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

GET BEN SIMMONS PRITCHARD !!!!

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
    And can we stop pretending that there HAVEN'T been effective non-scoring point guards in NBA history?
    Of course there have been. But it is rare they are one of a great team's two best players. And the demands for shooting have gone up over time as teams were first 1) allowed to not guard somebody and 2) realized it would be an effective strategy to do so.

    Comment


    • #62
      I think with Simmons you'd have to have four excellent shooters around him consistently. Read a post somewhere - this thread (?) / ATL v. Philly (?) - where CJ Jones said play Simmons at small-ball 5. I'm all for it. Neither Domas nor Turner shoot consistently well enough anyway. No more Turbonis and Ben at 5. Only way I'd entertain it. And even then I'm not jazzed about the idea. Owed a boatload and can't shoot outside 5 feet.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

        Of course there have been. But it is rare they are one of a great team's two best players. And the demands for shooting have gone up over time as teams were first 1) allowed to not guard somebody and 2) realized it would be an effective strategy to do so.
        So we're going to let one bad playoff series define him going forward? It happens. LeBron James had a bad playoff series. Like someone else said before, the lessen the pressure off him, and he could become a great player. The only thing that you hope for is that he doesn't become another Nick Anderson situation.


        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
          And can we stop pretending that there HAVEN'T been effective non-scoring point guards in NBA history?
          These last 2 playoffs makes you think he can be effective? Let's stop acting like Simmons just entered the league. Fixing his jump shot is basically starting at ground zero. He'll be 40 by the time he is respectable from mid-range.

          It's pretty sad that his shooting hasn't even improved one bit. He can be in the gym shooting all day and have people rebounding for him. Gotta question that work ethic.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by BornIndy View Post

            These last 2 playoffs makes you think he can be effective? Let's stop acting like Simmons just entered the league. Fixing his jump shot is basically starting at ground zero. He'll be 40 by the time he is respectable from mid-range.

            It's pretty sad that his shooting hasn't even improved one bit. He can be in the gym shooting all day and have people rebounding for him. Gotta question that work ethic.
            Fine...let's keep with the pipe dreams of trading for an elite player or picking one in the draft. At the end of day, I can't seem him making the team WORSE.


            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


            • #66
              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

              So we're going to let one bad playoff series define him going forward? It happens. LeBron James had a bad playoff series. Like someone else said before, the lessen the pressure off him, and he could become a great player. The only thing that you hope for is that he doesn't become another Nick Anderson situation.
              No, of course not. But many of the same things happened against Toronto two years ago as well. It's really hard to figure out where he should play in the 4th quarter of a playoff game and Philly has often resorted to putting him in the dunkers spot doing basically nothing.

              I think there are teams that Simmons could thrive on, but it would take certain types of players to make up for his immense weaknesses and allow him to focus on his great strengths. Philly is not that team and neither is Indiana.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                Giannis actually shoots jumpers though. Mid-range and 3's. And that's with him being paired with a center that can space the floor.

                Ben doesn't do that. He rarely shoots anything past 10 feet. If you pair him with another player who doesn't space well? Going to cause major problems, especially in the playoffs.
                That’s my biggest concern with Sabonis and Ben. That is a disaster waiting to happen, especially with LeVert also being there. Teams already pack the paint in the playoffs, and we’d be giving them a free player.

                I can think of a few scenarios where it’d be good to have Simmons, but teaming with Sabonis isn’t one of them. It has to be four other guys who could shoot. Unfortunately, the players who can shoot are the ones we’re proposing in trades.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Y'all are talking about how Ben is a LeVert or Brogdon level player without understanding how good Ben is in on D. The dude was 1st team all NBA defensive... plus the guy has amazing court vision. He is a 6'11" point guard... I mean come on... Of course you trade for him if he is available. He has a bad jumper and free throw problems. That can be improved. If he develops a jump shot he becomes a HOF.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post

                    That’s my biggest concern with Sabonis and Ben. That is a disaster waiting to happen, especially with LeVert also being there. Teams already pack the paint in the playoffs, and we’d be giving them a free player.

                    I can think of a few scenarios where it’d be good to have Simmons, but teaming with Sabonis isn’t one of them. It has to be four other guys who could shoot. Unfortunately, the players who can shoot are the ones we’re proposing in trades.
                    And this is the conundrum, right? Trading for Simmons would probably work best if he was replacing Sabonis.

                    That being said, I wouldn’t trade Sabonis for Simmons. I’d prefer to trade him in a package for someone else personally.
                    I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                      Jokic and Gordon both shoot twice as many shots from 3 as Simmons shoots from any distance beyond 10 feet.

                      Jokic's average distance of shot was 10.6. Gordon's in Denver was 11.6. Sabonis's was 8.8. And Simmons? 4.3. We aren't talking about the same stratosphere of defensive respect. Simmons' passing ability helps, but not nearly that much.
                      u are always on point destroying drunk grandpa arguments with stats, but this was even better than usual

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        both sabonis and simmons are very good passers, question is how do you weigh
                        1) sabonis' complete incompetence on defense vs simmons complete incompetence on offense
                        2) simmons bad ft shooting vs simmons' better handles
                        plus then simmons makes 10M more...
                        it's somewhat close, but i don't think i'd do it...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          And yes he makes the equivalent of Myles Softner and Jeremy Lamb money, oh the horror of not having those two guys eating the cap space instead of Ben
                          Good point, we'll only need half as many chairs on the bench to seat Simmons in the fourth as those two.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Forget all about it people. Philly has a 'plan'.

                            Philadelphia 76ers have plan to address Ben Simmons' shooting woes, Doc Rivers says (espn.com)

                            . . . . . . . but the Sixers have a plan to address his shooting woes that will involve doing "the right work," and doing it "the right way."
                            Yup - Ben's gonna be a 60/50/95 guy next season.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

                              Can you at least watch the video before trying to troll? guy makes at least a couple of jumpers in the first minute of the video.
                              Showing some video highlight of Ben Simmons showing him score 42 points isn't going to go very far to convince people with legit concerns about Simmons. There's an entire Playoff series that just finished that shows the complete opposite of these highlights while showing that he has a lot of glaring offensive weaknesses that cannot be ignored.

                              That being said, I will default to my initial post. I agree with most of what you have said. The Pacers have to gamble in order to improve this Team and one of the key things that the Pacers have to fix is not having a floor general to run the offense through.

                              If it costs the Pacers Myles ( or Brogdon ) + Lamb + Justin ( and maybe even Aaron ) while getting back Philly's 1st along with Simmons? I'd strongly consider it.

                              Anything more? Pass.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 06-21-2021, 04:32 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                                Fine...let's keep with the pipe dreams of trading for an elite player or picking one in the draft. At the end of day, I can't seem him making the team WORSE.
                                Simmons isn't an elite player, he's just paid like one. The most important skill in the NBA is still shooting. You can't be a PG, or damn near any position, and be a complete non-threat from more than 10 feet. He's 5 of 34 from 3 in 9326 minutes of basketball, and he misses free throws at an elite level. The funny thing is the people calling for Simmons are the ones who would crucify him the most for being, well, Ben Simmons.
                                Danger Zone

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X