friendly, obnoxious.

                              I have no need whatsoever to read a dictionary, excel does not equal being proficient.
                              Next point; if you are so proficient in English, perhaps you can come school me in the 7 other languages I speak, 2 of them being my mother tongue and neither being English?

                              Don't open a thread if you can only take answers of people who are in agreement with you or lay bare what you propose, the idea in itself is in my opinion preposterous and I answered it as I see the case.
                              I have been a proponent of "pointing" point guards for as long as I can remember, and that is long, so don't ask me if a combo-guard should become pointguard, they are not the same kettle of fish.
                              Apologies.

                              I never appreciate dismissive responses is all.

                              As you felt the idea is preposterous, you refused to actually question if there was any truth to it.

                              I have no problems with anyone who disagrees, in fact I like several responses that disagree they make a lot of sense.

                              The only responses I don't like, is "uh no." Personally I don't believe someones opinion based on absolutely nothing is worth anything.

                              Also, just for the record. I have never said I personally believe George Hill should start. I have asked if he should.

                              Edit- you dismissed my thread, I dismissed your response. All is fair right?
                              Last edited by mattie; 01-03-2012, 08:36 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X