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

what is our new lineup and rotation?

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

  • #16
    Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

    Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
    Don't know where this comes from but it'll be:

    Hill, Watson
    Stephenson, Turner
    George, Turner
    West, Scola
    Hibbert, Bynum
    I'd replace Scola with Copeland, maybe even play the one who has the better match up game to game. I'd love to see Lance or Turner driving and kicking to Copeland for 3. Not a fan of stretch 4's as a main strategy, but for stretches with the second unit I like.

    Scola has been bad enough, long enough that Copeland at least deserves a chance. If we were OK with him backing up West before we got Scola, why isn't he good enough now?
    "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

      Cope may get more open looks with Bynum drawing inside attention but he's a freaking turnstile on D. I'd almost rather see Allen get some minutes. He's a smart player, sets good screens and plays much better D. With Bynum and turner and whoever else is in there we should have enough scorers. Personally I'd only play Cope when the games almost lost and we're in need of desperation 3s. I can't stomach weak defenders.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

        Originally posted by solid View Post
        Cope may get more open looks with Bynum drawing inside attention but he's a freaking turnstile on D. I'd almost rather see Allen get some minutes. He's a smart player, sets good screens and plays much better D. With Bynum and turner and whoever else is in there we should have enough scorers. Personally I'd only play Cope when the games almost lost and we're in need of desperation 3s. I can't stomach weak defenders.
        And Scola is a better defender than Copeland? I don't really think so myself.
        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

          As cdash said....swap out Granger for Turner and Bynum for Mahinmi.....we will basically have a 9 man rotation.

          PG - GH ( 28 mpg ) / CJ ( 20 mpg )
          SG - Lance ( 33 mpg ) / Turner ( 11 mpg ) / GH ( 4 mpg )
          SF - PG24 ( 33 mpg ) / Turner ( 15 mpg )
          PF - West ( 28 mpg ) / Scola_Copeland ( 20 mpg )
          C - Hibbert ( 28 mpg ) / Bynum_Mahinmi ( 20 mpg )

          My hope is that Turner is able to eat into Lance and PG24's minutes......mainly to give them some rest...but also reduce their turnovers by putting the ball more in GH and CJ's hand.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

            Really think the rotation will be the same. Turner takes all of Danny's minutes and probably cuts into Lance's a bit if he's playing well. What's really interesting to me is the PF spot. With Turner in place of Granger and CJ currently unable to hit anything, is there a chance Cope takes over Scola's spot for some much needed shooting?

            I hope Frank is ready and willing to experiment. There's a ton of talent on this team, they should get a chance to play if guys like Scola and CJ keep playing as poorly as they have.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

              I would hope to see like a
              GH/CJ
              Lance/Turner
              PG/Rasual
              West/Scola/Situationally Cope
              Hibbert/Bynum
              #LanceEffect

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                Just a hunch, but I think everyone who is looking for Chris to move into the rotation will be disappointed. It will be more likely that LaVoy will be getting 5th big minutes than Chris. Chris is a situational player now. His defensive issues will keep him on the bench unless guys get injured or, God forbid, the Pacers have to play small.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                  Originally posted by JeremyGray35 View Post
                  I am wishful thinking here but I just don't think Stephenson nor Turner are bench players. I would love to see this lineup.

                  PG: Lance Stephenson/George Hill/ CJ Watson
                  SG: Evan Turner/George Hill/Solomon Hill
                  SF: Paul George/ Solomon Hill/ Chris Copeland
                  PF: David West/ Luis Scola/ Lavoy Allen
                  C: Roy Hibbert/ Ian Mahinmi/ Andrew Bynum
                  When you get the chance to completely change up the starting line up of the team that has the second best record in the league you got to do it!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                    I posted this in another thread but thought it bears mentioning here:

                    I would like to see George Hill being the first sub out now (basically switching roles with Lance) and playing with Turner and the second unit. Lance and Turner replicate each other too much with their skill set, and we need all the perimeter shooting we can get in that unit. Plus if Turner starts to lose control, you have a veteran in there who can take over the ball handling duties or share them at the very least.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                      Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                      Just a hunch, but I think everyone who is looking for Chris to move into the rotation will be disappointed. It will be more likely that LaVoy will be getting 5th big minutes than Chris. Chris is a situational player now. His defensive issues will keep him on the bench unless guys get injured or, God forbid, the Pacers have to play small.




                      Lavoy was brought over to give the backup PF spot a shot of youth. Scola's elbow or loss of confidence make him an offensive liability. And his slow-footedness and age - a defensive liability. Lavoy takes care of that. Lavoy will probably play backup center for now (yes Ian is that bad). Bynum isn't ready yet. Which means Scola will be backup PF. When Bynum is ready, Lavoy slides to backup PF. But Cope will backup PG unless he blows it somehow and just plays horrendously.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                        Truth be told, I think there's a better chance that Lavoy Allen joins Solomon Hill in street clothes than there is of him joining the rotation.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                          Any interest in Richard Jefferson, Caron Butler or Ben Gordon if they're bought out?

                          I haven't seen them play this year but Jefferson and Butler have both been money from 3. It looks like Caron Butler doesn't shut anything but 3's. And Ben Gordon's numbers are terrible but I remember that dude being able to shoot when he was on the Bulls. Maybe catch lightning in a bottle with him and use Turner at the 3?



                          As far as what we have now, I'm kind of hoping Turner plays some with the starters in place of Lance since Stephenson already runs the 2nd unit a lot anyways. Continue starting Stephenson so he's credited as a starter but end up running him a lot with the 2nd unit while Turner plays some with the 1st unit.
                          "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                            Ben Gordon and Caron Butler are intriguing to me out of that group, but I don't see how they come here and play in front of any of the current rotation. There's always healthy issues, however. I do think that maybe Miami would choose one of those folks over a bought out DG, which I'd be glad about if it worked out that way.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                              We don't have any open roster spots. So if we sign a buyout guy, we have to waive someone on the team currently.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: what is our new lineup and rotation?

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                We don't have any open roster spots. So if we sign a buyout guy, we have to waive someone on the team currently.
                                Done.

                                Rasual Butler is gone.

                                Jk.


                                But if we're not going to play him or Solomon Hill, at the 2 or 3, I don't think it would hurt to pick up another 2 or 3 that can shoot and play more than a couple minutes a night. I don't really want Copeland at the 3.

                                Watson
                                Turner
                                Jefferson or Caron

                                or

                                Watson
                                Gordon
                                Turner


                                I always thought OJ would fill out the one of the 5 back up slots but that didn't happen. I don't think it would be a bad thing to have another shooter off the bench. Again, that's if we're not going to actually use Rasual. Jeffeson is averaging 26.8 minutes in 53 games and Caron is averaging 24.1 minutes in 31 games. I wouldn't mind having one of those guys for 10 minutes off the bench.
                                "I have never taken the high road, but I tell other people to ’cause then there’s more room for me on the low road."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X