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

Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

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

  • #76
    Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

    Lance should only take a three when he has too. Meaning the shot clock is winding down, or the pacers need a three and he is open. I would have said this same thing about PG in past seasons, but PG has improved enough that I am OK with him shooting it when he doesn't need to. (PG still shoot too many but if he is open and it is within the offense, I dont have a problem

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Which is why I gave a bigger sample size of just one game, to show the trend that Lance has been leaning more and more on putting up a large about of 3pt attempts.

      Is 6 per game over the last 6 games, too much or too little?
      Neither. Not a whole lot, not a little.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

        Originally posted by Gold View Post
        Neither. Not a whole lot, not a little.
        6 threes per game is a ton.


        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

          Originally posted by Gold View Post
          Neither. Not a whole lot, not a little.
          Lance isnt a good enough shooter to justify ever shooting that many 3s on a consistent basis. He isn't a shooter and should focus on getting to the cup.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

            I think the issue here is this, what does this really solve? Can anyone in the starting lineup really say they have been playing their best ball over the past month, except maybe West? Now the spotlight is shown on the Lance-Roy relationship and I think that ignores the bigger problems that exist.


            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              6 threes per game is a ton.
              It's during a stretch of 6 games and not over the course of the season. It happens when you're a wing player.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                Lance isnt a good enough shooter to justify ever shooting that many 3s on a consistent basis. He isn't a shooter and should focus on getting to the cup.
                It's not on a consistent basis. That's the thing.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                  Whether I agree or not. Keep it in house Roy, that's not how good teams handle their business. He's better than that. I'll chalk this up to a momentary slip by him.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    I think the issue here is this, what does this really solve? Can anyone in the starting lineup really say they have been playing their best ball over the past month, except maybe West? Now the spotlight is shown on the Lance-Roy relationship and I think that ignores the bigger problems that exist.
                    Paul George gets treated by Vogel as if he's Kobe Bryant. That's just caused a domino effect that has hurt the offense. PG just isn't great enough to hog so much of the offense. He plays as if he's 2006 Kobe on a garbage Laker team. PG has been averaging about 40% from the field for about 30 games now. It's hard for an offense to be good when it revolves so heavily around one player who shoots such hideous percentages. Someone needs to reign him in and tell him that he's not Michael Jordan yet.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                      George thinks he is Michael Jordan or Kobe or LeBron and tries to do too much. Lance tries to be too flashy and also tries to do too much. They both need to be reigned in.

                      In my opinion, we should let Lance walk, let Turner walk, sign Kyle Lowry and move George Hill to the 2....but we can't do that until summer.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                        Also curious to know why this whole topic is about Lance. Roy didn't call anyone out by name and yet, he's "an *** for calling out Stephenson?!?!" It's all speculation, at this point. I would say our biggest issues as a team right now are our horrid first halfs, usually the result of not giving the ball to Hibbert/West more and Stephenson and George shooting like crap. To offset that, Vogel refuses to mix up his rotation at all, so the same offensively inept scrubs are coming in off the bench for almost the entire second quarter and by time the half rolls around, you have a 10 point deficit.

                        I've said this in other thread, we have no shooting off our bench right now; Scola, Mahimi, Stephenson, Sloan, and Turner ... none of those is a great shooter. Meanwhile, we leave Butler and Copeland on the bench ... who can both score and shoot. Why? Scola contributes nothing when his shot isn't falling. He's a turnover machine who plays no D and is a subpar rebounder. Copeland's a guy who put up 30 points like 5 times last season and is a phenomenal shooter, what's the hesitation here? I don't get it.

                        We also really, really need Watson to get healthy...
                        Dear P_George,
                        You have received an infraction at Pacers Digest.

                        Reason: Unacceptable Comment and/or Content

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                          This really is one of those cases where you have to see what's happening and reference it along with the stats to figure out what is going on.

                          Lance shoots well when he gets going, but should he be taking every shot? If not, you have got to look at how he integrates with other players on the team.

                          IF other players aren't getting the ball from Lance when they are in position to do something with it, is it their fault or his? Considering everyone seems to have problems with positioning when Lance initiates, it is not just one player being unable to work with him. It IS a little tricky - it could be the offensive scheme in general causing the problem, which is somewhat supported by it not being much less stagnant when Hill is initiating - but given the other issues of rebound spacing and timing, I'm more inclined to put it on whether the players can or cannot anticipate what is happening.

