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

Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

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

  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Oh, I agree. He still has to prove that he can do that consistently.



    I'm not saying that he's an irreplaceable difference maker. I'm just saying that he can be a glue guy for the Pels and that his contract isn't necessarily as atrocious as people seem to believe.
    So a team that continues to suck even though they have Anthony Davis thinks that Solo is worth that money. You're not exactly helping your argument there....

    Comment


    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      So a team that continues to suck even though they have Anthony Davis thinks that Solo is worth that money. You're not exactly helping your argument there....
      I don't think you understand my argument. My argument is twofold:

      1) Solomon Hill can be a glue guy.

      2) The Pelicans seem to believe that Solo has potential to be a pretty decent role player.

      Yes, 12 mil per is role player money in this current NBA market.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        I don't think you understand my argument. My argument is twofold:

        1) Solomon Hill can be a glue guy.

        2) The Pelicans seem to believe that Solo has potential to be a pretty decent role player.

        Yes, 12 mil per is role player money in this current NBA market.
        If Solo is a role player, what role is he capable of playing? He's not bad defensively. But compare him for a moment to Brandon Rush.

        Brandon had a far better start to his career but still never cracked 10ppg. Brandon could shoot the 3. Brandon was actually a much better defender. Yet his career has gone nowhere. We tried time and time again to make Brandon Rush work out...but it never happened. The same happened with Solomon Hill who has a fraction of the talent. I guess I don't see anything but a 3rd string player who may well have seen his best days...except for the pay check of course.

        Comment


        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          If Solo is a role player, what role is he capable of playing? He's not bad defensively. But compare him for a moment to Brandon Rush.

          Brandon had a far better start to his career but still never cracked 10ppg. Brandon could shoot the 3. Brandon was actually a much better defender. Yet his career has gone nowhere. We tried time and time again to make Brandon Rush work out...but it never happened. The same happened with Solomon Hill who has a fraction of the talent. I guess I don't see anything but a 3rd string player who may well have seen his best days...except for the pay check of course.
          Brandon Rush's main issue isn't his playing ability. It's his injury history. Rush can contribute to a team when healthy.

          The role that Solomon Hill can play is pretty simple. Small-ball PF. He can be the guy to guard other small-ball PFs while being an excellent PnR defender and switching on wings when needed. He will do the dirty job down low and will block out players bigger than him and if he gets the rebound then he can handle the ball on the open court and start the break. Offensively, he's malleable. He will move the ball, he is a good passer, he is a smart cutter and he can be both a PnR ballhandler and a PnR/PnP outlet. The Pelicans (and any team that would sign him obviously) also seem to believe that he can become a good 3-point shooter (not anything crazy but a decent 34-35%).

          Basically, a team who signs Solo does it for the following skills:

          1) Defensive versatility.

          2) Offensive versatility.

          3) Potential to be a good 3-point shooter.

          4) Glue player potential.

          You have to understand that the NBA right now is putting a huge bonus on versatility. No, Solo is not elite at anything. But he is very versatile and that's worth a ton in today's NBA. He's a swiss-army knife player in a league that has a huge demand for exactly that.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            If Solo is a role player, what role is he capable of playing? He's not bad defensively. But compare him for a moment to Brandon Rush.

            Brandon had a far better start to his career but still never cracked 10ppg. Brandon could shoot the 3. Brandon was actually a much better defender. Yet his career has gone nowhere. We tried time and time again to make Brandon Rush work out...but it never happened. The same happened with Solomon Hill who has a fraction of the talent. I guess I don't see anything but a 3rd string player who may well have seen his best days...except for the pay check of course.
            I'm not sure why this board has come to overrate Brandon Rush so much, especially when he was the punching bag here for years. Brandon Rush was the definition of inconsistent 70% of the time he looked like he didn't want to be out there. 20% of the time he played good defense (yes good, he was not PG level). 10% of the time he put it all together and looked like a future core player. But he never put it together. And while he has played better in GS, he still isn't a big contributor.

            Solo isnt the defender Rush was, but he clearly found his roll as the season went on. Quite frankly we should have turned to him sooner. His previous season wasn't bad at all. He was just to heavily relied upon. He played more minutes than any other Pacer. I wish we picked up his option because it was dirt cheap. But it I don't want to pay him $13 mil.

            Comment


            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              Brandon Rush's main issue isn't his playing ability. It's his injury history. Rush can contribute to a team when healthy.

              The role that Solomon Hill can play is pretty simple. Small-ball PF. He can be the guy to guard other small-ball PFs while being an excellent PnR defender and switching on wings when needed. He will do the dirty job down low and will block out players bigger than him and if he gets the rebound then he can handle the ball on the open court and start the break. Offensively, he's malleable. He will move the ball, he is a good passer, he is a smart cutter and he can be both a PnR ballhandler and a PnR/PnP outlet. The Pelicans (and any team that would sign him obviously) also seem to believe that he can become a good 3-point shooter (not anything crazy but a decent 34-35%).

              Basically, a team who signs Solo does it for the following skills:

              1) Defensive versatility.

              2) Offensive versatility.

              3) Potential to be a good 3-point shooter.

              4) Glue player potential.

