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

Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

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

  • #16
    Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

    Originally posted by owl View Post
    The Pacers sure could use point who can break down the defense consistently. I am not sure Bird wants that or believes we can get by with shooting guards who play
    the point.
    Fool's gold. Unless your plan is to make the offense revolve around that PG it isn't going to change much.

    Sportsfireman is correct, this team needs discipline. When Paul and Lance play with disciplined fundamentally sound basketball our offense is great. When they don't, our offense is crap, and has no flow. Great offense is about rythm and flow.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

      Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
      It's the offensive system. The point guard will never ever thrive in the system if Frank Vogel is still coach.
      Ridiculous. Frank is a players' coach. He devises his defensive and offensive schemes to fit the talents of his players. He does not force his players to play within a set scheme that they don't have the talents to thrive.

      If we had a Wall or Rondo, I would bet my house that the approach to our offense and distributing the ball would be much different than it is presently.

      I believe that your dislike of Vogel has tainted your perspective.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
        Fool's gold. Unless your plan is to make the offense revolve around that PG it isn't going to change much.

        Sportsfireman is correct, this team needs discipline. When Paul and Lance play with disciplined fundamentally sound basketball our offense is great. When they don't, our offense is crap, and has no flow. Great offense is about rythm and flow.
        The question is if they run the offense to the best of their ability is that good enough to win a championship? That area can definitely be improved but I am not
        convinced the Pacers have the right talent at the PG spot to win it all with current offensive system. Time will tell.
        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

          Originally posted by beast23 View Post
          Ridiculous. Frank is a players' coach. He devises his defensive and offensive schemes to fit the talents of his players. He does not force his players to play within a set scheme that they don't have the talents to thrive.

          If we had a Wall or Rondo, I would bet my house that the approach to our offense and distributing the ball would be much different than it is presently.

          I believe that your dislike of Vogel has tainted your perspective.
          I don't dislike Vogel?
          There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

            I think what we need are some floor privates.

            Aside from Paul's...
            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


            • #21
              Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

              Originally posted by owl View Post
              The question is if they run the offense to the best of their ability is that good enough to win a championship? That area can definitely be improved but I am not
              convinced the Pacers have the right talent at the PG spot to win it all with current offensive system. Time will tell.
              Hill is by far our most efficient offensive player in the starters, he is the least of our worries. When the offense struggles it is because other players are struggling, not Hill.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                The only hope for a true floor general out of our current roster any time soon is David West. He needs to assert his maturity and leadership to keep the three young superstars unified where they currently are not always, and to keep them all focused on team play when they try to do too much on their own.

                With that said, West really needs to sit on Lance when he decides to go Rucker like Danny probably used to. Obviously Roy can't / won't because that is not in his nature despite being more vocal than he probably should be in the media. Just as obviously, IMO, Paul George would be the logical leader to sit on Lance to start with. However, he is too young to handle that load on top of being expected to carry a lion's share of the work on both ends of the floor. He really isn't mature enough to do so either.

                In my opinion, somebody from outside the current roster who has a slightly arrogant personality yet who can back up his personality with his play so he would command the respect of the rest of the team would be ideal. Who that is, I have no real idea. I think somebody like a modern day Mark Jackson could do the trick, but if so, who might that be?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                  I think it would help, yes. At this stage in their careers Paul and Lance aren't ready to run a team full time. They're not Kobe and LeBron, and Vogel isn't Phil. We don't have the talent to mimic those teams.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                    It depends on what you mean by saying a "floor general". If you're talking about someone that commands the offense and initiates most of his team plays then sure. Every team has one. If you're talking about a point guard then I disagree.

                    The Heat are not commanded by a point guard. They are commanded by Lebron who acts as their floor general.

                    The Lakers were not commanded by a point guard. They were commanded by Kobe, Phil and the Triangle.

                    The Bulls were not commanded by a point guard. They were commanded by MJ, Phil and the Triangle.

                    We don't need a new floor general. Paul George and Lance Stephenson are our floor generals. They just need to act like that more often.
                    The problem with this is that you just used 3 of the greatest wing players ever as an example. Paul George is not and will never be on their level.

                    That is by no means a knock on PG, but those other guys are the exception, not the rule.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                      The only hope for a true floor general out of our current roster any time soon is David West. He needs to assert his maturity and leadership to keep the three young superstars unified where they currently are not always, and to keep them all focused on team play when they try to do too much on their own.

                      With that said, West really needs to sit on Lance when he decides to go Rucker like Danny probably used to. Obviously Roy can't / won't because that is not in his nature despite being more vocal than he probably should be in the media. Just as obviously, IMO, Paul George would be the logical leader to sit on Lance to start with. However, he is too young to handle that load on top of being expected to carry a lion's share of the work on both ends of the floor. He really isn't mature enough to do so either.

                      In my opinion, somebody from outside the current roster who has a slightly arrogant personality yet who can back up his personality with his play so he would command the respect of the rest of the team would be ideal. Who that is, I have no real idea. I think somebody like a modern day Mark Jackson could do the trick, but if so, who might that be?

                      I agree, if anyone is this teams floor general it is DWEST. With that said its difficult for a PF to dictate the offense and keep turnovers to a minimum.

                      I should have clarified a bit further than just the obvious for elite teams. A player like Chauncey Billups may be a good example, or more specifically as you mentioned Mark Jackson.

                      Been a supporter of Bird since the days of the three year plan and many believed Legend got a pass simply due to namesake. If ever there was room to be critical it would be Bird not finding this team a pg in the draft. We skipped Rondo for Williams, Hansbrough over Lawson which is the ideal realistic candidate I sorta had in mind.

