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

From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

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

  • From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

    I signed on specifically to make my eventual point... but first I'd like to say that I'm pleased to see a reasonably active Indiana Pacers board. I briefly browsed through a few threads and I am encouraged by the activity and substance. I went to pacers.com and was unable to find any MB at all. At ESPN's Pacers board, there appeared to be an average of one post per infinity.

    I am a passionate believer that this team needs a traditional pass-first Point Guard, and that George Hill is not the answer for any team that is serious about making a deep playoff run. Is he a nice 6th man, a nice bench scorer? Yes? A starting PG on a team with (hopefully) ambitious aspirations? No.

    Among qualified point gaurds, George Hill is 35th in the NBA in assists per 48 minutes. He is 19th in field-goal percentage.

    In fact, during the 6-game stretch where DJ Augustin finally got a chance at decent minutes with the starters, he proved to be an upgrade over what George Hill had been doing as a PG.

    The Pacers are 28th in the NBA in team assists. 28th! Only the Cavs and Bobcats are worse. As much as I like this team, the problem I see is that we just may be the worst passing team in the NBA. We have TOO MANY shoot-first players. I'm fine with David West and Paul George taking this role, but when guys like George Hill, Green, and even Hansborough operate as if they never realized passing was an option, then I fear we have a problem.

    What is the perhaps the last thing such a team needs? A shoot-first point guard like George Hill.

    And when Granger get back, add another shoot-first player to the list.

    I like this team at the 4 of the 5 starting positions, but I feel like George Hill gets too much of a pass, perhaps for being a local boy. For the sake of chemistry, I would like to see DJ get the starting job for awhile.

    Or how about Danny Granger for Jose Calderon? Would Toronto do it?

    We need fewer shooters and better floor generals!!!
    Last edited by Randolph_HorseLips; 01-14-2013, 09:28 PM.

  • #2
    Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

    Danny Granger fans going into destroy mode in 3...2...1
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      Danny Granger fans going into destroy mode in 3...2...1
      Isn't this thread more of a smack at HIll? I mean replacing Hill with Jose Calderon? Talk about an insult.


      Comment


      • #4
        Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        Danny Granger fans going into destroy mode in 3...2...1
        I look forward to it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

          First of all, welcome to the board. We appreciate everyone's opinion, regardless of how much we agree or disagree.

          Speaking of disagree... Any trade proposal thoughts like Granger for Calderon I would strongly disagree with. I think Hill is a perfect compliment to our defensive philosophy and he is the type of facilitator we need with a post-centric offense. I don't think we need an upgrade from Hill, but moreso just more time with a full team to get used to our passing schemes. Our passing schemes aren't predicated on PG initiating. We run a lot of high picks to initiate movement and our PG moves off-ball as much as they run the offense with the ball in their hands. If we had say a Nash or Williams, we would be doing nothing but running pick and roll all day and our PG would have 10 assists per game. Instead Hill is a facilitator of the offense first and looks to score secondarily. This season, he has looked to score more than he ever has in his career out of necessity. Not because that is what we need him to be with our full roster.

          Kyrie Irving is one of the best young players in the league and his team has a terrible assist rate. There is a lot of ball dominating isolation on that team, because they have two young solid ball handlers on the perimeter. Very different ideas of basketball being played, yet they have a terrible assist rate as well. We shoot way too many three pointers to have a lot of assists from our guards. We don't penetrate the lane with dribble attacks like other teams do. We need to get our bigs touches as that is one of our biggest strengths of this roster. If you notice our bigs average way more assists than most other bigs outside of teams like Memphis who is also postcentric. Its more of a spread the wealth offense with five guys instead of a "here let our PG dominate the ball and see who gets the other touches from a collapsing defense" ytype of offense. If that made sense.

          Once again welcome.
          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

            I would replace Hill with Calderon in a heartbeat.

            Calderon is #1, I repeat... #1, in the NBA at assist/turnover ratio.

            We need more pass-first players.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

              How is comparing Jose Calderon to George Hill an insult to Hill? So confused.

              Calderon averaging 10.8 points and 8 assists.
              Hill averaging 14.5 points and 5 assists in more minutes.

              Im not on either side but just puzzled why Hill is in another league than Calderon when he clearly is not.
              There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

                Originally posted by Randolph_HorseLips View Post
                I signed on specifically to make my eventual point... but first I'd like to say that I'm pleased to see a reasonably active Indiana Pacers board. I briefly browsed through a few threads and I am encouraged by the activity and substance. I went to pacers.com and was unable to find any MB at all. At ESPN's Pacers board, there appeared to be an average of one post per infinity.

                I am a passionate believer that this team needs a traditional pass-first Point Guard, and that George Hill is not the answer for any team that is serious about making a deep playoff run. Is he a nice 6th man, a nice bench scorer? Yes? A starting PG on a team with (hopefully) ambitious aspirations? No.