              You have to understand that the NBA right now is putting a huge bonus on versatility. No, Solo is not elite at anything. But he is very versatile and that's worth a ton in today's NBA. He's a swiss-army knife player in a league that has a huge demand for exactly that.
              Offensive versatility and Solo as a potential three point shooter is a blatant contradiction.

              Comment


              • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                I think Bird has by and large done a good job. The driving philosophy of the Pacers, who operate under the assumption that they will attract no big free agents, is to be ready. By that I mean stockpile as much talent as you can through the draft and smart contract signings, and hope the superstar team either breaks down chemistry wise or suffers an injury, because if they do you're poised as the second best team in the East to take their spot and make the Finals where anything can presumably happen. Even if the superstar team pulls through like they will 9/10 times, you at least have a compelling product on the floor.

                Comment


                • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                  Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                  I'm not sure why this board has come to overrate Brandon Rush so much, especially when he was the punching bag here for years. Brandon Rush was the definition of inconsistent 70% of the time he looked like he didn't want to be out there. 20% of the time he played good defense (yes good, he was not PG level). 10% of the time he put it all together and looked like a future core player. But he never put it together. And while he has played better in GS, he still isn't a big contributor.

                  Solo isnt the defender Rush was, but he clearly found his roll as the season went on. Quite frankly we should have turned to him sooner. His previous season wasn't bad at all. He was just to heavily relied upon. He played more minutes than any other Pacer. I wish we picked up his option because it was dirt cheap. But it I don't want to pay him $13 mil.
                  Solo is getting A LOT of mileage from playing 17 well rested minutes per game in the playoffs against backups after being given a great opportunity to shine (and not playing well) the prior year and not impressing this past season. I feel much the opposite and Brandon Rush's numbers were much better than Solo's on offense and even you admit he was better defensively. Dude had a sweet stroke and could guard the best players in the league at a high level. I wasn't even much of a fan of Rush because he wasn't aggressive. It was like he was high all the time or something. But even then, his performance was clearly better than Solomon Hill's and the statistics clearly back that up. You should go compare their numbers and it's not close.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    Offensive versatility and Solo as a potential three point shooter is a blatant contradiction.
                    No, it's not. Solo's offensive versatility comes from his PnR ability. Solo can run the PnR as a ballhandler but he can also be the screener and then the dive man in a second PnR. For example, a team can start a PnR with their PG at the top of the key and Solo giving him the screen and popping up to the 3-point line and then immediatedly transition to a side PnR with Solo receiving the screen from his team's C. In other words, Solo can be used as a playmaking PF. That's what gives him his offensive versatility. Normalizing his 3-point shooting on a good percentage (34-35%) is obviously pivotal in Solo's future but it's not necessarily what makes him versatile.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                      No, it's not. Solo's offensive versatility comes from his PnR ability. Solo can run the PnR as a ballhandler but he can also be the screener and then the dive man in a second PnR. For example, a team can start a PnR with their PG at the top of the key and Solo giving him the screen and popping up to the 3-point line and then immediatedly transition to a side PnR with Solo receiving the screen from his team's C. In other words, Solo can be used as a playmaking PF. That's what gives him his offensive versatility. Normalizing his 3-point shooting on a good percentage (34-35%) is obviously pivotal in Solo's future but it's not necessarily what makes him versatile.
                      Solo has not been very successful on the offensive end unless he's hitting the three. Yes he had flashes of cutting to the basket, dunking in traffic and handling the ball, but he wasn't playable for offensive reasons until he found his shot.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        If Solo is a role player, what role is he capable of playing? He's not bad defensively. But compare him for a moment to Brandon Rush.

                        Brandon had a far better start to his career but still never cracked 10ppg. Brandon could shoot the 3. Brandon was actually a much better defender. Yet his career has gone nowhere. We tried time and time again to make Brandon Rush work out...but it never happened. The same happened with Solomon Hill who has a fraction of the talent. I guess I don't see anything but a 3rd string player who may well have seen his best days...except for the pay check of course.
                        Brandon Rush (and I liked him) had nowhere near the vision or IQ that Solo has. I'll wait for a year or two and people will probably be liking his contract more.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                          Originally posted by Ichi View Post
                          Brandon Rush (and I liked him) had nowhere near the vision or IQ that Solo has. I'll wait for a year or two and people will probably be liking his contract more.
                          Solomon is a fairly smart player. Brandon is not. Brandon is a physically gifted person. So, it's possible that Solo turns out to be a better player than Brandon but so far the results are at best mixed. Brandon has the better stats. He's a better shooter. More efficient and better defender. Yes, Brandon Rush can really defend. I think people forget just how strong he was on D. Solo is a thick player who is really overrated on D and while he is a smart player he simply falls short of BRush and the stats back that up.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                            Solomon Hill is probably overpaid a little. But that's what happens when you have a bidding war over a player because what he does offer is quite useful.

                            Sent from my Nexus 5X
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vote of confidence for Larry Bird Part 2

                              Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                              Solo has not been very successful on the offensive end unless he's hitting the three. Yes he had flashes of cutting to the basket, dunking in traffic and handling the ball, but he wasn't playable for offensive reasons until he found his shot.
                              Finding his shot will be very important for Solo, I agree. But still the offensive versatility is there. Solo was never really unplayable for offensive reasons.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X