                      Simply asking if this team needs a genuine point to run the offense. I mention because it seems George Hill himself has eluded to him being more comfortable as a sg. Just various comments it seems he would prefer the sg role. Our offense is not point guard centric but it seems we may need to perhaps go back to a more traditional approach on offense.

                      Rondo would be pure gold for this team but I don't believe Pacers have the assets to get that deal done. As others mentioned, PG and Lance although potential stars are not ready yet to be a floor general.

                      I believe Vogel offense may be more conducive to a traditional approach as well because of the emphasis on sharing the basketball.

                      Looking at the stats that this team was LAST in A/T ratio for the previous season just seems like a clear motivation to tweek the offense. Bird himself has stated turnovers are an issue.

                      Seems like a reasonable solution would be finding a guy similar to a Mark Jackson/Chauncey Billups that can blend in with this teams identity on defense.

                      I kinda believe we are not effectively utilizing George Hill. Of all the starters it seems his game has regressed the most. I looked at this numbers in SA and he has less production here with more minutes than he did with the Spurs. ie fg %'s specifically.

                      http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/...38/george-hill

                      obviously its the spurs.


                      Honestly, the offense has just become painful to watch and just considering if trending back to a traditional point guard centric offense would improve scoring efficiency and assists to turnovers an area this team has consistently struggled finishing last of 30 teams the previous season.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                        Ridiculous. Frank is a players' coach. He devises his defensive and offensive schemes to fit the talents of his players. He does not force his players to play within a set scheme that they don't have the talents to thrive.

                        If we had a Wall or Rondo, I would bet my house that the approach to our offense and distributing the ball would be much different than it is presently.

                        I believe that your dislike of Vogel has tainted your perspective.
                        Yea Vogel really got the best out of Gerald Green, Miles Plumlee, D J Augustine by playing to their strengths. Our bench never developes because Vogel has no clue how to use his players. That is why our bench always struggle. We have very talented players on that bench and they are 26th in the league in bench scoring.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                          All I know is Hill better be off my team next season or is the starting or backup 2 guard because having him play the one is hurting our offense.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                            The problem with this is that you just used 3 of the greatest wing players ever as an example. Paul George is not and will never be on their level.

                            That is by no means a knock on PG, but those other guys are the exception, not the rule.
                            You believe in Lance Stephenson, though, don't you? You believe that he can reach that level. It doesn't really matter if it's Paul George or Lance Stephenson. One of them has to become our floor general.

                            Look, this team with this core will never become a point guard-led team. We don't have the personnel for it. Frankly, the most efficient system for our current personnel would be the Triangle or a variation of it. We have two post-up bigs that can pass the ball, a 20+ PPG scorer on the wing (PG) and guards that can shoot the 3 (Hill) and attack the rim (Lance). We were a power post team last year that played through its bigs and its wings and we managed to win a lot of games and push the eventual champs to 7 with that strategy.

                            However, we have strayed away from it. We allowed ourselves to become a perimeter-oriented team and that simply doesn't fit our personnel. That's why we're playing bad.

                            We need to return to our roots. We need to return to our original philosophy. We need to become smashmouth again.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                              reading some various boards ie heat bulls found posts claiming this very statement. Pacers need a floor general.

                              they will figure it out, but i dont really understand it, they make a real effort to give hibbert the ball in the post against the heat but against every other team they dont, and if they really want to be a championship team it will start with roy hibbert not paul george. the stats show roy is inefficent on average for a 7'2 center but i dont think hes given the ball in the right spots on most occassions. Watching him play its clear he is skilled can step out to shoot the jumper a little and knows how to use his body + has some moves in the post.


                              if they cant figure out how to get him involved against teams with size they wont win the chip even if they beat the heat, i think next season they will need to look for a legit floor general george hill is a nice player but hes not what they need at the pg and is better suited as a backup player. With a real pg the offense wont be so lost, less turnovers and guys like david west, roy hibbert will be consistent threats and lance stephenson wont be a guy that can single handley cost them a game with his decision making. In addition paul george wouldnt have the green like to jack up 22 shots- hes just not that kind of offensive talent
                              Yeah I've felt for a long time that they needed a point guard. I thought that they'd try harder to go after Rondo but felt for sure that they'd make a run at Andre Miller when he was on the block. George Hill is a good player but not a great point guard.

                              Lance is not a point guard either. The purest point on our team right now is most lilkey Evan Turner. He knows how to get guys good looks. Some who say GHILL should be demoted I would not really argue except for the fact I believe the rotations work better with Lance in the 2nd unit than GHILL.

                              GHILL was never this bad when Lance was a 5th option last year. If there are any chemistry issues involving Lance move him to the bench and let him flourish in that role. Scolas not playing well and I believe Turner would thrive in our starting lineup.

                              I am going out on a limb here and believe Lance wont be back due to $$$ primarily, love to see us work a sign and trade and get Vogel a floor general.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Does the Pacers team need a floor general?

                                If this team continues to slide, then a major overhaul of our backcourt needs to be made all together. Either Hill or Lance needs to be moved because they're the easiest and make the most sense to move. Hill does a lot of things fairly well, but offers little to no passing as a starting pointguard in the association. Lance at times makes plays of pure passing brilliance, but too often than not, will make the selfish or the failed flashy play. It's a shame because in theory, the Hill and Lance backcourt should really complement each other. When things were going well, it did.
                                Last edited by PR07; 03-31-2014, 01:08 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X