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

Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

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

  • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

    Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
    I think Solo starting at 2 next year, with or without Stuckey still here, depends on what we do in the off season. Looks like we will have a draft pick somewhere in the lottery area and will/should be able to get a pick to improve at least one spot. Whether Bird is blowing smoke about needing a SG more than other help or will go after a D. West replacement will determine a lot of whom we will try to keep. Can Rudez continue to improve to the point of being a valuable backup for Paul? Will we make him more of a 2 or more of a stretch 4?
    Losing either of Roy or David to their option would, of course, change everything we plan and need to do.
    Over the long term......I prefer to have Rudez as a 11th/12th Option on this Team purely as a 3pt point shooting Role Player.....but I suspect that if we re-sign Stuckey and Lavoy ; for the short term ( as in, next season ), we will have Rudez as the 10th option on this team.

    Next season, I prefer to have a lineup of:

    Starting Unit - GH / Miles / PG13 / West / Hibbert
    2nd Unit - Stuckey / Solo / Rudez / Lavoy / Mahinmi ( where our 1st round Draft Pick Wing Player can sub in when needed to fill the Backup SF spot on an "as needed" basis )

    I know that we won't have an egg-timer hockey lineup changes....but that's what I am primarily looking to at.

    For the long term, my preference and hope is that we can promote whoever we draft ( my hope a Wing 3D / Glue Type guy ) into the Starting lineup and then push Stuckey / Miles / Solo to the 2nd unit.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

      Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
      I think Solo starting at 2 next year, with or without Stuckey still here, depends on what we do in the off season. Looks like we will have a draft pick somewhere in the lottery area and will/should be able to get a pick to improve at least one spot. Whether Bird is blowing smoke about needing a SG more than other help or will go after a D. West replacement will determine a lot of whom we will try to keep. Can Rudez continue to improve to the point of being a valuable backup for Paul? Will we make him more of a 2 or more of a stretch 4?
      Losing either of Roy or David to their option would, of course, change everything we plan and need to do.
      I think Solo Hill is a couple percentage points from being the 3 and D shooting guard (let's face it, wing) player we need next to PG. My thought on the 1st rounder would be to draft the next starting 4. I know Harrell, Portis and Wood are all projected to go in the high teens/early 20 range. Anyone know anything about these kids? I like LaVoy as the backup 4, as long as we can keep DWest and develop a rookie. Although a first round, almost lottery pick might want to be THE backup. Not real sure how that usually goes. I'd love to see both Miles and Stuckey off the bench next season. They fit the Pacers very well.

      Comment


      • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
        I definitely buy that he's young and he's going to continue to improve for the next few years.

        I don't, however, buy that he's "basically" a rookie. Guys who barely play their rookie year still play the game with more basketball maturity than true rookies when they are pulled into the rotation.

        It's part of why Lance's play to me was so disheartening to me when he got some burn in his second year. He was still playing like a rookie. He looked like he had the physical tools, which is why I wanted his play to continue that year, but he looked like a rookie. Because I don't buy the "basically a rookie" line of thinking, I actually took it as a negative for Lance. I still thought Frank would turn him into a good player, but I thought it was going to take longer than it actually did.
        I think you proved my point for me. You didn't give up on Lance when his 2nd season didn't blow you away.. he ended up being a strong starter on a contender a few years later. This is why I don't think it's wise to judge Solo on where he's at after only half of a season of meaningful minutes... and I will say this, Solo looks better than Lance did at the same points in their careers, so it's only logical to think that Solo, as good as I think he's looked as a "green" guy, could be a really strong player in a year or two. We haven't seen this guy grow up yet, and he's already impressive. Thing with his is that he has all of the physical tools... he is strong as an ox, quick, long, and surprisingly explosive. As he gains more confidence, he's going to be a handful and he appears to be about 1/124th the headcase that Lance was. Listening to him speak compared to 2nd year Lance is a revelation... Solo seems like a very articulate, quick-minded, intelligent guy. He's already taken a considerable jump forward this year, so he's showing the ability to improve.
        Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-23-2015, 03:58 PM.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

          I worry about our 4s defending against the 3 point shot. Right now, opponents shoot 8.7% better from 3 when West is guarding them. That's my biggest concern going into next year when we'll have to deal with Kevin Love, the Hawks big men, or Patrick Peterson in a 7 game series.

