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

Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

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

  • Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

    Here is the list (note that this excludes the injured Derrick Rose and Mo Williams):

    I'll go in order of winning % (top down) as of 11:26PM on January 30th:

    Tony Parker
    Russell Westbrook
    Chris Paul
    Mario Chalmers
    Mike Conley
    Raymond Felton
    Kirk Hinrich
    Stephen Curry
    Ty Lawson
    Deron Williams
    George Hill
    Jeff Teague
    Brandon Jennings
    Jamaal Tinsley
    Jeremy Lin
    Damian Lillard
    39
    At or about 1st
    0.00%
    0
    At or about 2nd
    0.00%
    0
    At or about 3rd
    0.00%
    0
    At or about 4th
    0.00%
    0
    At or about 5th
    2.56%
    1
    At or about 6th
    2.56%
    1
    At or about 7th
    10.26%
    4
    At or about 8th
    15.38%
    6
    At or about 9th
    15.38%
    6
    At or about 10th
    17.95%
    7
    At or about 11th
    10.26%
    4
    At or about 12th
    12.82%
    5
    At or about 13th
    2.56%
    1
    At or about 14th
    2.56%
    1
    At or about 15th
    0.00%
    0
    At or about 16th
    0.00%
    0
    I'm not sure
    7.69%
    3

    The poll is expired.


  • #2
    Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

    Tony Parker
    Russell Westbrook
    Chris Paul

    Mario Chalmers
    Mike Conley
    Raymond Felton
    Kirk Hinrich
    Stephen Curry
    Ty Lawson
    Deron Williams

    George Hill
    Jeff Teague
    Brandon Jennings
    Jamaal Tinsley
    Jeremy Lin
    Damian Lillard

    ~10th until Rose is healthy, though certainly there are teams not listed here with better point guards as well, such as Kyrie, Rondo, and probably Lowry.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

      Tony Parker
      Russell Westbrook
      Chris Paul

      Mario Chalmers
      Mike Conley
      Raymond Felton
      Kirk Hinrich
      Stephen Curry
      Ty Lawson
      Deron Williams

      Jeff Teague
      Brandon Jennings
      Jamaal Tinsley
      Jeremy Lin
      Damian Lillard

      There are a few younger guys..who when they are at their best, are better than Hill (Lin for example)...but they have yet to be as consistent as Hill and are up and down in their game.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

        Originally posted by Sookie View Post
        Tony Parker
        Russell Westbrook
        Chris Paul

        Mario Chalmers
        Mike Conley
        Raymond Felton
        Kirk Hinrich
        Stephen Curry
        Ty Lawson
        Deron Williams

        Jeff Teague
        Brandon Jennings
        Jamaal Tinsley
        Jeremy Lin
        Damian Lillard

        There are a few younger guys..who when they are at their best, are better than Hill (Lin for example)...but they have yet to be as consistent as Hill and are up and down in their game.
        Sorry sook if you are serious about saying Hill is better than Steph Curry I donk know what to say strongly disagree. If we are going for our team I would have him ranked higher than just a best player overall list. Not a big Hill fan as a pg but for our team and how it's built I think he is a great fit.

        for example Jennings is a better talent and player. However I would take Hill over him for our team easily.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

          Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
          Here is the list (note that this excludes the injured Derrick Rose and Mo Williams):

          I'll go in order of winning % (top down) as of 11:26PM on January 30th:

          Tony Parker
          Russell Westbrook
          Chris Paul

          Mario Chalmers
          Mike Conley
          Raymond Felton
          Stephen Curry

          Ty Lawson
          Deron Williams

          George Hill
          Jeff Teague
          Brandon Jennings

          Jamaal Tinsley
          Jeremy Lin
          Damian Lillard
          The bold is DEFINITELY better then GHill at the PG position.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

            I'll be very interested to see if there's any consensus on this after a couple of days.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

              Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
              Sorry sook if you are serious about saying Hill is better than Steph Curry I donk know what to say strongly disagree. If we are going for our team I would have him ranked higher than just a best player overall list. Not a big Hill fan as a pg but for our team and how it's built I think he is a great fit.

              for example Jennings is a better talent and player. However I would take Hill over him for our team easily.
              I'll be honest, I haven't seen Curry play much, possibly the least out of the point guards but when I do see him, he strikes me as a fantastic shooter, whose not that great of a defender and whose turnover prone. Which is where my ranking comes from. (I wasn't ranking by who has the most talent, Hill would be at the bottom of that list..but more along the lines of "if I'm building a team, who would I want as my point.) I could be dead wrong on Curry, but that's my reaction from what I've seen.

