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

Mike Wells George Hill article

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

  • #16
    Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

    George Hill will be on 1070 The Fan with Grady and Big Joe sometime during the 11 o'clock hour.
    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

      Article out of San Antonio

      http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...-still-a-spur/

      (snipped)
      The fact Hill was traded to the team that plays in his hometown was no consolation. One of the most affable of Spurs was not up to speaking to the reporters he always accommodated, win or lose, hero or goat.

      “He is real emotional right now,” said his agent, Michael Whitacre.

      Trading Hill wasn’t easy for Gregg Popovich and Buford, either. The GM called Thursday “one of the most difficult nights in Spurs history since we’ve been here.”

      Early in Hill’s second season, Popovich declared Hill his new favorite player, a sobriquet he previously had applied to Rasho Nesterovic. This was partially facetious, but Popovich sincerely appreciated Hill’s grit and willingness to work.

      Popovich had declared the 2009 playoffs were “not for George,” then gave him significant playing time when Hill showed fortitude while some teammates shrank under pressure.

      Hill developed so much in his second season, some called Parker expendable. So when rumors began circulating this week that the Spurs were talking to teams about moving Hill, player personnel experts for other teams wondered why.

      “I thought Pop loved that kid,” one GM said, perplexed by the trade talk.

      Popovich and Buford didn’t like Hill any less. Trading him hurt, and the deal wasn’t about getting rid of him. Rather, it was about adding Leonard, and the fact they traded up in the draft for the first time in the Popovich era should be a clue about their opinion of a player who had better become Popovich’s favorite sooner than later.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

        so who is going to start? I think they should battle it out, I'm not sure if one is that much better than the other but they are both good. Does this mean Lance is playing the 2?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

          Originally posted by RLeWorm View Post
          so who is going to start? I think they should battle it out, I'm not sure if one is that much better than the other but they are both good. Does this mean Lance is playing the 2?
          From what I can tell, GH is a 2 with solid ball handling skills. So, DC + GH is more likely.

          Unless Lance really shows something, its hard to believe he's going to get very many minutes, with PG, DC and GH splitting 96 minutes/game. Even if PG takes 5-10 min/game from DG, you're talking 106 minutes/game, 35 Min/player. That leaves little to go around in the backcourt, except maybe garbage time.

          Obviously, if Lance dominates in practice, gets his head on straight, there may be more minutes in there. Whole lotta ifs for a guy who is largely a question mark.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

            I think Collison will be traded before Price.

            Collison will have more trade value than Price. I think we should package up Collison and Rush (theyre both pretty young still) and get a quality scorer off the bench
            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

              They're available now at @TheFieldhouse and coming soon on PacersGear.com RT @PatrickRSebanc When will George Hill jerseys be available?!

              just some news on george hill jerseys... im gonna go buy one..

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

                Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                George Hill will be on 1070 The Fan with Grady and Big Joe sometime during the 11 o'clock hour.
                I just turned it on. They're playing a Paul George interview from last night's draft party. Just said "Danny's known as being a lazy dude, but this summer he's working".

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  I don't see Hill as challenging DC for the starting point guard job. Frankly we don't have enough playmaking in the starting lineup as it is.

                  I expect Hill to be the main scorer off the bench. In fact I'm predicting a breakout year for him scoring wise, and perhaps he'll be the closer that we've been looking for. I could see finishing games in place of either Collison or Paulie G, depending on who's playing better.

                  In the longer term, he could be a good pairing with Lance. Lance has PG skills in a SG body, with Hill it's the other way around.

                  I think Rush is gone for sure. Not so sure about Price though. IMO Hill's PG skills are still a work in progress.
                  Honestly, it could go either way.

                  If Bird thinks the Pacers still need a "true" PG at least as a 3rd string player, he'll keep Price and trade BRush. That would likely keep Lance Stephenson in the developmental stage for another year. But, if he thinks Lance can fill the backup PG role and wishes to unleash George Hill at SG and let Paul George back him up, he'll let Price and BRush walk. I think Bird will go with the latter.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

                    Originally posted by Eddie Gill View Post
                    I just turned it on. They're playing a Paul George interview from last night's draft party. Just said "Danny's known as being a lazy dude, but this summer he's working".
                    I was just coming back to post that very thing!

                    "He's lookin' real good. Danny is typically known for being a lazy dude, but this summer, man, he's gettin' after it. So that's huge for this team, for Danny to take this summer so serious. A guy who has that game already, to try to take his game to another level is huge for the team"
                    PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

                      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                      I think Collison will be traded before Price.

                      Collison will have more trade value than Price. I think we should package up Collison and Rush (theyre both pretty young still) and get a quality scorer off the bench
                      WHAT? Are you crazy, man?! No way will Bird trade Collison. Bird may have sought Hill over Collison before and went with Collison because he couldn't pry Hill from the Spurs, but Collison was also someone Bird wanted badly. I seriously doubt he'd trade him after just acquiring him last year and seeing what the kid brings to the hardwood.

                      Collison has nothing but an upside to his game; very few flaws. Outstanding potential. Odds are totally against a Collison trade. Price and BRush, yes. Collison, no way!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Mike Wells George Hill article



                        No link provided!