                          The PG and Hill situations aren't much better, but in their cases what they are doing is predictable to the rest of the team (one might say, in the flow of the offense). That will not only cause less irritation, it actually leads to other players being more effective when PG and Hill are not having good nights shooting.

                          Overall, though, I like the analogy of the engine starting. It is almost as if each piston thinks that it has to get going on its own before the engine can go, so they are interfering with each other and causing the engine as a whole to tear itself apart.

                          Guys need to stop thinking about being the hero and start doing what is best for the team.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                            Considering Hill's shooting percentage as of late, I'd definitely include him.
                            I would take into account the number of FG attempts that he takes in a game ( between 8 to 9 ), if he is in a shooting slump...i
                            dont like it....but he doesnt take enough FGA to make that much of a difference.

                            If Hibbert is giving PG24 a pass.....I dont get it. He's the guy taking the most shots....and when he's shooting 36% from behind the 3pt line at 5 to 6 attempts a game.....to me, that's too many. Overall, I like that he does attack the basket to draw fouls and get to the line....but it just seems like he's the one that has fallen in love with his 3pt jumpshot.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                              Originally posted by P_George View Post
                              Also curious to know why this whole topic is about Lance. Roy didn't call anyone out by name and yet, he's "an *** for calling out Stephenson?!?!" It's all speculation, at this point. I would say our biggest issues as a team right now are our horrid first halfs, usually the result of not giving the ball to Hibbert/West more and Stephenson and George shooting like crap. To offset that, Vogel refuses to mix up his rotation at all, so the same offensively inept scrubs are coming in off the bench for almost the entire second quarter and by time the half rolls around, you have a 10 point deficit.

                              I've said this in other thread, we have no shooting off our bench right now; Scola, Mahimi, Stephenson, Sloan, and Turner ... none of those is a great shooter. Meanwhile, we leave Butler and Copeland on the bench ... who can both score and shoot. Why? Scola contributes nothing when his shot isn't falling. He's a turnover machine who plays no D and is a subpar rebounder. Copeland's a guy who put up 30 points like 5 times last season and is a phenomenal shooter, what's the hesitation here? I don't get it.

                              We also really, really need Watson to get healthy...
                              That really shows that there's a lot of us that have noticed lance do what hibbert was saying. When you don't have to name someone and everyone knows that's not a good thing. This problem has been starting since lance was in the early all start talk and also PG in the early MVP talk.

                              They wanted to justify that recognition so bad that they got away from what got them there in the first place. I love what lance brings but he's playing for a contract more than the team success IMO. His body language of getting mad at teammates for not shooting the ball immediately after getting a pass from him (assists) and fighting teammates over rebounds has led me to believe that. I love that lance starts the break and gets down the court but you know what travels faster? Passing and this team simply doesn't do that as much.

                              If they play hero ball and not inside/outside they will not beat Miami


                              it has also gotten to beyond frustrating to comical. how this team has yet to figure out how moving the ball is how they crush teams. Like Quinn mentions every game they just continue to fight it instead of just moving the ball.
                              Last edited by ThA HoyA; 03-20-2014, 12:39 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Roy Hibbert calls out Lance and maybe George Hill?

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                Lance needs to be our primary ball handler. Lance needs to run the offense. When he does, our offense does well. (Sure, he makes a mistake now and then, but the over is better than the under.) When Hill runs the offense, nothing happens. When PG runs it, it's either a nice shot, a bad percentage shot, or a turnover (more of the the last two than the first).

                                If the players had more practice with Lance running the offense, they wouldn't be so unfamiliar with what's going to happen. (For instance, when Roy get's the ball from Lance in his hands, he would learn to squeeze--just kidding, couldn't resist.)
                                No, just no. If you want to increase anyone's role in the offense it is Hill, not Lance. Offensively Hill is easily our most efficient player. He has the highest Ortg of the starters by far, a higher OWS than Lance, gets to the FT line at a higher percentage and is our second best FT shooter, is our most efficient scorer with a TS% of 57.4%, and doesn't have one of the highest turnover rates for his position like Lance.

                                Lance does good things out there, but given too much freedom and responsibility he starts to hurt you. That is what happened. He shouldn't be looked at as a primary scorer or ball handler with the starters because he simply isn't a good team player in that role.

                                What needs to happen is, Paul needs to learn that when he is having an off shooting night to tone it down, and focus on defense and helping others get good shots. Vogel needs to make Hill be more aggressive. When Hill consistently drives to the basket, good things usually happen. The offense should almost always be run through West.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X