                Among qualified point gaurds, George Hill is 35th in the NBA in assists per 48 minutes. He is 19th in field-goal percentage.

                In fact, during the 6-game stretch where DJ Augustin finally got a chance at decent minutes with the starters, he proved to be an upgrade over what George Hill had been doing as a PG.

                The Pacers are 28th in the NBA in team assists. 28th! Only the Cavs and Bobcats are worse. As much as I like this team, the problem I see is that we just may be the worst passing team in the NBA. We have TOO MANY shoot-first players. I'm fine with David West and George Hill taking this role, but when guys like George Hill, Green, and even Hansborough play like passing is never an option, then I fear we have a problem. What is the perhaps the last thing such a team needs? A shoot-first point guard like George Hill.

                And when Granger get back, add another shoot-first player to the list.

                I like this team at the 4 of the 5 starting positions, but I feel like George Hill gets too much of a pass, perhaps for being a local boy. For the sake of chemistry, I would like to see DJ get the starting job for awhile.

                Or how about Danny Granger for Jose Calderon? Would Toronto do it?

                We need fewer shooters and better floor generals!!!
                Also, in regards to our hideous offense, I think we do need more shooters.
                There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

                  Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                  How is comparing Jose Calderon to George Hill an insult to Hill? So confused.

                  Calderon averaging 10.8 points and 8 assists.
                  Hill averaging 14.5 points and 5 assists in more minutes.

                  Im not on either side but just puzzled why Hill is in another league than Calderon when he clearly is not.
                  Defense for one. Pedigree for another.
                  Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-14-2013, 08:34 PM.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

                    Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                    How is comparing Jose Calderon to George Hill an insult to Hill? So confused.

                    Calderon averaging 10.8 points and 8 assists.
                    Hill averaging 14.5 points and 5 assists in more minutes.

                    Im not on either side but just puzzled why Hill is in another league than Calderon when he clearly is not.
                    You just posted offensive numbers. You will find the answer on the other side of the court.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

                      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                      Defense for win. Pedigree for another.
                      I agree with defense but do you really think Hill is in another class than Calderon? I have had a chance to watch the Raptors a little bit and I'd say Calderon is a better floor general than Hill. Positives with the negatives I guess.
                      There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        Isn't this thread more of a smack at HIll? I mean replacing Hill with Jose Calderon? Talk about an insult.
                        Or how about Danny Granger for Jose Calderon? Would Toronto do it?
                        This.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

                          Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                          I agree with defense but do you really think Hill is in another class than Calderon? I have had a chance to watch the Raptors a little bit and I'd say Calderon is a better floor general than Hill. Positives with the negatives I guess.
                          I think their values are equal, I like both players, note that here you are not going to win that war though, Calderon is regarded as garbage around here.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

                            This is an interesting post, because when Collinson was our point guard, I argued nearly the same thing. And I agree that George Hill is not an improvement on Collinson if we are looking solely at assists and passing. Statistically, Calderon does have more assists than George Hill.

                            HOWEVER, to follow up pacergod2's point, George Hill brings something to our back court that we haven't had since maybe Travis Best / Haywoode Workman - a player with the potential to be a defensive stopper for the other team's point guard. George Hill is not as good as either of those guys strictly from a defensive standpoint, but he is a better overall player than both. George Hill fits the defensive philosophy that the starters have established, and his presence is one of the primary reasons that the team is playing historically good defense. In fact, if you replace George Hill with either Calderon or Collinson, this team is much worse defensively and while those guys might average a couple more assists a game, the overall impact on the team would be a net negative. Big time.

                            The question is whether it is more important to have an excellent defensive point guard or a passing-first point guard. Very few point guards are both - their names are Gary Payton and Isiah Thomas and they are in the HOF. Great pass-first point guards like Mark Jackson and Steve Nash bring you the offensive flow, but they get destroyed by good point guards on the other team. I think George Hill is undervalued at how rarely he gets torched by the other team's point guard, particularly on dribble drive penetration. He is a very good defensive player. He gets the team into the offense. He is relatively athletic for the position. He shoots a pretty strong percentage from outside. Yes, it would be great if he averaged more assists per game, but the ball is not in his hands like it is in other offenses. I don't think George Hill is the problem.

                            (And because I can't avoid the temptation to chase this rabbit trail, I think the 3-man defensive combo of Stephenson, Hill and Paul George are able to switch and chase each other's man and be quick to the ball on D better than any other defensive combo that the Pacers could throw out there - including Granger. Granger matches up well with 3s, but cannot chase 1s and 2s the way that the 3-person combo of Stephenson, Hill and Paul George can. It will be interesting to see how the guys mesh with Granger defensively when he comes back).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: From a New User: Upgrade at Point Guard Needed!

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              I think their values are equal, I like both players, note that here you are not going to win that war though, Calderon is regarded as garbage around here.
                              There's no war to be won, this is a message board not a battleground.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X