                        Edit: To repost what Wintermute had already posted earlier and that I requoted from his post, therefore not realizing that a second identical link would be required

                        http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.c...e-green-light/

                        George Hill and the Green Light
                        By ROB MAHONEY
                        April 5, 2011, 4:50 PM

                        Within 15 seconds of entering Sunday’s game against the Phoenix Suns, George Hill had made his first basket. After 35 seconds more, he had made another. Minutes later, Hill was in the midst of a full-blown explosion, as he dropped a pair of pull-up three-pointers, hit a short jumper, and then successfully executed the patented, controversial “rip move” to earn three foul shots and pull off an 11-2 run all on his own. Toss in an extra basket and a technical free throw, and Hill concluded his six-minute stint in the first quarter with 16 points and spotless shooting from the field and the free throw line.

                        That kind of burst is exactly what makes Hill fascinating to some, confounding to others, and occasionally infuriating to those who understand and appreciate his scoring capability. Such a showcase has simply been uncharacteristic of Hill’s N.B.A. career, though hardly because of a lack of talent; Hill has come to embody San Antonio role player deference, and while that respect for the Spurs’ pecking order is surely appreciated, Hill is considerably more gifted than the specialists who typically fill minutes alongside Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker.

                        Hill has the potential for much more than players in the Roger Mason Jr.-Brent Barry-Michael Finley mold. He needn’t confine himself to the perimeter, nor attempt to be wholly accommodating to his high-profile teammates. More than any other contemporary Spur role player, Hill is in a position to force his own way; not only is he talented enough to provide another dimension to San Antonio’s offense, but Hill has also been given Gregg Popovich’s blessing (via Jesse Blanchard of 48 Minutes of Hell):

                        “We’re trying to get him to the point where every time he steps on the floor he knows that he’s a heck of a player, that we want him to be aggressive and that he has the green light to do that and be a scorer,” Popovich said. “It’s just a process. He’s a young guy and a respectful guy who defers and wants everybody to be happy. In an ironic sort of way, we’re trying to get him to be more selfish.”

                        Popovich believes in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before him. It has eluded Hill, but that’s no matter—tomorrow he will run faster, stretch out his arms farther…And then one fine morning—

                        When playing with the Spurs’ stars, Hill plays within his conception of a particular role. He largely sinks into the corner to await spot-up opportunities, making occasional plays and hitting shots when the ball swings his way. That’s not enough, at least in Popovich’s estimation. Clearly, San Antonio -– one of the top teams in the league this season on offense -– doesn’t need Hill to be an amazingly productive scorer to find offensive success, but why shouldn’t the Spurs strive for the actualization of an underused weapon? Any burden that Hill can lift from Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker is unquestionably helpful to the team’s overall performance, and adding a more dynamic Hill would only make the Spurs’ offense flow even more freely.

                        Regardless of the role that Hill believes he is playing for the Spurs, he can’t elect to mute his own scoring potential. Obviously there’s room for discretion, but universal deference isn’t helping his team produce nor is it aiding in his development as a player. Shooting from the corner isn’t the be-all, end-all for a player of Hill’s caliber. It’s a valuable skill, sure, but spacing the floor is no reason to disregard intuitive scoring instinct. Hill is a natural, an athlete, and has a silky jumper on which to rely. He won’t take the world by storm if he chooses to be more assertive, but Hill could very well make one of the league’s top offenses even better with his potential to score both inside and out, all while distracting opponents from his ever-potent star teammates.

                        For that to happen, Hill needs to step out of his trained role with San Antonio and back into himself. His maturation with the Spurs provides an invaluable infrastructure in which to access his greatest talents, but it’s still Hill’s original allure as a scorer that makes him so intriguing today (via 48MoH):

                        “[Popovich] needs me to be the Indiana George, the Indiana George that played in high school and college,” Hill said. “In high school and college I’d have 25-point halves, so I should try to relive the dream I guess.”

                        Hill is right in a sense, but Popovich simply desires the best of both worlds: a self-aware scorer who fully understands his role within the team concept and when those limitations no longer apply to him. It’s a change in approach that only Hill can make. So he beats on, boat against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
                        I was going to selectively bold parts of this, but virtually the entire thing applies in my opinion --Does this article remind anyone else of Brandon Rush?

                        And, if so, is that the reason that the Spurs finally decided to let him go?
                        Last edited by Brad8888; 06-24-2011, 01:54 PM. Reason: To repost quoted section that Wintermute had already posted earlier including required link

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

                          Seems like the only way Collison could get dealt is if someone offered us a really good 4/5 for him. But if you survey the league, most teams don't need point guards and the ones that do don't have much to offer back. I think Collison will be sticking around, which is fine with me.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

                            I would personally just like to see Collison moved to the second unit. I really like the idea of being able to put Hill on starting point guards and having him serve as a facilitator with the first unit.

                            When I go down through the list of projected starting point guards for next year, outside of Ty Lawson and Brandon Jennings, and maybe DJ Augustin, I can't really find any other point guards in the league that I'd rather have Collison guarding than Hill at the start of the game. I'm sure there's someone I missed, but those three were about the only ones that jumped out at me.
                            Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team. -- Scottie Pippen

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Pronounced oo-ee-poo-ee.
                              No.
                              Twitter: @redfoster
                              Proud member of the PTO.
                              Smits Happens: Totally Biased NBA News and Opinion

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Mike Wells George Hill article

                                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                                I was going to selectively bold parts of this, but virtually the entire thing applies in my opinion --Does this article remind anyone else of Brandon Rush?

                                And, if so, is that the reason that the Spurs finally decided to let him go?
                                not at all

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X