              Jennings...Jennings is one that does have more talent than Hill, but I'd never take him on a team if I was trying to win. And I'd much prefer Hill as a third guard, but he does what the Pacers need him to do.

              I do really like Hill's game, I just wouldn't play him at point.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

                Curry also has horrible ankle issues, which doesn't make him reliable long term.

                I wasn't a fan of Hill's contract, but so far he's doing alright, but if the Pacers could get a Bledsoe type, I think it would be an improvement.
                "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                ----------------- Reggie Miller

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

                  Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                  Here is the list (note that this excludes the injured Derrick Rose and Mo Williams):

                  I'll go in order of winning % (top down) as of 11:26PM on January 30th:

                  Tony Parker
                  Russell Westbrook
                  Chris Paul

                  Mario Chalmers
                  Mike Conley
                  Raymond Felton
                  Kirk Hinrich
                  Stephen Curry
                  Ty Lawson
                  Deron Williams
                  George Hill
                  Jeff Teague
                  Brandon Jennings
                  Jamaal Tinsley
                  Jeremy Lin
                  Damian Lillard
                  The bold are all better.. I didn't add Damian as I can't really make my mind up on him. Earlier I said he was better. He's pretty good on offense, fun to watch but he's pathetic on defense which has a lot to do with his youth more than anything.

                  But anyways, for the people that would suggest Lin, Jennings, and Felton are all better.. what are you smoking?? Felton and Lin flat out suck. Sorry. They just do.

                  Jennings? He's a 39% shooter that can't defend anyone. I mean he has a really pretty game, and when you ignore him 95% of the time and see him explode for a nice 30 point game on sportscenter I guess it is easy to think he is a good point guard. UM NO. He's not. He sucks. There are at least 20 other point guards in the league I'd take over Jennings without even thinking twice.

                  Indiana fans obsession with a "true" pointguard is also the reason Indiana fans will NEVER be happy with whoever starts at point guard. Because the only guard that would truly make Indiana fans happy is Chris Paul. That's it. Deron Williams, despite being a great passer and shooter wouldn't beause he plays great one game and blows it out the next. Rondo, who pisses Boston fans off on a regular basis wouldn't make Indiana fans happy because he can't shoot even if no one is within 50 feet of him. Russell Westbrook wouldn't make Indiana fans happy because he's no where near what a "true point guard" is (whatever the **** that means anyways). Derrick Rose wouldn't make Indiana fans happy for the same reason.

                  George Hill plays very good defense, he does a good job initiating the offense (so long as your opinion of initiating the offense is getting the ball to our scorers in scoring position versus dribbling around for 18 seconds like Nash until someone is open), and he can shoot.

                  Sookie suggested Lin on his best day is better than Hill. That's a beautiful fiction, if you're one of the types that just love those true point guard types. (The types that haven't won a championship since Isaiah). This is funny because just on saturday, Hill had what is not an uncommon game for him- 22 points (10-16), 9 rebounds, 8 assists, 1 turnover and two steals to go with defense that Lin could never play in HELL. I would absolutely love to see Lin EVER play a game that good. You won't find it because he never has nor will he EVER have a game that good. He's not talented enough.

                  I've got two suggestions for the "I love true point guards crowd." First, get a grip. Your fantasy that NBA offenses need some sort of floor general to work is just WRONG. Exhibit A: OKC doesn't even have a point guard on their team. (Again, if you want to use that ridiculous, FLAWED definition of what a point guard is).

                  Second: Appreciate what you have: The Pacers have a very good point guard. He's not a stud. He will have bad games. (Note- every player outside of LBJ/Durant has bad games). He will also have good games, which he has had MANY.

