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

George Hill problem ?

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

  • Re: George Hill problem ?

    Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
    Always gotta have a scapegoat, even when you are off to your best start in history...

    Quick story: when Nash left the Suns I was REALLY hoping he'd come here. I was sure that Nash was the final piece we needed to become a contender. Keep in mind that this was before he was totally-broken-down-crippled Nash. Someone here, I forget who, pointed out that you don't need a traditional PG like that to win a championship. In fact you really have to go back to the early 90's to find championship teams with a traditional-style PG. Rondo (1 ring) is the real exception. You could make an argument for Tony Parker but he is really a score-first PG. The other starting PG's with rings: Derek Fisher, Ron Harper, Mario Chalmers, Jason Kidd (reduced to a spot-up shooter by old-age). Most of those teams won with ball-dominant wing players ala' Paul George.

    George Hill isn't the problem here.

    The problem is Indiana basketball fans. For some reason the basketball culture in Indiana has caused us all to be obsessed with traditional pass-first playmaking PG's (John Stockton, Steve Nash, Chris Paul). Look how long we've all been crying for a new PG. Basically since MJax left.

    The truth is there are really only 3-4 starting caliber PG's like that left in the league now. Really only 1 of those can play defense as well. Our system requires good defense from all 5 positions so its time to face the music: we aren't getting one of those PG's. A combo guard who has length and athleticism, plays good defense, takes care of the ball, and can hit the occasional jumpshot is exactly what this team needs, that's George Hill.

    So please just give up the scape-goating for once
    Chauncey Billups?

    Comment


    • Re: George Hill problem ?

      The only problem that George Hill has this season is that he needs to look for his shot more. That's all.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: George Hill problem ?

        George Hill does fine at PG. I just believe he's better used off the ball against Miami. When Lance is playing well he should probably be the main ball handler against their pressure defense. He has the best matchup going against Wade or Allen. Neither of them can really bother Lance from getting around the floor or disrupt his passing lanes.

        Comment


        • Re: George Hill problem ?

          Eh, our entire team needs to improve against the aggressive defense Miami played in the second half. Every guy was getting trapped, rarely getting the help they need. None of our wings were getting the ball into the post, not just Hill.

          Comment


          • Re: George Hill problem ?

            Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
            Chauncey Billups?
            I think George Hill is a lot closer to Chauncey Billups in style than Billups is to Steve Nash. Billups wasn't exactly known for running a great offense or getting other players looks.

            Comment


            • Re: George Hill problem ?

              The thing with the Hill defense team is that the general argument is something like "It's not his fault he's not producing." Well, regardless of who is at fault, he is a disappointment right now. Not the other 4 starters, not the head coach. You can blame other people for his struggles, but it comes down to this: you may like that square peg, but if you're trying to fit it into a round hole it won't work.

              Personally, I think he needs to play off the ball more. But if we (still) don't have a distributing point guard on the roster, it's hard to say Vogel should do anything different. I like Hill and I do think we can win with him, but he has to show that he is improving. I don't mind the lack of scoring and assisting, but the late game decision making (and foul shooting) has to get better.

              Comment


              • Re: George Hill problem ?

                Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                George Hill does fine at PG. I just believe he's better used off the ball against Miami. When Lance is playing well he should probably be the main ball handler against their pressure defense. He has the best matchup going against Wade or Allen. Neither of them can really bother Lance from getting around the floor or disrupt his passing lanes.
                This is a really important point...particularly when guys pick up their dribble. I recall a situation where Lance was getting pressured and he can use his body to create separation. It's not just his creativity helping him. He has the strength, length and the reputation as a passer going for him. I would say that if the Pacers can get him to be the primary ball handler successfully, we are a much better team. We are already a strong contender and that has the potential of making us a dominant team. Much depends on how Lance develops.

                Comment


                • Re: George Hill problem ?

