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

Our starting backcourt

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

  • #46
    Re: Our starting backcourt

    Originally posted by Mourning View Post
    I think Hill will have to surpass those as West is getting older and will be less influential with his oncourt plays, Roy has found himself digging a huge hole he first needs to get out of (and I think he can, but I first want to see it), Lance who in 12-13 wasn't nearly as good as he was this past season still gave us a little bit extra in the ballhandling, passing and defending departments, other teams have started to improve in the east this summer, especially several ones in our division and we are still lacking anything resemling an efficient, respectable and relatively oiled running offense, while teams seemed to have finally adapted to our defense.

    Granted there are, offcourse positives which atleast partially offset these negatives aswell: Paul being better last season then in 12-13 can be expected to continue in his growth upwards and Solomon could be a nice small piece off the bench, while a big part of the team has been together for a good while now and know each others characters and playing tendencies well, while the bench for once didn't get the total overhaul it virtually got the past 2-3 years and that should prove to be a positive ( I think/hope).

    So, taking that all into account do I think we need Hill to improve? Yes, because we need to move the ball better now since we at the very least lost a significant part of our offensive creativity, so we better move the ball well and rapidly, without turning it over too much ( which has been a tough task for our team for years now) or we run the risk of our offense running stale with lots of standing around and one on one stuff due to us beying too predictable and slow running the offense. Hill has to be the starting point when it comes to accelarating ball movement from the moment we gain an offensive posession, while at the sametime at the very least be a respectable defender at the most crowded position, quality wise, in the current NBA. He will have to a two wayplayer and be aggresive offensively and pass the ball quickly aswell as safely.

    I would like to add that I am not comfortable about Paul handling the ball as much as he allready does, leading to a high number of TO's, while he also has to be the primary offensive AND defensive player on our team. That ballhandling from Paul is only likely to increase with Lance being gone, so I really hope he has improved on that this summer, because truth be told I think we are probably going to ask too much of him.


    Hill won't improve. His issues aren't basketball related. It's about HEART. You can't fix or gain that in the off-season.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Our starting backcourt

      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
      Hill won't improve. His issues aren't basketball related. It's about HEART. You can't fix or gain that in the off-season.
      Hill averaged 14/4/5 two seasons ago... You do realize that right? Hill is a good player regardless of you trying to make a trade with him out of here every chance you get. Just because he isn't Lance on the basketball court doesn't mean he doesn't have heart, some guys play differently than others.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Our starting backcourt

        Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
        Hill averaged 14/4/5 two seasons ago... You do realize that right? Hill is a good player regardless of you trying to make a trade with him out of here every chance you get. Just because he isn't Lance on the basketball court doesn't mean he doesn't have heart, some guys play differently than others.

        Paul George doesn't have all of Lance's antics either but he reminds me of Tracy McGrady. They have that sleepy-eyed/laid back thing going but they have the pure talent and desire to score 20 easy in a game. If Hill was like that I'd be cool with him starting for us. But he isn't. He lacks desire on his outer (facial) and his inner (heart). That's a bad mix, sorry to tell ya.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Our starting backcourt

          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
          Paul George doesn't have all of Lance's antics either but he reminds me of Tracy McGrady. They have that sleepy-eyed/laid back thing going but they have the pure talent and desire to score 20 easy in a game. If Hill was like that I'd be cool with him starting for us. But he isn't. He lacks desire on his outer (facial) and his inner (heart). That's a bad mix, sorry to tell ya.
          Not the biggest Hill fan as I personally think we are misusing him at PG, but what you just wrote above here IMHO is an enormous amount of BS which I don't think you can credibly substantiate, sorry to tell ya.
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Our starting backcourt

            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
            Hill ............. He lacks desire on his outer (facial) .....
            That's one of your criteria for judging a player ?? You're starting to confirm what some of us have been thinking.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Our starting backcourt

              Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
              That's one of your criteria for judging a player ?? You're starting to confirm what some of us have been thinking.
              That would explain why we never won a title with Larry Bird coaching. He lacked desire in his outer (facial), with that stoic demeanor, and that set a bad example 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


              • #52
                Re: Our starting backcourt

                Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                Paul George doesn't have all of Lance's antics either but he reminds me of Tracy McGrady. They have that sleepy-eyed/laid back thing going but they have the pure talent and desire to score 20 easy in a game. If Hill was like that I'd be cool with him starting for us. But he isn't. He lacks desire on his outer (facial) and his inner (heart). That's a bad mix, sorry to tell ya.
                I don't see how one can judge GH ( much less any Player ) by his outer facial expression or his inner "heart" whether he has the desire or not to play at a high level. GH personality is more reserved, but just because he doesn't have the personality of Lance or LeBron....doesn't mean that he doesn't have the desire to be excel at what he does. I can see how one may question his desire to play at a high level due to his lack of aggression at times throughout last season. I don't absolve him of any of the blame for his lack of aggression....but I also attribute his lack of production to the different role that Vogel had him play on the Team ( more off the ball and less on the ball ).
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Our starting backcourt

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Mavericks - Felton/Ellis
                  Jazz - Burke/Burks (unless Hayward starts then no)
                  Magic - oladipo/???
                  Hawks - Teague/Sefalosha
                  Nets - Williams/Anderson (???)
                  Knicks - Calderon/Hardaway

                  Not to start a flame war, but I would absolutely take Hardaway and Calderon over what we have.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Our starting backcourt

                    Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                    Not to start a flame war, but I would absolutely take Hardaway and Calderon over what we have.
                    How is Hardaway any better than Miles? He sucks on defense. I also see no reason to want Calderon over Hill, imagine us having Calderon try to guard John Wall in the playoffs, it would be awful, as well as George Hill being the better scorer.
                    Last edited by BlueCollarColts; 07-31-2014, 10:29 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Our starting backcourt

                      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                      Not to start a flame war, but I would absolutely take Hardaway and Calderon over what we have.
                      Offensively maybe.

                      The point of my post was to show that there are quite a few backcourts where its debatable as to who is better and who isn't

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Our starting backcourt

                        I've mentioned this before, but a lot of SF/SG are interchangeable in today's NBA. Teams with all star caliber, scoring backcourts tend to have a specialist at the 3. (defensive minded, 3pt shooting, jack of all trades, athlete, etc). We have a superstar at the SF spot, and our specialist at the 2-Guard. The "fit" of these 3 players is nearly as important as the individual talent of the 3.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Our starting backcourt

                          The monta Ellis I saw last season was better than any two players on that list.

                          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


                          • #58
                            Re: Our starting backcourt

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            Mavericks - Felton/Ellis
                            Jazz - Burke/Burks (unless Hayward starts then no)
                            Magic - oladipo/???
                            Hawks - Teague/Sefalosha
                            Nets - Williams/Anderson (???)
                            Knicks - Calderon/Hardaway
                            Summer...

                            Ellis, Teague and Deron Williams are far better than CJ freaking Miles and George Hill. They are near all-star level.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Our starting backcourt

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                              I've mentioned this before, but a lot of SF/SG are interchangeable in today's NBA. Teams with all star caliber, scoring backcourts tend to have a specialist at the 3. (defensive minded, 3pt shooting, jack of all trades, athlete, etc). We have a superstar at the SF spot, and our specialist at the 2-Guard. The "fit" of these 3 players is nearly as important as the individual talent of the 3.
                              There is a difference between a highly skilled specialist on a contender and a team who plays a backup as their starter.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Our starting backcourt

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                The monta Ellis I saw last season was better than any two players on that list.
                                I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I've long been an Ellis fan. But Felton is not a very good PG anymore. I'm assuming we are talking about thw entirety of the backcourt and not just who has the best player

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X