                  George Hill actually has it harder than any other Pacer if you consider the following: Roy has played terribly offensively after getting a max contract, he has deserved the criticism. Paul George every other third game has a bad game. Whether it is shooting poorly, or too many turnovers. Why is PG, the future excused yet unless hill throws up 15 and 10 he's criticized????

                  A little angry rant yes, but I just saw more than one poster suggest BRANDON JENNINGS is better than George Hill. WOW. That's ridiculous. Dudes a career 39% shooter. He actually recently, temporarily got his shooting just beyond 40%, proud of him, but it'll dip after this short hot streak. The dude chucks, and plays no defense. UGH. So glad we don't have him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

                    I would put Jarrett Jack on the list to he is basically a starting pg on the Warriors. Mo Williams is the starter for the Jazz btw.

                    but Sook you should watch more GS Curry is the best player on that team. He may not be a true pg but nether is Hill. I would take Curry over Hill without thinking dude is better at almost every part of the game. He also is a lot better defender than he gets credit for. Bad defender is a rap from college IMO he is average lot better since Monta was traded. His offensive game is darn near elite status IMO.

                    a Curry, Lance backcourt would be so fun to watch and be really effective. 0

                    Bigger question for me is Jack or Hill?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

                      Curry is amazing. Love his game.

                      And I'd take Hill over Jack all day. Love Jack, he's having a great season, easy. I'd take Hill.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

                        Originally posted by mattie View Post
                        Sookie suggested Lin on his best day is better than Hill. That's a beautiful fiction, if you're one of the types that just love those true point guard types. (The types that haven't won a championship since Isaiah). This is funny because just on saturday, Hill had what is not an uncommon game for him- 22 points (10-16), 9 rebounds, 8 assists, 1 turnover and two steals to go with defense that Lin could never play in HELL. I would absolutely love to see Lin EVER play a game that good. You won't find it because he never has nor will he EVER have a game that good. He's not talented enough.
                        yea, Jeremy Lin had 38 points, 7 assists, and 2 turnovers against the Spurs. And Lets not forget that month stretch. What people forget about him, is that..this is actually essentially his rookie season. He's barely played before those two months in NYC..and before that in college, he was playing below his competition level. (Against Ivy league teams)

                        A "true" point hasn't won since Issiah? really? What are Parker and Rondo...not to mention Fisher is the definition of a floor general..and actually Chalmers is a floor general as well.

                        What hasn't won, is an offense designed around a point guard.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

                          Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                          yea, Jeremy Lin had 38 points, 7 assists, and 2 turnovers against the Spurs. And Lets not forget that month stretch. What people forget about him, is that..this is actually essentially his rookie season. He's barely played before those two months in NYC..and before that in college, he was playing below his competition level. (Against Ivy league teams)

                          A "true" point hasn't won since Issiah? really? What are Parker and Rondo...not to mention Fisher is the definition of a floor general..and actually Chalmers is a floor general as well.

                          What hasn't won, is an offense designed around a point guard.
                          Ok I'll give you Rondo. Parker isn't a true point guard by your definition.

                          And Lin can't defend my grandma. What kind of game did Parker have against Lin that game?? 50? Nice that Lin threw up 38, but his offensive contributions are always negated by his production on the other end of the court.

                          Edit - All the evidence I need that the true point guard crowd will never be happy with an Indiana starting point- Chalmers and Fishers are "floor generals". That's a joke. Chalmers and Fishers are nothing more than spot up shooters. They don't even play point. That's absurd.

                          Edit 2 - Chalmers is apparently a floor general- He averages 7.7 points, 3.4 assists and 1.6 turnovers (compared to Hill's 1.8). WOW.
                          Last edited by mattie; 01-31-2013, 02:04 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

                            Unless a team started 4 other defensive studs, I don't think there is anyway in hell Lin could ever start for a championship squad.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Among the starting point guards on teams who are above .500, where do you rank George Hill?

                              Hill on the other hand would make the following playoff teams better: Miami, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Boston, Houston, Utah and Denver.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X