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

Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

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

  • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    I like the bit about Chase. Looking forward to this team running and getting on the glass. Still though...I am concerned how it all translates next April because historically it has rarely worked. I am primarily concerned about the lack of shooting. I mean, we have decent shooters but you need great shooters with this type of style IMO.
    I agree with your overall premise, but I think this year is a grand experiment more or less. They aren't winning a title with this roster, they aren't making a deep playoff run with this roster. They have a enough talent to probably make the playoffs in the East, keeping them relevant as a team, showing PG their commitment to winning, and seeing what they have in all these young guys. When we are serious about contending again, the roster make up will look much different imo.

    Comment


    • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      What if we just called the position something else.
      the Paul Forward?

      Comment


      • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

        What are people's reservations about JHill? I know hes not a superstar, but preferring Ian over him...the poor mans Roy Hibbert? What is Ian's career high in a game...7 points?
        Lifelong pacers fan

        Comment


        • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

          Our home opener against Memphis should give a good glimpse of how
          well PG will do at 4 if he goes up against Randolph, who is a beast.

          PG doesn't have the bulk or physique to keep a guy like Randolph from
          getting his position in the low post, and can't imagine him being very
          effective defensively against him.

          On offense though, could see PG out-finessing and burning him as a
          "stretch 4" if his shots are falling.

          Should be one of the more glaring mismatches we'll be seeing.

          Comment


          • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

            PG's not going to guard the ZBo's and Griffin's and Pau's of the world. there isn't a single East team I can think of that we'll approach differently, maybe the Bucks.

            PG's skeptical and that makes me skeptical, but I really think this whole thing's overblown. Don't like it, but it's overblown. The problem's it handicapping GHill and putting him in a situation he's not going to succeed in, he's one of our three best players and we're cutting him off at the knees. Ellis and Turner will probably develop a decent two man game as the year goes on, so there's that, I gues.

            Comment


            • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

              NBA 2K16 says the lineup should be:

              Hill
              Ellis
              George
              Allen
              Turner

              After playing it for a little bit, this might be the first year that I don't use the real life lineup, lol.


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


              • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                Here are some of my thoughts on this projected starting lineup.

                First I want to point to the 2008-09 Denver Nuggets. The Nuggets went 54-28 that year and made it to the Western Conference Finals. Their starting SG was Dahntay Jones, however, Jones only average 18 mpg. Just because someone starts does not mean they will play 35 mpg or 35 mpg at that position. George may start at PF but only play 15-20 minutes there and then switch to SF. Mahinmi may start at Center but only play 15-20 minutes.

                Many times kids do not want to do what there parent make them do, like be in band, take piano lesson, etc. Later on, the kid finds out that either he liked it or it was a valuable experience. This may happen with Paul George. While he may not be to enthused about playing PF now, he may like it when he starts playing, or he may find out when he returns to SF that what he learned as PF will be very valuable.

                Remember, this is just a projected starting lineup. We still have all of training camp and 7 preseason games to go through, a lot can happen in that time.

                Finally, we hope Turner will improve during the season and eventually be our starting Center. When that happens we will have Turner, GHill, Ellis and George as starters. The fifth starting spot will be up for grabs. If George is struggling at PF or doesn't like PF we can move him to SF and try to plug someone else in at PF. With those 4 starting, we shouldn't really need much of a scorer. If George likes playing PF and is doing well, we can just plug in the best option at SF....and we have plenty of SF's on this team to look at.

                Comment


                • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                  Like I said, I miss Paul George quotes. haha

                  I'm really not concerned about this, either Paul will like it and we'll stick with it or he won't and we'll figure out a work around.


                  Comment


                  • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    Just to add, on the JMV show, he did mention that they have been playing pick up games this summer where they were using PG13 as a stretch 4 and completely destroying the other team.
                    I think Paul has a lot of the on the face concerns a lot of people have.

                    We have to remember the guy is still probably wrestling with the demons of his leg snapping in half, so I'm sure that's in the back of his mind as well. I'm sure he's also wondering "Why are they moving my position? Do they think my injury cost me my talent?" These are all natural questions. The only thing that can solve them are time and action on the court. Tuesday can't come soon enough for everyone. I think Paul will see the benefits of playing at the 4, I think Frank and Larry will probably see some of the drawbacks.

                    I think when the dust settles, regardless of whether he's starting a the 3 or the 4, Paul will end up splitting time basically evenly between the 2 spots and I think the team will benefit from the flexibility.


                    Comment


                    • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      Man the star is really trying to milk this as a controversy if you look at the headlines on their web site.