          Comment


          • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

            That's sort of one of the things you choose when you go with a interior guy like West. He gives you those close and mid-range options on both sides of the court... he's not a stretch four or someone who gets out to the 3-point line quick. It's just a system-level decision. Do you want an interior presence... or a wing 4? Not a lot of guys who can defend inside-and-out like at the 4 who are the offensive load that West is. You go with a younger guy who can get out and contest stretch 4s, you lose a guy like West who is a calming, go-to offensive presence in crunch time and lockerroom leader.
            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 02-23-2015, 03:56 PM.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

              Originally posted by Guardshock View Post
              I Just don't think he's a spark plug and he does not help Miles or Stuckey. Although, he could swap defenders with PG and be a 4th/5th option on offense. Stuckey and Miles compliment eachother. Stuckey drives well and hits open 3s. His ability to collapse the defense opens up Miles. That's why I'd like to keep stuckey and Miles together and leave Solo with PG. To me, that makes our starting lineup and bench solid.
              Short Term, unless we draft a Wing Player that is ready to Start and can be that 3D/Glue Guy right out of the gates....I'm okay with having Miles or Solo become our Starting SG/SF......cuz I know that our options are limited when it comes to the 2015-2016 Offseason.

              But long term.....specifically after the Summer of 2016....I would want Solo/Miles coming off the bench as our key backup rotational Wings.

              My hope is that one way or another by the Summer of 2016 ( when we have a good amount of Cap Space ), I think that we will fill our Starting lineup with a new Starting Guard ( either a new Starting PG or new Starting SG/SF ) via the Draft or Free Agency and that we will either have a new Starting PF via the Draft or Free Agency ( depending on what we do in the upcoming draft ).
              Last edited by CableKC; 02-23-2015, 05:16 PM.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                I think Solo will be our starting 2 next year as well. Our starters have enough fire power and Solo's D will help alot. Stuckey just said in a interview he loves coming off our bench. I think Solo coming off our bench next year would only hurt us.


                "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                Comment


                • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                  Starters have fire power? No one currently playing is averages even 14 ppg- G Hill at 13.5 is the leading scorer amd has only played 17games. Of those who have played 40 games or more West leads at 12.8, Miles 12.5, Stuckey 12.4, and Hibbert 11.0ppg. We all assume Paul George will come back next season and average at least 17 ppg , but that is not a given.

                  Its not even certain Stuckey is even back next season , I personally hope he is. Remember to David West will be 35 starting next season. From what you are saying Miles is our 6th man since Stuckey, Watson, Scola, Allen , Copeland, Sloan and even Whittington are free agents we have no idea what the roster will even look like. Only Rudez and Mahinmi are signed for next season off the current bench.

                  Could well be the starting shooting guard isn't even currently on the team. To me Solo is an a reserve who comes in and takes the toughest wing to guard when Paul rests, or plays alongside Paul in key periods if there are 2 hot wings to guard. I think Solo has earned minutes but not a starters role next season.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    One thing to think about is how much better guys tend to look playing next to elite wings. Think about how good Lance looked next to Paul for example. It is possible that whoever starts next to Paul next year could benefit from the same bump in production.
                    Paul sure didn't help Evan Turner much...you know the guy who averaged nearly 20ppg in Philly.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      Paul sure didn't help Evan Turner much...you know the guy who averaged nearly 20ppg in Philly.
                      Turner came to Indiana as a bench player though. He had to adjust to a whole new role, but when Turner started for us by himself he averaged around 19 ppg. The way he's being used in Boston is about right, he's being used as a ball handler. But Turner is not athletic or a great shooter. His strength is really in transition or when he's allowed to set up alone as the main ball handler. Vogel used him properly as backup point guard in strong games, in weak games Turner came off the bench behind Lance as a scorer. Er go, as long as the ball is out of his hands he's pretty useless.

                      Philly made sure to keep the ball in his hands at all times, hence he was effective there.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                        Can someone confirm for me how much of the MLE we will have to spend on Free Agents in July 2015?

                        Do we have the full MLE to go after a Free Agent?

                        or

                        Just part of it?

                        I'm hoping that we have enough to go re-sign both Stuckey and Lavoy.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          Can someone confirm for me how much of the MLE we will have to spend on Free Agents in July 2015?

                          Do we have the full MLE to go after a Free Agent?

                          or

                          Just part of it?

                          I'm hoping that we have enough to go re-sign both Stuckey and Lavoy.


                          Our dilemma is we can resign LaVoy or Copeland. Cope is a RFA.... LaVoy is a free agent. I'd rather have Cope simply because I know he can space the floor at his NATURAL position, PF. I haven't seen enough of LaVoy because Vogel doesn't play him enough.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Can someone confirm for me how much of the MLE we will have to spend on Free Agents in July 2015?

                            Do we have the full MLE to go after a Free Agent?

                            or

                            Just part of it?

                            I'm hoping that we have enough to go re-sign both Stuckey and Lavoy.
                            I just seen this the other day and now I cant find it. But I remember thinking it wasn't very much at all. I am still looking


                            "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                            "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                              Cope is not going to be re-signed, Grimp. No way.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rodney Stuckey - Do you want him back next year?

                                Yep, I am a big Cope fan. No way Bird resigns him. But LaVoy? Yea you betcha! I am happy Cope will be on the loose though. I see a few teams he could help. The Knicks would like him back. I wanna see Cope go to a team where he can get some PT. No way on the Pacers though.


                                "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                                "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X