                  G hill is not a point guard... He can't create for others can't penetrate the lane or be a threat in the lane.. The issue is we payed a player with backup talent at best starter money... Mike Conley would be perfect for this team... I'm not sure we can get him but would fit great... At the beginning of the season we took the ball out of G Hill hands early in the offense
                  And was able to get easy shots early and often... Anyone got any trade ideas for Mike Conley and how we could land him... GHILL IS NOT......NOR HAS EVER BEEN ...OR WILL EVER BE A STARTING PG

                  Comment


                  • Re: George Hill problem ?

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    You remember that Bird traded the majority of the Pacers short-term assets to get Scola, right?

                    All the ELITE level PGs that everyone pines for aren't going to be traded.....so, I will ask what I always ask......what Starting level PG do you think that we can get for any combination of GH, Granger, Copeland, OJ, Solo and Mahinmi?
                    I think we could land Mike Conley .. He would be a perfect fit and make our team so much better...Conley can shoot, score ,defend, pass, penetrate the lane to break Dow defenses, he also gets steals

                    Comment


                    • Re: George Hill problem ?

                      Originally posted by Millertime3131 View Post
                      I think we could land Mike Conley .. He would be a perfect fit and make our team so much better...Conley can shoot, score ,defend, pass, penetrate the lane to break Dow defenses, he also gets steals
                      Land mike Conley? For....who, exactly? They won't listen to any offer that doesn't include Paul George. They have no need for west, Stephenson or hibbert (they have Allen, gasol and Randolph) and they won't trade him for granger just to get rid of him.

                      You made this bed when you re-signed him for $40 million. He's your PG this year and in the future. He isn't bad for what he's being asked to do, but buyer's remorse is out of the question. There's no flexibility to acquire a replacement.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 12-20-2013, 05:47 AM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: George Hill problem ?

                        Originally posted by Millertime3131 View Post
                        I think we could land Mike Conley .. He would be a perfect fit and make our team so much better...Conley can shoot, score ,defend, pass, penetrate the lane to break Dow defenses, he also gets steals
                        Mike Conley would be a great fit but we cannot do that as Kstat pointed out.

                        And as we are comparing the two I have to say the following:

                        George Hill is a better shooter than Mike Conley. He is a better 3 point shooter (especially this year), a better mid-range shooter (Hill will take mid-range shots more often and will make them at a better clip), a better FT shooter (not this year, though), a significantly better rebounder and a better shot-blocker. Conley is certainly a better playmaker and possible a better scorer at this point as well (although, he does take a lot more shots than Hill) and both of them are great defenders (Hill being a better shot-blocker, Conley being better at getting steals although both would be a result of their team's respective defensive philosophies).

                        In fact, I considered the two to be on the same tier before the playoffs started. However, Conley led the Grizzlies in the playoffs so he certainly moved up in the ladder.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Re: George Hill problem ?

                          I was thinking about it the other day, and I came to the conclusion that Mike Conley is the top defensive PG in the nba. I can't find another guy that defends as well and as consistently. He's really developed.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: George Hill problem ?

                            Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                            A lot of the Hill ragging reminds me of Roy last year when he couldn't drop a shot into the ocean if he tried.

                            I wonder if George is playing with an injury that is bothering him more than he is letting on.
                            Really hope George Hill gets better in playoff time like Roy did last year.

                            Comment


                            • Re: George Hill problem ?

                              I do love Mike Conley though. Might be one of the most underrated players in the league.

                              Comment


                              • Re: George Hill problem ?

                                Probably not going to be able to trade Hill and a better asset back, But I think you could get Mike Conley. I think they could send a package of Granger + Lance for him.
                                Thus you move Hill to SG. That would really be shuffling the decks at the trade deadline, but Hill can easily replace Lance's scoring and defense at the 2. Conley give us a true point guard who can still score and rack up assists.

                                Why does Memphis do it? Because they seem to want to keep shedding salary, and your giving them a young guy like Lance to rebuild around.
                                I'd only do this though if at the trade deadline it was clear that even with Danny Granger, this team still struggles to score the ball in pressure situations.

                                A real plus about this trade is that you would have your starting 5 locked up for several more years, and Hill's value as a traditional 2 guard will increase.
                                Last edited by graphic-er; 12-20-2013, 10:50 AM.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X