                      My opinion is pretty simple, it's too early to make comment however I freely admit that I do not like the fact that we are going into training camp and it seems like there is a disconnect between the star player the President of basketball operations. I just hope it is being overplayed by the media.

                      On the other hand while at face value I hate it, I really thought we were just going to play Paul spot min. there not start him. I am open to the idea of trying something new as well. If it works then who am I to complain. I just have to understand that stretch four is not just some phrase from the necronomicon used to raise the dead or something. Troy Murphy flat out ruined me on the phrase, however I have to understand that Paul will actually try and defend his man so there will be all the difference in the world.
                      If anyone can figure out defensive principles, it's Paul George. I believe he can actually become very effective at fronting the post and could actually make feeding the post a nightmare with his speed and athleticism. He's not completely unfamiliar with it, he spent a large portion of the 2 years pre-injury doubling down on West's man in the post so David didn't get wrecked like he did all last season.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        I agree with your overall premise, but I think this year is a grand experiment more or less. They aren't winning a title with this roster, they aren't making a deep playoff run with this roster. They have a enough talent to probably make the playoffs in the East, keeping them relevant as a team, showing PG their commitment to winning, and seeing what they have in all these young guys. When we are serious about contending again, the roster make up will look much different imo.
                        This 100%. The team's goal this year is simple, try something new, win enough games to make the playoffs, then load up on your deficiencies next offseason with Paul hopefully back to full on 100% after this year of bball. Then you're trying to get back to contending next season. If the team blows up and contends this year, great, but they should be able to make th playoffs regardless.

                        If the wheels completely fall off, well then we could be in trouble, but that's just arisk you have to take in the NBA.


                        Comment


                        • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                          PG's not going to guard the ZBo's and Griffin's and Pau's of the world. there isn't a single East team I can think of that we'll approach differently, maybe the Bucks.

                          PG's skeptical and that makes me skeptical, but I really think this whole thing's overblown. Don't like it, but it's overblown. The problem's it handicapping GHill and putting him in a situation he's not going to succeed in, he's one of our three best players and we're cutting him off at the knees. Ellis and Turner will probably develop a decent two man game as the year goes on, so there's that, I gues.

                          Whoa, I think the entire purpose of Paul at the 4 is to give Hill more opportunities. I don't think Paul will have the ball in his hands much except to score with the starters. Hill and Ellis will be the ball dominant guys in that lineup. Paul will become more ball dominant IMO when he is out there with a bench lineup playing the 3.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                            One thing Paul needs to take from this experience....post offense. Because if he can learn it now, then anytime he spends at 3 in the future he could become an offensive mismatch that really only 2 or 3 teams could even hope to handle.


                            Comment


                            • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                              If anyone can figure out defensive principles, it's Paul George. I believe he can actually become very effective at fronting the post and could actually make feeding the post a nightmare with his speed and athleticism. He's not completely unfamiliar with it, he spent a large portion of the 2 years pre-injury doubling down on West's man in the post so David didn't get wrecked like he did all last season.
                              Why would you WANT him too? Unless we think he's going to be a top post defender, unlikely, it means you've taken away a top defender at a more important position in today's NBA (the wing) and made him into, at best, an above average defender in the post.


                              Imagine it with another player, but offensively instead of defensively. "Hey Kevin Durant. You're one of the best, if not the best, wing scorers in the NBA so I think you should change positions and play on the low block." That would be crazy. But it's exactly what we're seeing with PG. "Hey Paul, you're one of the best, if not the best, wing defender in the NBA so I think you should start guarding post players." Uh......
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Candace unveils Vogel's projected starters GHill, Ellis, Miles, PG13 and Ian

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                Why would you WANT him too? Unless we think he's going to be a top post defender, unlikely, it means you've taken away a top defender at a more important position in today's NBA (the wing) and made him into, at best, an above average defender in the post.


                                Imagine it with another player, but offensively instead of defensively. "Hey Kevin Durant. You're one of the best, if not the best, wing scorers in the NBA so I think you should change positions and play on the low block." That would be crazy. But it's exactly what we're seeing with PG. "Hey Paul, you're one of the best, if not the best, wing defender in the NBA so I think you should start guarding post players." Uh......
                                Because there isn't always an elite wing scorer out there to guard? Why not try to create Paul an offensive mismatch in those situations?


                                That's where I'm coming from. I think when the dust settles Paul will end up playing his position based on matchups. like I've said a couple times, it's a long preseason. And a valuable one for this team.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X